Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Math is of little concern to most people, as is logic in general. Humans tend to be ruled by emotion.
    Most people are marks... none the less, the above, as you said, is a generalization. The people who rule with emotion, make their case through logic of populism, which inherently requires math to determine the populace. People need to be swayed from logic by emotion, it doesn’t mean they are ruled by it. It takes a lot of money and a lot of work... marketing is a field for a reason.

    Edit: Something like “death tax” appeals to emotion, but it took a lot of focus groups, a lot of logic and math, to come up with a slogan that would make the unwashed masses, defend an estate tax. If we were simply ruled by emotion, the process would be much simpler... you need to strike the right chord, to make people give up logic.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-01 at 01:09 PM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  2. #122
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Most people are marks... none the less, the above, as you said, is a generalization. The people who rule with emotion, make their case through logic of populism, which inherently requires math to determine the populace. People need to be swayed from logic by emotion, it doesn’t mean they are ruled by it. It takes a lot of money and a lot of work... marketing is a field for a reason.

    Edit: Something like “death tax” appeals to emotion, but it took a lot of focus groups, a lot of logic and math, to come up with a slogan that would make the unwashed masses, defend an estate tax. If we were simply ruled by emotion, the process would be much simpler... you need to strike the right chord, to make people give up logic.
    Advertising does not use logic because it is weak and has a small target audience. The real cost in advertisement is trying to counter one emotion with another, not overcoming logic.
    Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
    "His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." "Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch-Angel of Riots View Post
    Completely off-topic but I felt the need to respond here.

    Did you know of anything related to the political context and situation in which that very poll was taken exactly? Over eight years ago?

    Because if you don't here's what was happening back then let me give you the context if you're interested to understand why people might have been feeling nostalgic back then about the communist era.

    In 2010 the economic crisis hits us pretty hard, in response the government implement austerity across the board, a lot of people lose their jobs, wages are cut by 25%, and the government even attempts to cut pensions before the Constitutional Court stops them.

    Meanwhile our very corrupt president, that was responsible for all of this who had rigged the last presidential election in his favor, was openly stealing billions of dollars.

    Fast forward to 2012, the same president tries to push a privatization scheme for health care system including privatizing our emergency health care system. This causes one of the most widely respected medical experts, who had helped build the entire system, to go on national TV and declare the proposal would destroy emergency healthcare in Romania.

    Our president fires him. The equivalent in US politics would be if Trump had fired Anthony Fauci anytime he disagreed with the narrative pushed by the White House. Romanians explode in anger and protest in the dead of winter. The Prime Minister, our president's puppet, is forced to resign. The president is impeached by parliament but removal requires a referendum and despite it passing with over 80% of those who voted being in favor of removal our president stays in power on a technicality ( and by rigging it, complete with foreign interference too ).

    This is a very simplistic take, and I am glossing over a lot of thing but perhaps you might understand why people weren't really feeling fond of democracy at that particular time after what had just happened.

    If people in Eastern Europe are feeling nostalgic about communism it sure as hell ain't because it was great, EVERYONE I've ever talked to that lived through it about this universally agrees it was a horrible time to live through, but rather because the road to democracy after 1989 wasn't all sunshine either.
    Last edited by CostinR; 2020-09-05 at 04:32 AM.
    "Life is one long series of problems to solve. The more you solve, the better a man you become.... Tribulations spawn in life and over and over again we must stand our ground and face them."

    Retired <Dreamstate> Gehennas

  4. #124
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    21,581
    I'm not currently aware of any major US politician proposing the US change its model to socialism.

    Could you enlighten me as to who these politicians are, @the game?


    ...maybe once you get back from your ban, of course.

    Because if none are, you really might as well be asking if the US would be a better place for a unicorn cave than North korea.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  5. #125
    America doesn't need to be socialist. What it needs is for medical care and medication to not have absolutely insane markup costs. Fix that problem and insurance will at least be affordable for people under the ACA. Or better yet, fix that problem and we can implement Medicare for All and SAVE MONEY.

    Social programs are not socialism. Only complete fucking morons think social programs are socialism.

    There is absolutely no reason at all for American healthcare to cost as much as it does.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    I'm not currently aware of any major US politician proposing the US change its model to socialism.
    To help your awareness.

    There is an organization with that on the agenda:
    The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. DSA believes that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.
    Some well-known politicians in the US are members - whether you classify them as "major" depends on your perspective, and one would assume that they know what they have joined.

    Obviously the major presidential candidates aren't members (Bernie isn't either - he is not that organized), but there is something odd (I don't see Trump using socialism for everything and not knowing what it means as odd):

    Searching for "socialism" on https://joebiden.com/ finds NOTHING (except one hit for a pdf document from Biden-Sanders where the word is missing - I assume it was part of meta-information). The likely explanation is that the electoral system in the US means that Biden keeps silent about socialism to not push socialists away.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Nelinrah View Post
    America doesn't need to be socialist. What it needs is for medical care and medication to not have absolutely insane markup costs. Fix that problem and insurance will at least be affordable for people under the ACA. Or better yet, fix that problem and we can implement Medicare for All and SAVE MONEY.

    Social programs are not socialism. Only complete fucking morons think social programs are socialism.

    There is absolutely no reason at all for American healthcare to cost as much as it does.
    capitalism cant sustain its profits longterm and the planet cant sustain capitalism long term. capitalism must go, socalism is the next step.

  8. #128
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Advertising does not use logic because it is weak and has a small target audience. The real cost in advertisement is trying to counter one emotion with another, not overcoming logic.
    Yes, it absolutely does. The target audience is always as much as you can get. The limit of marketing reach, is either a success or failure, based on the scope. How can you claim both, that my example of estate tax vs death tax, is either illogical or has a limited scope?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelinrah View Post
    What it needs is for medical care and medication to not have absolutely insane markup costs.
    Two questions...

    What dictates the markup cost?
    I got your medicine right here, how much is it worth to you?

    We can discuss socialism in medicine, based on these answers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    capitalism cant sustain its profits longterm and the planet cant sustain capitalism long term. capitalism must go, socalism is the next step.
    How do you keep the brain drain of USSR from repeating it self? If a country exists with capitalism, while another is socialism. What mechanism is going to keep people from taking advantage of the superior higher education and social programs, that I assume socialism will include... from leaving to greener pastures of capitalism, once their education makes their financial worth in capitalism, more than justifies the difference in social programs?

    Edit: wait a minute... did I just make a case for immigration, under capitalism? Unintentional, but I might use this argument in that context, as well.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-05 at 01:07 PM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Two questions...

    What dictates the markup cost?
    I got your medicine right here, how much is it worth to you?

    We can discuss socialism in medicine, based on these answers.
    2 things:
    1. The US doesn't allow import of drugs, so American drug companies have very little competition in selling drugs to Americans.
    2. If you need a life saving medication you're going to have to buy it.

    So US companies charge insane markup because they can and no one is stopping them.

  10. #130
    Thanks to USSR, CCP and NK, Socialism and Communism are bad words now.

    Thousands of years ago, we all live in a communism society.
    All food are shared by everyone.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    leaving to greener pastures of capitalism
    hahahahaha cmon

  12. #132
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Nelinrah View Post
    2 things:
    1. The US doesn't allow import of drugs, so American drug companies have very little competition in selling drugs to Americans.
    2. If you need a life saving medication you're going to have to buy it.

    So US companies charge insane markup because they can and no one is stopping them.
    Neither of those answered my question.

    For the second, that’s the point. I am trying to quantify it, because that will make the point more tangible and a lot more easy to understand as a result.

    For the first, in US, there is a hurdle, before you are prescribed the medication and have to deal with this problem. In US, if you are bitching about the cost of your prescribed medication, you already have insurance or are paying thousands for the privilege to know you need medication.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    hahahahaha cmon
    I am totally pointing at money, thus thought greener pastures was a good dig. I’m asking how we keep the doctors in a socialist country, instead of driving cabs in a capitalist one?

    If there is a capitalist country, that can provide a living that is far superior for those who are rich, while also making their own people struggle to get the necessary education and social programs to freely reach these financial heights. How does the socialist country deal with creating people through social programs, that are able to earn a living in a capitalist society, to circumvent the very issues that keeps their own people down under capitalism?

    Edit: Spoilers:

    It’s the same way that you keep the unwashed masses from rioting under capitalism. One way is pretty obvious... Nationalism... Both pure socialism and pure capitalism, need another tool to maintain order or squelch a brain drain. If you are not going to give people avenues to reach the success they want or the stability they want, you will have problems. Those tools get imbedded through the political system that regulates the economic. Be it GOP and their saving of western culture or Stalin through his iron fist... the government steps in as the regulating force... be it through rhetoric or force.

    The solution is always balance... the problem is that it’s by far the most difficult solution. At this time, I do not believe that a politician that goes for balance, can beat either a capitalist or socialist.

    (Balance =/= centrism... if that was the case, it would be easy.)
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-05 at 01:41 PM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    snip
    you are preloading the idea that capitalism is a superior system (more desirable system) and using a historical view of liberal democracy vs one party dictatorship to justify it.

  14. #134
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,958
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    you are preloading the idea that capitalism is a superior system (more desirable system) and using a historical view of liberal democracy vs one party dictatorship to justify it.
    No, absolutely not. I made it very clear that socialism was superior for the common man and in fact would be responsible for the superior education of populace. Where I am saying capitalism would be more attractive, is where compensation is far superior. I am asking what happens, when the salary under capitalism, makes you afford all of the inequality of capitalism, after having a far better education and stability than those in the capitalist nation.

    I am saying that socialism is superior to capitalism, until you can afford to pay for everything you lose, out of pocket.

    Edit: Possibilities under capitalism is incredibly back loaded, as in, you have to get through a lot of financial and social barriers that are created due to the nature of capitalism... to even have the possibility to reach the base of socialism. While socialism attempts a constant. At some point, the two lines will intersect, with the possible returns under capitalist one spiking because you could afford anything and the socialist one remaining pretty horizontal in comparison... providing the same education/social programs.

    For most people under capitalism, they will never see a spike that would result in a level playing field with socialism, because the fundamentals to reach those points don’t exist. What I am asking, is what happens when the stability of socialism and inequality of capitalism, creates the few socialist that can be the 1% in capitalism.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by xenogear3 View Post
    Thanks to USSR, CCP and NK, Socialism and Communism are bad words now.
    No, thanks to predominantly the US... not saying other countries didn’t play a role, but US was by far the most repulsed by those concepts, through government propaganda.

    I still feel this should be a more defining moment for Reagan, than it was:



    As a side note... nothing has glorified and set up capitalism as the norm, like Hollywood. Even an image of people’s fantasies reaching the heights of capitalism, is often a Hollywood Star... not a fat cat smoking a cigar behind a giant desk.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-05 at 02:18 PM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  15. #135
    The Lightbringer downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Giving off strong Russ Roberts vibes.
    Posts
    3,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    How do you keep the brain drain of USSR from repeating it self? If a country exists with capitalism, while another is socialism. What mechanism is going to keep people from taking advantage of the superior higher education and social programs, that I assume socialism will include... from leaving to greener pastures of capitalism, once their education makes their financial worth in capitalism, more than justifies the difference in social programs?

    Edit: wait a minute... did I just make a case for immigration, under capitalism? Unintentional, but I might use this argument in that context, as well.
    The answer is simple: global revolution.
    I had become too accustomed to the pseudo-Left new style, whereby if your opponent thought he had identified your lowest possible motive, he was quite certain that he had isolated the only real one. This vulgar method, which is now the norm and the standard in much non-Left journalism as well, is designed to have the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst.
    - Christopher Hitchens

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by xenogear3 View Post
    Thanks to USSR, CCP and NK, Socialism and Communism are bad words now.

    Thousands of years ago, we all live in a communism society.
    All food are shared by everyone.
    Don't believe the false propaganda from Marx; we didn't live in a communistic society thousands of years ago.

    Obviously there were variations back then as well as today, but in general:

    First and foremost the transition from hunter-gather to agriculture began ten thousand years ago, and the first agricultural revolution often created very unequal societies with god-kings ruling over cities and later countries; not close to some communistic ideal. (I was going to say about as equal society as North Korea, but then I realised that people in NK don't have slaves.)

    And hunter-gatherer societies are generally not fully egalitarian either (and even if they were - something that works for a tribe with less than a hundred doesn't necessarily scale up to millions), but about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today. Perhaps food was shared with everyone (especially in times of plenty) - but not equally.

    They were also often violent societies; often the risk of dying in war exceeded that of USSR during WWII.

  17. #137
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Don't believe the false propaganda from Marx; we didn't live in a communistic society thousands of years ago.

    Obviously there were variations back then as well as today, but in general:

    First and foremost the transition from hunter-gather to agriculture began ten thousand years ago, and the first agricultural revolution often created very unequal societies with god-kings ruling over cities and later countries; not close to some communistic ideal. (I was going to say about as equal society as North Korea, but then I realised that people in NK don't have slaves.)

    And hunter-gatherer societies are generally not fully egalitarian either (and even if they were - something that works for a tribe with less than a hundred doesn't necessarily scale up to millions), but about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today. Perhaps food was shared with everyone (especially in times of plenty) - but not equally.
    Lol. Y'all really out here claiming that every nonegalitarian society is capitalist, now? I bet you think private and personal property are the same thing, too.

    Also, no - 'about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today' is blatantly untrue and an attempt to try and push capitalism as being humanity's default despite it not having existed prior to a few centuries ago. That is a fact, and disagreement with it says a lot more about the person disagreeing not understanding what "capitalism" is.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Lol. Y'all really out here claiming that every nonegalitarian society is capitalist, now?
    No, I am not saying that early hunter-gatherers societies were a bit nonegalitarian - not capitalistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    'about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today'
    is true. Some have estimated Gini-coefficient for them to about 0.25, which depending on measurement is close to Denmark - one of the most egalitarian capitalistic country (compared to 0.47 for the US). A truly egalitarian society would have 0.0; and the opposite would have 1.0 - compared to 0.63 for Lesotho.

    Looking at a list of countries that are formally socialistic we have Laos (0.37), China (0.46), and Vietnam (0.38); they fall between Denmark and the US on the scale.

  19. #139
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Don't believe the false propaganda from Marx; we didn't live in a communistic society thousands of years ago.

    Obviously there were variations back then as well as today, but in general:

    First and foremost the transition from hunter-gather to agriculture began ten thousand years ago, and the first agricultural revolution often created very unequal societies with god-kings ruling over cities and later countries; not close to some communistic ideal. (I was going to say about as equal society as North Korea, but then I realised that people in NK don't have slaves.)
    Then you're misrepresenting what the argument for primitive communism was about, since it was explicitly aimed at pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer groups. The emergence of herding and agriculture is connected with the emergence of class systems.

    And hunter-gatherer societies are generally not fully egalitarian either (and even if they were - something that works for a tribe with less than a hundred doesn't necessarily scale up to millions), but about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today. Perhaps food was shared with everyone (especially in times of plenty) - but not equally.
    "Equality" is not a standard that would even apply to this analysis in the first place; it's a straw man you've invented.

    Also, protesting that it's not possible is kind of silly, since such societies have been directly studied.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

    They were also often violent societies; often the risk of dying in war exceeded that of USSR during WWII.
    This has nothing to do with the subject.

  20. #140
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    28,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    I'm not currently aware of any major US politician proposing the US change its model to socialism.

    Could you enlighten me as to who these politicians are, @the game?


    ...maybe once you get back from your ban, of course.

    Because if none are, you really might as well be asking if the US would be a better place for a unicorn cave than North korea.
    My guess, AoC and Bernie Sanders.

    Neither of which are truly socialist.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •