Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[bripat9643]

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something can exchange for whatever he does want.

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

 

[bripat9643]

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

Why am i not surprised you dont understand what communism is? You do understand of course that America has always had socialized programs right? What do you think our defense budget is? Fire and police? Or social security? Are you suggesting America has always been communist? Socializing oil wouid not be communism, duh.

Nationalizing the oil industry is about as close to communism as you can get.

Lol and a socialized military, police and fire, and social security is not?

Yeah, they are all socialized. What's your point?

 

[jc456]

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something can exchange for whatever he does want.

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

 

[Billy000]

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

Why am i not surprised you dont understand what communism is? You do understand of course that America has always had socialized programs right? What do you think our defense budget is? Fire and police? Or social security? Are you suggesting America has always been communist? Socializing oil wouid not be communism, duh.

Nationalizing the oil industry is about as close to communism as you can get.

Lol and a socialized military, police and fire, and social security is not?

Yeah, they are all socialized. What's your point?

How are you not getting this? If some other entity became socialized, it wouldn’t be communism.

 

[bripat9643]

Why am i not surprised you dont understand what communism is? You do understand of course that America has always had socialized programs right? What do you think our defense budget is? Fire and police? Or social security? Are you suggesting America has always been communist? Socializing oil wouid not be communism, duh.

Nationalizing the oil industry is about as close to communism as you can get.

Lol and a socialized military, police and fire, and social security is not?

Yeah, they are all socialized. What's your point?

How are you not getting this? If some other entity became socialized, it wouldn’t be communism.

Socialism/communism/fascism: it's all the same thing. It's government running productive enterprises.

 

[bripat9643]

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something can exchange for whatever he does want.

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

I hardly think his labor theory of value requires barter. You're saying a thing has value in terms of cows but not in terms of cash?

 

[jc456]

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something can exchange for whatever he does want.

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

I hardly think his labor theory of value requires barter. You're saying a thing has value in terms of cows but not in terms of cash?

Well I told him his analogy was of bartering not of value. It was of need

 

[Tehon]

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something can exchange for whatever he does want.

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

I hardly think his labor theory of value requires barter. You're saying a thing has value in terms of cows but not in terms of cash?

Well I told him his analogy was of bartering not of value. It was of need

All trade was done out of necessity.

That is at the heart of the theory.

It is only through labor that we improve upon the natural world and create the means of our existence.

That is the value of labor. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

 

[dblack]

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

 

[Tehon]

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

 

[jc456]

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

I hardly think his labor theory of value requires barter. You're saying a thing has value in terms of cows but not in terms of cash?

Well I told him his analogy was of bartering not of value. It was of need

All trade was done out of necessity.

That is at the heart of the theory.

It is only through labor that we improve upon the natural world and create the means of our existence.

That is the value of labor. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so if someone offsets the value of a product with doing business with others, one has to balance that field.

 

[dblack]

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?

 

[Tehon]

Exchanging your goods for cash is not batering. Money replaced barter..

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

I hardly think his labor theory of value requires barter. You're saying a thing has value in terms of cows but not in terms of cash?

Well I told him his analogy was of bartering not of value. It was of need

All trade was done out of necessity.

That is at the heart of the theory.

It is only through labor that we improve upon the natural world and create the means of our existence.

That is the value of labor. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so if someone offsets the value of a product with doing business with others, one has to balance that field.

Say what?

 

[jc456]

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

again, he offered up the idea of barter, not products for cash. Even though it isn't what the discussion was about.

 

[jc456]

His example was one commodity for another.not cash

I hardly think his labor theory of value requires barter. You're saying a thing has value in terms of cows but not in terms of cash?

Well I told him his analogy was of bartering not of value. It was of need

All trade was done out of necessity.

That is at the heart of the theory.

It is only through labor that we improve upon the natural world and create the means of our existence.

That is the value of labor. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so if someone offsets the value of a product with doing business with others, one has to balance that field.

Say what?

what!

 

[Tehon]

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?

It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.

Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.

The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.

Where's the controversy in that?

Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

 

[jc456]

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?

It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.

Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.

The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.

Where's the controversy in that?

Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?

 

[Tehon]

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?

It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.

Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.

The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.

Where's the controversy in that?

Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?

Not all labor is equal.

What is your point?

 

[dblack]

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?

It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.

Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.

The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.

Where's the controversy in that?

Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?

Some are more equal than others. I did get him to admit that. But if all labor hours aren't equal, how do we measure their value objectively?

All this is just to justify the premise that the market can "get it wrong", and that government should have the final say in determining what something is worth.

 

[jc456]

The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.

What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?

It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.

Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.

The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.

Where's the controversy in that?

Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?

Not all labor is equal.

What is your point?

so then there is an offset in value correct?