Reaganomics are broken.

i don't even recall reagonomics or the star wars program 😂 😂

Socialism is for children and those who cannot into economics. The very idea that you can "plan" an economy is laughable.

Yeah the idea that the market regenerates and regulates itself is so much better...

oh wait...

so where do you see strong command economies then, mr parmaniac?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The EU isn't, and it's analogous to a socialist USA.

That's not true. I suppose it is somewhat more leaning towards some ideals of socialism, especially newer social democracy ideals, but it's definitely not a socialist USA.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Anytime I get the anti-socialism banter from the right-wing freaks that abound aplenty in Oklahoma, I just give them an emotionless face and say: "Norway. 😐 "

Do you then follow it up with "...who luckily have huge supplies of oil, which cancel out some of the negative effects their policy has which would not equally apply to other countries"?

As for this thread, I don't understand the point of the guy you quote. Is he for or against it, also how does it relate to your thread title.

Originally posted by inimalist
so where do you see strong command economies then, mr parmaniac?

To more or less simply answer your question if anything is really strong command economic then it's china but I already said that china isn't really communistic nor socialistic by old definitions. The irony is that the western world is now crying about the fact that all companies are moving to china and living the "capitalistic way of life" after they we're so proud of that form of economy their whole life. And china is well planning their economic growth and everything that could be included in it. For example china has stopped the export of "rare earths" these are the elements used for green technology like solar panels.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
It's not about option A or B, socialism isn't even a clearly defined term, the modern "communism" in china is more a national capitalism lead by a communistic party so in time pretty much all forms are flowing into each other and there is no pure form of anything anymore, my point is that people that are bitching about that the gouvernment shouldn't interfere with economic in any way most of the time are the first ones when their so hard wanked system fails in it's fundamentals. I still remember my economy teacher preaching the "invisible hand" shit about the free markets and that it's so complex that noone understands how it regulates the markets but it works and 3 years later we had a world wide financial crisis and 2 years later we're still sitting in it...

To more or less simply answer your question if anything is really strong command economic then it's china but I already said that china isn't really communistic nor socialistic by old definitions. The irony is that the western world is now crying about the fact that all companies are moving to china and living the "capitalistic way of life" after they we're so proud of that form of economy their whole life. And china is well planning their economic growth and everything that could be included in it. For example china has stopped the export of "rare earths" these are the elements used for green technology like solar panels.

ok, but, in reply to the statement that "economic control is impossible because it is impossible to predict the economy", you insinuated that the free market performs no better. I agree, a more limited and restricted free market is a beneficial third option, but you were the one who started this binary comparison.

historically, free market economies have been much more successful by most measures that command ones.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but, in reply to the statement that "economic control is impossible because it is impossible to predict the economy", you insinuated that the free market performs no better. I agree, a more limited and restricted free market is a beneficial third option, but you were the one who started this binary comparison.

A deregulated market without any restrictions etc. won't do better in the long run imo. But then again everything is doomed to fail in the long run, depends on how long you define long run. But the prob I see is that the devastating force that will occur when this form fails will be a thousand times worse than the fall down of the other systems.

Originally posted by inimalist
historically, free market economies have been much more successful by most measures that command ones.

I agree or better said I know cause there's nothing to agree it's a fact.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
A deregulated market without any restrictions etc. won't do better in the long run imo. But then again everything is doomed to fail in the long run, depends on how long you define long run. But the prob I see is that the devastating force that will occur when this form fails will be a thousand times worse than the fall down of other systems

which system's collapse do you see as being better than our current economic slowdown?

I mean, sure, I've changed jobs from a well paying research position to a minimum wage bookstore clerk, but I also just dropped over a grand in synthesizers. this "crash" of the free market is much more of a fender bender than the fall of communism or other regimes worldwide.

you might doomsay the future (and btw, I will reply to the hyperinflation thing eventually. you and digi are both feeling my neglect here) but if there is one thing I've seen in the past 50 years, it's that the market finds a way to make money.

Originally posted by inimalist
I mean, sure, I've changed jobs from a well paying research position to a minimum wage bookstore clerk, but I also just dropped over a grand in synthesizers. this "crash" of the free market is much more of a fender bender than the fall of communism or other regimes worldwide.

There is no Free Market in the modern western world. It's all a regulated market.

Originally posted by inimalist
one thing I've seen in the past 50 years, it's that the market finds a way to make money.

I don't think many people deny this. The whole history of civilization proves that even extreme changes in lifestyle, politics, economic theory and technology don't alter the ability of people to make money. But that is not, in and of itself, a good thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
which system's collapse do you see as being better than our current economic slowdown?

Originally posted by inimalist
I mean, sure, I've changed jobs from a well paying research position to a minimum wage bookstore clerk, but I also just dropped over a grand in synthesizers. this "crash" of the free market is much more of a fender bender than the fall of communism or other regimes worldwide.

Originally posted by inimalist
you might doomsay the future (and btw, I will reply to the hyperinflation thing eventually. you and digi are both feeling my neglect here) but if there is one thing I've seen in the past 50 years, it's that the market finds a way to make money.

On an unrelated note: did anyone else think it was "rage-a-nomics" as a kid?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is no Free Market in the modern western world. It's all a regulated market.

indeed, though, the American model is probably the best to use when theorizing about market consequences of deregulation.

obvious the ghost of Milton Friedman is screaming agreement with you into my ear.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think many people deny this. The whole history of civilization proves that even extreme changes in lifestyle, politics, economic theory and technology don't alter the ability of people to make money. But that is not, in and of itself, a good thing.

that is certainly arguable. we can point to abuses and profiteering, but would you argue that the ability of the market to survive independent of government would exacerbate the collapse of a system. sure, it might only serve a financial elite, but compared to Maoist china or feudal India, where people starved while food rotted in warehouses, it at least keeps products where the demand is, not where these exact same elite want them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for this thread, I don't understand the point of the guy you quote. Is he for or against it, also how does it relate to your thread title.

Petroleum accounts for about 26% of it's GDP. Nice try. 🙂

Edit - You forgot about their IT services, manufacturing, non-petro energy, and it's massive cash (banking).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Petroleum accounts for about 26% of it's GDP. Nice try. 🙂

Edit - You forgot about their IT services, manufacturing, non-petro energy, and it's massive cash (banking).

Oh sorry, only 1/4th or its GDP, that's negligible.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Yeah the idea that the market regenerates and regulates itself is so much better...

oh wait...

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ahahahah. You think that market regulation is the same thing as socialism. That's cute. Now go back to the OTF; the adults are talking.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
The fall of communism in russia BUT I'm not saying let's do the same and repeat this over and over again. It's more like the lesser evil and the world wasn't as connected as it is nowadays (so it most likely wouldn't even work anymore).

specifics of the fallout and connectedness of the world at the time of the fall of Russian communism aside, in what ways are the modern recession worse than that?

Originally posted by Parmaniac

It's like I (and you) already said we have to find some kind of "symbiosis" of the systems just letting the market do it's "work" is suicidal imo.

but historically much less so than in controlled economies. "-isms" that try to explain how the economy does or ought to work are useless, thus, so long as we base economic decisions on such things, we are doomed to failure. ideology needs to die a cold and lonely death.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
And this is where we only can agree to disagree at the moment, I think we are on a way down, the EU will brake imo and after that something else (most likely even worse) will happen imo. But of course at this point it's all speculation and only time will tell.

I can't say it is impossible, but I don't see the end of the eu through some catastrophie on the horizon. our political systems are much more stable than they were in the 60s/70s, let alone the last great depression.

Originally posted by Parmaniac

Making money is not even the prob imo it's the amount/relation of money/debt, but I'll wait for your reply 🙂 that's something that really bugs me not only this the "does conspiracies exist?" thread is in a way connected to this.

you need to stick to the topic here. we were discussing whether a free or controlled market would be preferable in a time of national crisis, where yes, making money (indicating the presence of goods for people to buy) might be the difference between life and death.

the Mao example is probably the best here. during the great leap forward and the communal projects, warehouses full of grain rotted while millions starved to death. in a free market, sure, there would have been profiteering and exploitative prices, but that excess supply would have gotten to the demand.

sure, the profit motive is less benevolent than the humanitarian motive, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Socialism is for children and those who cannot into economics. The very idea that you can "plan" an economy is laughable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Socialism is never used, purely, in any modern G20 nation.

I know that's not what you said, but some newbs might think that.