The Commies Finally Get It!

[Plane]

Was the origional condition of all men wealth?


Quie the contrary, the origional condition of all mankind is poverty.

Innovation , hard work and ages of earning have produced wealth that never existed before .

Does this process have to halt untill all men have caught up?


To me Communism represents a subset of luddite , trying to harm the progress of the rapid , hobble and weight and handicap the fast untill the slow have the same position on the feild.

The total effect of such extreme leveling is to slow all advancement to the pace of the least able and shortchange the need of any who need more than the advradge.

In capitalist areas of the worlds economy there are many fortunes made , each fortune is an engine pulling a small train , in the communist areas of the worlds economy there is practicly only one fortune , this one fortune is in the controll of the government and no project that cannot be justified in comitties of civil servants will be funded.

There is so much advantage in capitalism that there is little danger that there will ever be a communist country able to outcompete in economy or develop superior tecnology. The emblematic problem of the poor in capitilism these days is obesity , th emblamatic problem for all communists is famine.


Is it really so comforting that we should all starve together  , when if we could simply stop hobbleing our economy we could defeat famine itself?

[kimba1]

but capitalism by doesn`t always help with poverty,look at brazil and notice the striking contrast between the poor and the rich.

the difference here is a greater effort to shorten that gap and the benefits to the economy by such actions.

[Plane]

but capitalism by doesn`t always help with poverty,look at brazil and notice the striking contrast between the poor and the rich.

the difference here is a greater effort to shorten that gap and the benefits to the economy by such actions.

Our country periodicly has periods in which the "gap" between the poor and the rich is narrowed .

We call these periods "recessions".

When the rich get richer does a gap really form?

The poor were poor to begin with , if there were no rich they would be no better off.

[kimba1]

The poor were poor to begin with , if there were no rich they would be no better off.

actually the reverse is happening., meaning  the poor effects the status of the rich. the more prosperious the poor gets the more money the rich gets. the introduction of the middle class has greatly effected the economy. not really a natural product of capitalist system remember it took effert of people to start the change. in the 40`s people would find increasing income to the poor not a positive idea. that kind of thinking is still difficult today.

[Plane]

.........meaning  the poor effects the status of the rich. the more prosperious the poor gets the more money the rich gets.

Which causes the other?

Is it mutual?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fedex and UPS are NOT using a "more modern business model". They are simply not required to deliver junk mail like the USPS. The USPS is the ONLY cost-effective way to deliver bills and statements: Fedex and UPS do not even try to do this.

The main function of a business is to make money. Fedex and UPS make money
The main function of a government is to provide service. The USPS gives really good service.

Fedex and UPS are making money most of the time.  The USPS needs to raise rates on junk mail, because there are no longer enough people paying their bills by mail.
 

[Michael Tee]

<<Me either. Thus my question. >>

One of a class of questions that tends not to edification
http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/201.html

Ask away, at the end of the day no one can answer your question; it will not tend to edify, but it will definitely stand in the way of efforts to enlist universal support for the healing of the sick, the feeding of the hungry, the comforting of the afflicted.

Communists roll up their sleeves and get to work on the problem.  Guys like you asking questions like that just block the path of those who, like the Communists,want to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.  While such questions are asked, pondered, debated endlessly and never finally answered, the sick and the weak go on suffering, the hungry go on starving and the true work of the world remains gridlocked.  You need to stop asking questions like that and come to grips with the essential question: are you going to be a part of the solution or a part of the problem?

[Amianthus]

Fedex and UPS are NOT using a "more modern business model". They are simply not required to deliver junk mail like the USPS.

If they're "required" to deliver junk mail, then why do they actively solicit that type of mail and offer discounts for it? After all, if they're required to deliver it but don't really want to do it, they could just charge regular rates for it and watch the business go elsewhere.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think they are required to solicit business. Maybe there is an economy of scale involved. especially in cities, where I notice my junk mail arrives all folded together.

The main cost is sending out postal workers to deliver mail every day: this would not change if there were NO junk mail: it would still cost the same to have the mailman cover that route, perhaps with fewer stops, but covering the same territory.

You would have to ask the USPS for their precise data. I know that this is what the USPS says, that junk mail costs more to deliver than the post office is allowed to charge.

I have no complaints with USPS, or FedEx or UPS, for that matter. I am pleased with the service all of them provide. When I mail a package, I use the USPS because the PO is three blocks away.
 

[Amianthus]

I have no complaints with USPS, or FedEx or UPS, for that matter. I am pleased with the service all of them provide. When I mail a package, I use the USPS because the PO is three blocks away.

All three will pickup at your door. Doesn't get any closer than that.

[BT]

You need to stop asking questions like that and come to grips with the essential question: are you going to be a part of the solution or a part of the problem?

Who says i am not part of the solution.

I have rescued a drowning man, and i didn't need for a govt program to do it.

I don't even know if it was voluntary, i saw what was happening and reacted.

I have launched food campaigns that gathered enough canned and dry goods for the local charity that we had to enlist a caravan of pickup trucks to deliver it. And that local charities client base was mostly poor and we know what that is code for.

The point isn't whether helping the less fortunate, hungry or those in peril need that help.

The point is why is the govt and forceful redistribution of wealth, which i'm guessing is solely in the govt domain, the best policy to remedy these ills.

Give me a logical reason for this.

[Michael Tee]

<<Who says i am not part of the solution.

<<I have rescued a drowning man . . . >>

My congratulations.  I was trained to do so but never had the chance.  I know it can be very difficult.

<<I have launched food campaigns that gathered enough canned and dry goods for the local charity that we had to enlist a caravan of pickup trucks to deliver it. And that local charities client base was mostly poor and we know what that is code for.>>

Let me clarify what I mean by "the problem" and "the solution."  The problem is not the plight of a handful of individuals here or there or an occasional drowning man.  Ad hoc relief of specific local distress is not addressing the problem and does not constitute any part of the solution.  The problem is systemic - - for example, poverty and hunger will persist in spite of your food campaigns.  The problem is systemic and the solution must therefore be systemic.  Capitalism, poverty and charity have co-existed for hundreds of years; obviously the charity is not the solution to the poverty caused by the capitalist system.  We have the technology presently available to make a good  life available to everyone on this planet but systemic problems, mostly of capitalism, prevent the relief.  The problem is capitalism, the solution is its abolition.

<<The point isn't whether helping the less fortunate, hungry or those in peril need that help.

<<The point is why is the govt and forceful redistribution of wealth, which i'm guessing is solely in the govt domain, the best policy to remedy these ills.

<<Give me a logical reason for this.>>

Historical example.  The U.S.S.R. in the 1930s, China today, both lifting huge populations out of poverty and illiteracy in one or two generations after centuries of misery.  The answer is communism.  Capitalism by nature, almost by definition, inevitably results in the capture of all governments, even ostensibly "democratic" ones, by the capitalists.  The system then works with capitalists to ensure their class interests, the protection and growth of wealth, the transfer of wealth from the lower to the higher socioeconomic strata and the competition for global resources, often at the expense of the masses of the countries in which the resources are found.  Capitalists all over the world grow wealthier and wealthier, the poor go from bad to worse by the billions.  The obvious answer is that capitalism and greed-driven policies must come to an end.  It's time for humanitarian concerns to set the agendas.

[BT]

So with communism the success it is in China, when can we expect the hunger of the masses worldwide to disappear?

And was hunger unknown worldwide during the Soviet heyday.

See you talk systemic and then you give examples of more topical applications, ad hoc if you will.

Earlier i was the bad guy and you were the good guy, yet in the example of the person drowning, apparently i was the good guy and you were just a talker from the bleachers.

How is communism prepared to handle famine? We have examples from the Soviets and the Chinese and they don't come out looking so rosy. My guess is the problem was with the management of the crisis.

In another thread you applaud Chavez for encouraging local communes, much like the council Marxists we spoke of earlier, yet you deride the local efforts of a municipal food drive as not being systemic enough.

See,  i think you really aren't as concerned about the hungry as you are of manipulating their suffering to your ideological advantage.

Earlier you scoffed at my reference to an Army of one, totally misunderstanding my point.

The difference between my philosophy and yours is that you think a system has to be in place where everyone marches in lockstep and my philosophy is it doesn't take a politburo, or a village, it just takes one person to act and another human being or more's suffering might be eased.

[Plane]

  The way that the problem is defined has a lot to do with the effectiveness of the solution and the solution methods used.

   I will have to agree that Communism is very effec tive at getting rid of wealth , since the presence of the wealthy is defined as a problem Communism solves it well.

    What Communism is very poor at doing is lifting the liveing condition of the population in general.

     The wealthy , especially if there are plenty of them, are much more usefull in the advancement of the welfare of the poor than any amount of even the most perfect communists.

    

[kimba1]

uhm china ain`t exactly turning away from wealth.note when hong kong got reaquired it never really change systems. it still a fairly decent economic engine. china`s main problem is getting it`s own people to buy it`s own product. which the majority cannot afford.

and to answer planes question I got no idea, it mighjt be niether since it sure wasn`t intentional by the majority of rich people then. ford and e.rosevelt are the only names I can think helped.
WW2 veterens help with the massive brain boost  from the GI bill ,all that free education has to have some effect with the economy.talk about a radical change in the labor landscape