Capitalism v Communism

[Deleted User]

There's nothing to explain, there are studies on this very subject that you can look up. To give you an extreme example, there isn't an amount of money Donald Trump could spend on his campaign that could sway you to vote for him solely because he's Donald Trump. Anything short of just giving you a million dollars to hand would be ineffective because you find him to be a morally objectionable candidate. You know this, yet you argue like that isn't the case.

Except why the fuck would they spend so much money on marketing if it didn't work? I don't think businesses are pumping thousands of dollars into their products with marketing if it didn't work.
And really all your doing here with politicians is trying to sell people to elect them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Another point I should make about marketing I should add. Marketing influences what you know. If all you hear on the air or ads is someone named Jo billy smith or whatever. And his campaign smears another person through it, say, James Roy. Your likely going to choose Jo billy smith rather than James Roy. Especially if James Roy doesn't have financial support to fight back against the political smear.

 

[Foxi4]

Except why the fuck would they spend so much money on marketing if it didn't work? I don't think businesses are pumping thousands of dollars into their products with marketing if it didn't work.
And really all your doing here with politicians is trying to sell people to elect them.

I don't know if you're reading what I'm typing or just throwing word salad at me. I didn't say that marketing doesn't work, I said that at a certain point the returns are diminishing. Every dollar spent does not provide equal return, this is marketing 101.

The law of diminishing returns is an economic principle stating that as an investment in a particular area increase, the rate of profit from that investment, after a certain point, cannot continue to increase if other variables remain at a constant

A shitty politician can only be so recognisable. At a certain point spending more and more money on the campaign no longer provides a measurable benefit, what you're actually doing is advertising that a shitty politician is shitty. It's hard to argue about this when you're not familiar with these concepts. At one point or another the candidate also needs to construct an appealing program that can stand the scrutiny of the press and the candidate's peers. If a candidate consistently votes to pollute the ocean and suddenly runs as the green candidate, changing that public image is going to be difficult, if at all possible.

 

[Deleted User]

And even then by the way, I should add, AGAIN. A smaller candidate who may be closer to your views gets drowned out in the process. Because odds are, companies aren't backing them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I didn't say that marketing doesn't work, I said that at a certain point the returns are diminishing.

I argue it doesn't matter if it does. Clearly businesses are more than willing, and you market something hard enough and I guarantee you for those who aren't in the know (like most Americans) they're going to change their opinion. And keep in mind, that marketing isn't just ads on air or whatever the hell your seeing it. that's the candidate being able to fly over to places as well. And go to individual states, hold rallies and so on.

A shitty politician can only be so recognisable.

You may not be able to market Trump Anymore. But you can certainly market someone who hold the exact same views as Trump.

 

[Foxi4]

And even then by the way, I should add, AGAIN. A smaller candidate who may be closer to your views gets drowned out in the process. Because odds are, companies aren't backing them.

I argue it doesn't matter if it does. Clearly businesses are more than willing, and you market something hard enough and I guarantee you for those who aren't in the know (like most Americans) they're going to change their opinion. And keep in mind, that marketing isn't just ads on air or whatever the hell your seeing it. that's the candidate being able to fly over to places as well. And go to individual states, hold rallies and so on.

You may not be able to market Trump Anymore. But you can certainly market someone who hold the exact same views as Trump.

You're welcome to have an opinion. What I said still remains true, however. Corporations do not have the power to legislate, only the legislature does. If you have problems with how campaigns are funded, we can have a whole separate discussion about campaign finance. I personally think that prospective candidates should run campaigns out of pocket, but the moment I say that an army of useful dummies will tell me that "this disenfranchises smaller candidates" or some such nonsense, so we'll skip past that part and back to the actual substance of the thread - communism versus capitalism. I expect to hear that the communist solution to this problem is the elimination of money, to which I will swiftly respond that in practice communism eliminates choice, so perhaps we'll go past that hump too.

It's not like I haven't had this chat before, we're just going through the motions here.

 

[Deleted User]

I expect to hear that the communist solution to this problem is the elimination of money, to which I will swiftly respond that in practice communism eliminates choice, so perhaps we'll go past that hump too.

Isn't open source technically communist? I mean again, I'll argue the internet is communist. Provide what you can, take what you need. And I don't see a lack in choice in that regard.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

rip op's notifs

 

[DarkCoffe64]

I'll throw my two cents here.
Capitalism, communism, it's all the same for as long as rotten assholes with way too much money that they'll never need to continue to reign over everything and make the laws.
As long as human greed exists, nothing will work, nothing will get better, we'll slowly just work ourselves into all those dystopian futures we've seen in books, movies and games.


Maybe I speak in very broad terms, but this be what I think.

 

[KingVamp]

It's a hodgepodge of nonsense specifically because of government involvement in what should be a private and consensual arrangement between a customer and a service provider. If any specific industry could be blamed for lobbying on order to reach this state of affairs, it's insurance companies, not healthcare providers. The reason why they became so big and so unaccountable is, among many things, employer-based insurance. The government did that, not healthcare providers,

Probably made sense at the time, but the same government would have moved on to a better system, if wasn't for people making it so hard to get to even a public healthcare option. In fact, ACA is still better than leaving it like it was. Getting the healthcare system off the back of businesses, would help the private and public companies.

You'll have to read it again and figure it out then, I did bold the relevant part.

I seen that and read it more than once, still not getting it.

The USPS is a money pit. It was initially thought of as a source of revenue for the young United States, but that hasn't been the case for years. Private mail and courier services are cheaper, faster, better-organised and more efficient. The USPS on the other hand comes at an annual *loss* of $9 billion dollars. Somehow, the U.S. Government manages to lose money in a business where UPS, FedEx and other companies are *making* money while providing a better service. I wouldn't send a package via USPS unless I intended to lose it in transit.

I wonder if prices would stay around the same or skyrocket once more people would have to relay on those private services. Eventually just pricing people out of getting mail.

Actually, at a quick google search, the notion of cheaper and faster than USPS, doesn't seem to be correct when you look at package prices and delivery times. Actually (again), seems to come down to the size of the package.

I mean, it also doesn't help that you got people form mostly one party actively trying to make the government not work. Like with the Postal Accountability Act. Luckily there are people trying to reform it, rather than just getting rid of it.

 

[Deleted User]

rip op's notifs

Nah no worry. I have the power of plot armor on my side to prevent me from going insane. (rofl)

 

[SG854]

Probably made sense at the time, but the same government would have moved on to a better system, if wasn't for people making it so hard to get to even a public healthcare option. In fact, ACA is still better than leaving it like it was. Getting the healthcare system off the back of businesses, would help the private and public companies.


I seen that and read it more than once, still not getting it.



I wonder if prices would stay around the same or skyrocket once more people would have to relay on those private services. Eventually just pricing people out of getting mail.

Actually, at a quick google search, the notion of cheaper and faster than USPS, doesn't seem to be correct when you look at package prices and delivery times. Actually (again), seems to come down to the size of the package.

I mean, it also doesn't help that you got people form mostly one party actively trying to make the government not work. Like with the Postal Accountability Act. Luckily there are people trying to reform it, rather than just getting rid of it.

Amazon Prime delivery has 1 day shipping probably the fastest mailing service out there for cheap. They do sometimes use outlets like the UPS or USPS.

 

[KingVamp]

I personally think that prospective candidates should run campaigns out of pocket, but the moment I say that an army of useful dummies will tell me that "this disenfranchises smaller candidates" or some such nonsense.

Take most of the money out of politics and public fund all campaigns to level the playing field.

so we'll skip past that part and back to the actual substance of the thread - communism versus capitalism. I expect to hear that the communist solution to this problem is the elimination of money, to which I will swiftly respond that in practice communism eliminates choice, so perhaps we'll go past that hump too.

It's not like I haven't had this chat before, we're just going through the motions here.

If communism worked as attended, wouldn't it be up to the public on how many choices of "a thing" they want?

 

[Foxi4]

Isn't open source technically communist? I mean again, I'll argue the internet is communist. Provide what you can, take what you need. And I don't see a lack in choice in that regard.

No, it's not. Neither is the Internet. I don't know where you're getting that idea. Open source is communal, which doesn't make it "communist" automatically - the license does not strip the creator of ownership of their code, it merely allows third-parties to access it. It's still, for all intents and purposes, their protected intellectual property. You don't get to grab a snippet and just say that it's yours - you have to appropriately credit it and include the original license in your own files. As far as the Internet as a whole goes, it's distinctly capitalist. It's literally a giant library with ads that you pay a fee to use.

A Slate article on this very subject. Open Source doesn't equal free lunch, and can be effectively monetised. It's a license.

https://slate.com/technology/2005/11/the-open-source-movement-isn-t-communism.html

Contrast that with the communist model in which the creator of Tetris, who should be a multibillionaire, was screwed over by the government. In the Soviet Union there was no such thing as "intellectual property", Teris "belonged to the people". This led to a massive intellectual property rights debacle that, for some reason, required the government's input. Alexey Pajitnov didn't make a dime on Tetris until this whole mess was resolved in the 90's. Truly a model we should all follow.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/10/10-things-you-didnt-know.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris

Probably made sense at the time, but the same government would have moved on to a better system, if wasn't for people making it so hard to get to even a public healthcare option. In fact, ACA is still better than leaving it like it was. Getting the healthcare system off the back of businesses, would help the private and public companies.

The problems with U.S. healthcare predate ACA.

I seen that and read it more than once, still not getting it.

Citizens have more voting power than corporations by virtue of head count.

I wonder if prices would stay around the same or skyrocket once more people would have to relay on those private services. Eventually just pricing people out of getting mail.

We live in the information age. I don't remember when was the last time I've sent a letter, I do remember sending packages by courier as recently as last week. I also send electronic correspondence on a daily basis. If the government truly cared about fulfilling its obligation to the people in regards to the postal clause, it would offer guaranteed e-mail, Internet hosting and the bare minimum access to each citizen, access that cannot be refused on a whim, or due to political alignment. Not free, of course - the post isn't free either, but this is a far more important thing than being able to send pieces of paper around the country.

Actually, at a quick google search, the notion of cheaper and faster than USPS, doesn't seem to be correct when you look at package prices and delivery times. Actually (again), seems to come down to the size of the package.

I have a huge package. Jokes aside, if we're going to argue that the USPS *might* be cheaper in some circumstances depending on class of mail, I can always say "hey, you know what? E-mail is literally free" - that's how you conduct the gross majority of your official correspondence these days, we're arguing about dinosaurs. It's an economy of scale thing - most people send paper mail via USPS, so other carriers don't have to compete in that sector. If large swathes of people switched, rates would go down - supply and demand. There's no reason why UPS can ship one big package cheaply, but not a hundred small envelopes.

I mean, it also doesn't help that you got people form mostly one party actively trying to make the government not work. Like with the Postal Accountability Act. Luckily there are people trying to reform it, rather than just getting rid of it.

There's no active need for a national postal service - Congress can simply make appropriate laws and regulations that guarantee access to postage via private entities. As for people mostly from one party actively trying to make the government not work - I agree. It's a shame that the Democrats are undermining American institutions. Thankfully Republican obstructionism can prevent a lot of that from happening.

Take most of the money out of politics and public fund all campaigns to level the playing field.

That sounds like a brand-new commission of pencil pushers, I can't wait!

If communism worked as attended, wouldn't it be up to the public on how many choices of "a thing" they want?

That number is almost never "1" and society has to have the option of expanding that number. That's not a thing under communist rule.

Amazon Prime delivery has 1 day shipping probably the fastest mailing service out there for cheap. They do sometimes use outlets like the UPS or USPS.

Amazon is also the only reason why USPS isn't bankrupt - they use these mailing services extensively, and from what I recall, USPS cut them a pretty good deal. Not sure why, but they did. As of right now, the USPS serves Amazon more so than citizens - your tax money is subsidising Amazon sending people butt plugs in the mail.

 

[KingVamp]

Citizens have more voting power than corporations by virtue of head count.

They have less power in promoting ideals and the people that they actually want than corporations by virtue of money.

We live in the information age. I don't remember when was the last time I've sent a letter, I do remember sending packages by courier as recently as last week. I also send electronic correspondence on a daily basis.

I send letters sometimes and get letters. Either way, we don't speak for everyone.

If the government truly cared about fulfilling its obligation to the people in regards to the postal clause, it would offer guaranteed e-mail, Internet hosting and the bare minimum access to each citizen, access that cannot be refused on a whim, or due to political alignment. Not free, of course - the post isn't free either, but this is a far more important thing than being able to send pieces of paper around the country.

That's where we are heading anyway with municipal broadband. If they want to work out a government email on top of that, that a lot of people would probably just use for mostly government related stuff, why not?

I have a huge package. Jokes aside,

*Snicker

I have a huge package. Jokes aside, if we're going to argue that the USPS *might* be cheaper in some circumstances depending on class of mail, I can always say "hey, you know what? E-mail is literally free" - that's how you conduct the gross majority of your official correspondence these days, we're arguing about dinosaurs.

Some people still like to use those dinosaurs.

As for people mostly from one party actively trying to make the government not work - I agree. It's a shame that the Democrats are undermining American institutions. Thankfully Republican obstructionism can prevent a lot of that from happening.

Obstructionism, like trying to get rid of the ACA and stop improvements on it, that saved a lot of people's lives, with no actual plan to replace it.

 

[Foxi4]

They have less power in promoting ideals and the people that they actually want than corporations by virtue of money.

I send letters sometimes and get letters. Either way, we don't speak for everyone.

That's where we are heading anyway with municipal broadband. If they want to work out a government email on top of that, that a lot of people would probably just use for mostly government related stuff, why not?

*Snicker

Some people still like to use those dinosaurs.

Obstructionism, like trying to get rid of the ACA and stop improvements on it, that saved a lot of people's lives, with no actual plan to replace it.

In all fairness, the ideal plan would be to replace it with nothing. With that being said, my approach is extreme, with my reasoning being that if I push too far, I might meet someone half-way and get what I actually wanted from the start. Everyone walks away happy, and unaware of the ruse. Good negotiation technique that's worth learning, while I have your attention.

 

[Valwinz]

Some stuff happening in Cuba right now i wonder if we gonna get another communism collapse fail

 

[Deleted User]

Some stuff happening in Cuba right now i wonder if we gonna get another communism collapse fail

Well considering that the United States has a heavy trade embargo on cuba. And the United States is generally known well for trading medicine. It doesn't take much to put two and two together for the reason they are having a crises.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

course that isn't everything since cuba is a one party state /appears to be authoritarian. So that's another part.

 

[Deleted User]

though looking further into it's history. unsurprisingly. The united states had it's own dictatorship setup, known as the bastia dictatorship. Where Fulgencio Batista got direct funding from the United States goverment.
Which was then overthrown during the cuban revolt. And after that the United states imposed sanctions... go figure.

 

[Valwinz]

Well considering that the United States has a heavy trade embargo on cuba. And the United States is generally known well for trading medicine. It doesn't take much to put two and two together for the reason they are having a crises.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

course that isn't everything since cuba is a one party state /appears to be authoritarian. So that's another part.

imao yes blame the embargo on communism failing again

 

[smf]

Not everyone who is lucky abuses their luck. Some are grateful and even give back.

Most people don't realise just how lucky they are though, so aren't aware they should be giving back.

Look at how the US reacts to free health care.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Another point I should make about marketing I should add. Marketing influences what you know. If all you hear on the air or ads is someone named Jo billy smith or whatever. And his campaign smears another person through it, say, James Roy. Your likely going to choose Jo billy smith rather than James Roy. Especially if James Roy doesn't have financial support to fight back against the political smear.

Well that is the problem with dumb people, they let themselves be manipulated and then when you try to point out that something is wrong they accuse you of trying to manipulate them.

 

[Valwinz]

Communisim

#Cuba Esa criminal y asesina Dictadura se mantiene hace 62 años solo en el poder a la fuerza, asesinando, reprimiendo e intimidando al pueblo y robando su libertad, que no se enfríen las calles pueblo de Cuba!, es la hora de la #Libertad ! #PatriaYVida !!! https://t.co/bmzHiRKNg0

— Richard Schirrmann (@SchirrmannR) July 12, 2021