Iran reels toward popular counter-revolution

[Plane]

You should not say "almost" because every election and every revolution is going to dissapoint you .

You think that from each according to his ability and to each according to his need is a statement of virtue , ultimately this is just as contrary to nature as perpetual motion machines .

How do each produce according to ability? Why?

What is the reason (absent profit ) to produce the best you are able?

When each is given according to his need ,there is reason to need, no reason for anything but need.

Absent all of the incentives of nature there has to be a tyrant and an army present to keep turning the crank in the back of the perpetual motion machine.

The truth about Marx is that he was a genius at writeing and a dummy about economics , for all the complexity of his theroys the flaw that keeps any of it from working is simple and easy to understand.

As if a mechanical genius designed and built a hugely complex clockwork expecting it to run forever because he knew not the simplest rules of thermodynamics .


What I am worried about in this vein is that as Obama tries to make us more socialist he will eventually succeed well enough to make it needfull to have a tyrant and an enforcement to turn the crank on the complex machine.


Yes Europe has several contries more socialist than we are , and they are not presently running down , This is early yet and untested by many decades, and most importantly is not purely socialist anywhere.

Remember this truth, profitability and sustainability are synonyms.

[Plane]

The distortion you made there is to portray the decision to make war or peace as that of an "enemy" which is thousands of miles away from you, consists of a handful of fanatics, is much better contained by defensive measures such as airport or seaport security precautions.  The real choice for peace or war is made in Washington not in Kabul or Gaza or Tehran.


<< but this is not because they are insincere , it is because peace is more like Tango than War is , peace is between two but any one can keep a war going on .>>

That is clearly incorrect.  The mouse doesn't choose to fight the elephant.   The mouse doesn't force the elephant to tear down the house and storm the mouse-hole to exterminate the mouse "threat" when mouse-traps are 99 cents each.  That is an elephant's decision.

You are telling me that the USS Cole was not bombed .
Trains in MAdrid and Busses in London were not bombed.
You are telling me that Pirates in $2000 skifs are not capturing $2,000,000 ships.
You are telling me that suicidal pilots did not attack New York and Washington DC.


Certainly it is stupid , but they are doing it, stop tellin me that what is happening isn't.
Better security measures would have to be rediculous to make these attacks impossible.
Should every ship have a gunboat escort?
Should every passenger have a ten hour interview by expert interrigators or simply sit each one between two air marshals?

What you want Obama to do , he will not do, because he can not do it .

[BSB]

European semi-socialism, American style semi-capitalism, makes no difference. Both systems are up against it. With some exceptions neither one is going to be able sustain the costs involved in their retirement, and healthcare programs. Things are going to have to change.

[Michael Tee]

<<You should not say "almost" because every election and every revolution is going to dissapoint you .>>

Elections won't disappoint me any more because I know they're a farce.  Revolutions?  Castro has never disappointed me.  Uncle Ho never disappointed me.  The U.S.S.R. was, I admit, a disappointment.  I'm still trying to figure out what happened, but it seems increasingly obvious there was a betrayal from within, a loss of Revolutionary will.  I am thinking now that maybe all Revolutions will fail in the end and that perhaps even the failure is the only measure of their success, that is to say that once the basic objectives of the Revolution have been met, other needs and other desires capture the nation and the Revolution, having laid in a basic foundation of organization, education, etc. is no longer needed.

<<You think that from each according to his ability and to each according to his need is a statement of virtue , ultimately this is just as contrary to nature as perpetual motion machines .>>

Yeah it's "contrary to nature."  We don't know that but even if it were, so what?  Aren't incubators for premature babies "contrary to nature?"  Who or what the fuck is "nature?"  Fuck nature, if it was up to nature I would have died when I had my heart attack.  It was not nature that saved me, I can assure you of that.  

<<How do each produce according to ability? Why?>>

Because they're good socialists, that's why.

<<What is the reason (absent profit ) to produce the best you are able?>>

Love of your fellow man.

<<When each is given according to his need ,there is reason to need, no reason for anything but need.>>

If you're talking about parasitism, there's no reason to be a parasite, because they will be put to work in a labour camp.  But even there they will be fed and clothed according to need.

<<Absent all of the incentives of nature there has to be a tyrant and an army present to keep turning the crank in the back of the perpetual motion machine.>>

Who knows?  I sure as bitchin hell hope not.

<<The truth about Marx is that he was a genius at writeing and a dummy about economics , for all the complexity of his theroys the flaw that keeps any of it from working is simple and easy to understand.>>

Marx was not a dummy about anything, plane.  I think it's far more likely that you just didn't understand him fully.

<<As if a mechanical genius designed and built a hugely complex clockwork expecting it to run forever because he knew not the simplest rules of thermodynamics .>>

Nice metaphor but it's got nothing to do with Marx.


<<What I am worried about in this vein is that as Obama tries to make us more socialist . . . >>

ROTFLMFAO

<< . . . he will eventually succeed well enough to make it needfull to have a tyrant and an enforcement to turn the crank on the complex machine.>>

You should worry about more realistic threats, like asteroids hitting the earth or alien invasions.


<<Yes Europe has several contries more socialist than we are , and they are not presently running down , This is early yet and untested by many decades, and most importantly is not purely socialist anywhere.>>

They are, however, providing universal health care to their citizens at a per capita cost much less than your current per capita health care costs, and have been doing so for decades, as has Canada.

<<Remember this truth, profitability and sustainability are synonyms.>>

Nothing remotely true about it, plane, but I'll try to remember it anyway, as an example of misconceptions of economics or something like that.

[Plane]

European semi-socialism, American style semi-capitalism, makes no difference. Both systems are up against it. With some exceptions neither one is going to be able sustain the costs involved in their retirement, and healthcare programs. Things are going to have to change.

One good generation of Americans have retired at old age, how many generations can we sustain this new habit?

Retirement a century ago was something a minority did , because the Social security system has been managed poorly since its inception we may return to this .

When?

Immediately after we hit twenty percent unemployment I would guess.

[Plane]

<<Remember this truth, profitability and sustainability are synonyms.>>

Nothing remotely true about it, plane, but I'll try to remember it anyway, as an example of misconceptions of economics or something like that.

Attempt

Just attempt

To refute with logic rather than ridicule.

It is true ,..... if something unprofitable is being sustained it is being sustained by taxing something elese that is profitable .

I consider this self evident and unrefutable.
You consideer it silly because you have not attempted to think it out.

By the way Marx was a big fat dummy, I understand why he fails and I don't pretend to be all that smart.

[Plane]

<<Absent all of the incentives of nature there has to be a tyrant and an army present to keep turning the crank in the back of the perpetual motion machine.>>

Who knows?  I sure as bitchin hell hope not.

<<When each is given according to his need ,there is reason to need, no reason for anything but need.>>

If you're talking about parasitism, there's no reason to be a parasite, because they will be put to work in a labour camp.  But even there they will be fed and clothed according to need.

I love the self contradiction of these statements.^

Love of felowman is not absent in any country or forbidden in any system , but even in a land where there is twice as much love as there ever has been before , supply and demand will still determine price. Qurdruple the love and the law of gravity also remins the same .


Marx - clueless.

[Plane]

"...but it seems increasingly obvious there was a betrayal from within, a loss of Revolutionary will. "

Plantation owners of slaves used to complain of this , don't we care for you ? Provide your every need?

Why all this gripeing ?

You wouldn't know what to do with freedom .

[Plane]

Castro has never disappointed me.  Uncle Ho never disappointed me. 

Neither of them gave power up before great age.


This by itself with no other consideration

should be considered a great crime.

Do you know why we have a city named Cincinatti?

[Amianthus]

Marx was not a dummy about anything, plane.  I think it's far more likely that you just didn't understand him fully.

Most economists will agree with Plane about Marx' economic theories. The only people who still think Marx was a great economist are non-economist would-be communists.

[Michael Tee]

<<Attempt

<<Just attempt

<<To refute [that sustainability is synonymous with profitability] with logic rather than ridicule.>>

That's kind of harsh, plane.  I've refuted most of your opinions with logic.  Almost all of them in fact.  But the illogic of your statement is that it completely ignores socialist initiatives.  Where is the profit in the Metropolitan Opera Company?  Corporate subsidies are what keeps it alive, year after year, and whatever business you're in, plane, the Met was probably around before it started and will be around a long time after it's gone.  It's certainly sustainable, but it's not in any way profitable.

<<It is true ,..... if something unprofitable is being sustained it is being sustained by taxing something elese that is profitable .

<<I consider this self evident and unrefutable.
<<You consideer it silly because you have not attempted to think it out.>>

It's silly for the reasons I gave above.  Reasons which took me about all of twenty seconds to find and enunciate.  Sorry, plane, but it's not just silly, it's way beyond silly.

<<By the way Marx was a big fat dummy, I understand why he fails and I don't pretend to be all that smart.>>

Well, IMHO, he failed because of the insidious power of human greed and because of the problems inherent in Lord Acton's dictum, that power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.  You'd have to be a lot more of a Marx scholar than I am to say whether or not Marx anticipated those problems, as I believe he did, but he certainly was no dummy.

[Amianthus]

Corporate subsidies are what keeps it alive, year after year, and whatever business you're in, plane, the Met was probably around before it started and will be around a long time after it's gone.  It's certainly sustainable, but it's not in any way profitable.

Actually the Met is profitable, in a weird way. The donations are tax deductible, so they are used to offset taxes. If taxes were lower, the Met could increase it's ticket prices and still meet sales to satisfy it's budget in the more traditional way. But between a combination of donations, grants, and actual sales, it achieves a profit.

And Plane is on contract to the US Government, hardly a newcomer business around here.

[Michael Tee]

Interesting theory.  According to Wikipedia, the Met was founded in 1880, long before the introduction of income tax.  Be interesting to know how long it's been dependent on corporate and individual donations for its existence, and how long the current system of tax-deductible donations has been in place.  Was the Met  EVER profitable, before or after the introduction of the income tax?

<<If taxes were lower, the Met could increase it's ticket prices and still meet sales to satisfy it's budget in the more traditional way.>>

Nonsense.  If the Met were run as a business, they'd sell their tickets for what the market would bear.  Since the market has already proven that opera-goers will pay the going rate for tickets even in these times of what you like to call "high" taxation, why on earth would the audience be less willing to pay the same ticket prices after their supposed "tax burden" had been lightened for them?  If anything, they'd jack up their prices even more, hoping to pick up some of that increased discretionary spending power that previously had to be set aside for Uncle Sam.

<<But between a combination of donations, grants, and actual sales, it achieves a profit.>>

I don't know that plane was thinking of profitability in terms of surviving thanks to charitable donations, but I'm not an accountant.  I don't really know if the donations show as income or gifts in the Met's annual statement.  (Net income would be taxable, gifts would not.)

[Amianthus]

Was the Met  EVER profitable, before or after the introduction of the income tax?

The Met was setup by a group of people who couldn't get tickets to the NY Academy of Music. Why don't you look up their past profits and get back to us?

If anything, they'd jack up their prices even more, hoping to pick up some of that increased discretionary spending power that previously had to be set aside for Uncle Sam.

Errr, that's exactly what I said, in a coarser version.

I don't really know if the donations show as income or gifts in the Met's annual statement.  (Net income would be taxable, gifts would not.)

Entities that are 501(c) are exempt from taxes. NONE of their income is taxable.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Marx said that capitalism causes the capitalists to seek ever cheaper sources of raw materials and labor, in order to maximize profits and/or undercut the competition, and that is EXACTLY what has happened. Observe that the clothes and shoes you are wearing and the keyboard you are typing on than the monitor you are looking at were ALL made in China or some other low-labor cost country. If you need support for your internet service, you dial a number and someone in Chenai, Mumbai or Bangalore answers your call.

Marx also claimed that speculation in the markets will produce an economic crisis (depression, recession, downturn) every decade or so.

Marx was observing the way that capitalism worked in the 1870s' and 1880's, mostly in Britain and Germany. There have been a few unexpected changes since his times (especially in mechanization, robots and computerization) that no one anticipated, but his biggest flaws were in the creation of a political system that would alleviate the ills of capitalism. And these were political, rather than economic.

Of course, Marx thought that communism would arise in an industrialized country such as Englans or Germany, certainly not in Russia or China, which were barely industrialized.