Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[kaz]

As far as military spending goes. The US spends 3.3 percent of it's GDP on the military compared to 0.9 for Belgium

The first thing we need to do is to stop defending free loading countries for free. That would greatly help us bring our military costs back in line

I couldn't find the figures for Belgium I did find them for Germany a country comparable to us. In 1989 Germany spend 2.41 of it's GDP on defense in 2016 1.18. So it declined 1.23 percent. For the US it went from 5.37 percent to 3.29 percent. So a relative decline of 2.09 percent. Seems to me that Germany didn't cut back it's relative military spending as much as the United States after the cold war, neither did it start wars under falls pretext ( Iraq). Nor does it use it's military capability to spread it's influence throughout the world. When you bemoan the lack of spending from other nations, you also have to be prepared to exert less influence as other countries get stronger. Are you prepared to give up your status as the only real superpower?Military Spending - Our World in Data

Oh and btw, since near all weaponry used by the military in the US is manufactured in the US itself, the money doesn't leave the US but fuels the armaments industry. In Europe a lot of the military hardware is produced in the United States. In other words of the money Europe spends on the military a substantial amount goes to the United States. While very little of the money goes the other way. So I think the status quo, with Europe not developing it's armaments industry as much as it could benefits the US.

That would be more relevant if the defense spending was not so drastically different. You aren't spending enough to defend yourself from your threats, not remotely. You're relying on us to defend you.

And there are a lot of us who want to stop doing that. I would withdraw from Europe and everywhere else outside US territory

 

[Tehon]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

 

[forkup]

As far as military spending goes. The US spends 3.3 percent of it's GDP on the military compared to 0.9 for Belgium

The first thing we need to do is to stop defending free loading countries for free. That would greatly help us bring our military costs back in line

I couldn't find the figures for Belgium I did find them for Germany a country comparable to us. In 1989 Germany spend 2.41 of it's GDP on defense in 2016 1.18. So it declined 1.23 percent. For the US it went from 5.37 percent to 3.29 percent. So a relative decline of 2.08 percent. Seems to me that Germany didn't cut back it's relative military spending as much as the United States after the cold war, neither did it start wars under falls pretext ( Iraq). Nor does it use it's military capability to spread it's influence throughout the world. When you bemoan the lack of spending from other nations, you also have to be prepared to exert less influence as other countries get stronger. Are you prepared to give up your status as the only real superpower?Military Spending - Our World in Data

Actually, mathematically from your numbers, the US reduced our defense spending by 39% and Germany did by 51%.

The difference is that 3.29% is enough to defend ourselves and 1.18% is not enough for Germany to defend itself. Germany at that rate is just counting on us to defend them.

I worked in Benelux for 10 months a couple years ago. I was based in Rotterdam. They were very aware of Russian intimidation right now. Is that the same in Belgium? I worked in Brussels, but that was in the 90s so I don't know how things are now.

Between Muslims and Russians, you need a lot more defense than we do right now.

BTW, I was in Antwerp the weekend before Xmas, it was awesome

I think relative spending compared to total GDP is a more honest way to assess the actual sacrifice of a budget item. As to the efficiency of defense spending I can only say that 100 percent of Belgian GDP spent on defense would still be insufficient to protect us from aggression. Do you feel that we are therefore unworthy of being protected ?
As I mentioned before,Belgium should spend more on defense, and the size of our country does mean we will always have to rely on more powerful nations. As a price for that help. Belgium has allowed the US to lead them into wars, allowed american products to inundate our markets. And yes as a result we don't buy our fighters with Dassault but at General Electric. You can argue that the price isn't been high enough, but it hasn't been free.
On a personal note I work in Antwerp next time you're around here send me a PM we'll have a beer and we'll have a real conversation, I always enjoy talking to someone I don't agree with more than someone like minded.

 

[bripat9643]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

How did Marx prove it was flawed? You have admitted that his labor theory of value is meaningless. So what's the "flaw" in the capitalist system? What capitalists have mastered is logic.

 

[kaz]

As far as military spending goes. The US spends 3.3 percent of it's GDP on the military compared to 0.9 for Belgium

The first thing we need to do is to stop defending free loading countries for free. That would greatly help us bring our military costs back in line

I couldn't find the figures for Belgium I did find them for Germany a country comparable to us. In 1989 Germany spend 2.41 of it's GDP on defense in 2016 1.18. So it declined 1.23 percent. For the US it went from 5.37 percent to 3.29 percent. So a relative decline of 2.08 percent. Seems to me that Germany didn't cut back it's relative military spending as much as the United States after the cold war, neither did it start wars under falls pretext ( Iraq). Nor does it use it's military capability to spread it's influence throughout the world. When you bemoan the lack of spending from other nations, you also have to be prepared to exert less influence as other countries get stronger. Are you prepared to give up your status as the only real superpower?Military Spending - Our World in Data

Actually, mathematically from your numbers, the US reduced our defense spending by 39% and Germany did by 51%.

The difference is that 3.29% is enough to defend ourselves and 1.18% is not enough for Germany to defend itself. Germany at that rate is just counting on us to defend them.

I worked in Benelux for 10 months a couple years ago. I was based in Rotterdam. They were very aware of Russian intimidation right now. Is that the same in Belgium? I worked in Brussels, but that was in the 90s so I don't know how things are now.

Between Muslims and Russians, you need a lot more defense than we do right now.

BTW, I was in Antwerp the weekend before Xmas, it was awesome

I think relative spending compared to total GDP is a more honest way to assess the actual sacrifice of a budget item

It depends on how you phrase it. Percent of GDP is certainly a key measure regarding adequate military spending in a dangerous world. But you were talking about spending reductions, which is measured in percent. Germany cut their defense budget by over 1/2 with Russia not in any way going docile.

And no one expects any country in Europe to foot the defense bill yourselves. Which is why NATO agreed to 2%. And most of the rich, western democracies in Europe are spending nowhere near that. Including Belgium. You're just looking to us to make it up for you. Germany in your numbers was 1.2%, which is pathetic. Belgium is less than 9/10 of a percent in 2016.

Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Belgium

That's not paying your share

On a personal note I work in Antwerp next time you're around here send me a PM we'll have a beer and we'll have a real conversation, I always enjoy talking to someone I don't agree with more than someone like minded.

I will. And I agree, I'd rather have a real discussion with someone I disagree with than a party parroter on either side. I'm not on a project in Europe right now, but these things ebb and flow

 

[Tehon]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

How did Marx prove it was flawed? You have admitted that his labor theory of value is meaningless. So what's the "flaw" in the capitalist system? What capitalists have mastered is logic.

I didn't admit his labor theory of value was meaningless, liar. You said it was proved wrong, but then couldn't deliver on the proof.

If capitalists mastered logic how did you get left out?

Do you understand the concept of economic singularity?

 

[kaz]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

Yes, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba. Now there's freedom. Great point, Vladimir

 

[bripat9643]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

How did Marx prove it was flawed? You have admitted that his labor theory of value is meaningless. So what's the "flaw" in the capitalist system? What capitalists have mastered is logic.

I didn't admit his labor theory of value was meaningless, liar. You said it was proved wrong, but then couldn't deliver on the proof.

If capitalists mastered logic how did you get left out?

Do you understand the concept of economic singularity?

Wrongo. You admitted that the term simply means the labor cost of an item, which didn't determine the price. You failed utterly to demonstrate that the term "intrinsic value" means anything. You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value." These terms are all meaningless according to what you have told us.

"Economic singularity" must be some marxist smoke and mirrors because I've never heard of it.

 

[Tehon]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

Yes, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba. Now there's freedom. Great point, Vladimir

Try again.

 

[kaz]

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

Yes, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba. Now there's freedom. Great point, Vladimir

Try again.

Sure. Cambodia, Venezuela, East Germany, Yugoslavia. Now there's freedom. Great point, Tito.

Better?

 

[Tehon]

You admitted that the term simply means the labor cost of an item, which didn't determine the price.

The price of a commodity is determined in the market. Is it not? The cost of producing a commodity would likewise be determined in the market since labor is also a commodity.

You failed utterly to demonstrate that the term "intrinsic value" means anything.

It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

Edit: I figure I can't leave anything to chance with you. Like you knowing the meaning of the word .
Intrinsic;
belonging naturally; essential.

You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value.

There isn't one.

 

[forkup]

As far as military spending goes. The US spends 3.3 percent of it's GDP on the military compared to 0.9 for Belgium

The first thing we need to do is to stop defending free loading countries for free. That would greatly help us bring our military costs back in line

I couldn't find the figures for Belgium I did find them for Germany a country comparable to us. In 1989 Germany spend 2.41 of it's GDP on defense in 2016 1.18. So it declined 1.23 percent. For the US it went from 5.37 percent to 3.29 percent. So a relative decline of 2.08 percent. Seems to me that Germany didn't cut back it's relative military spending as much as the United States after the cold war, neither did it start wars under falls pretext ( Iraq). Nor does it use it's military capability to spread it's influence throughout the world. When you bemoan the lack of spending from other nations, you also have to be prepared to exert less influence as other countries get stronger. Are you prepared to give up your status as the only real superpower?Military Spending - Our World in Data

Actually, mathematically from your numbers, the US reduced our defense spending by 39% and Germany did by 51%.

The difference is that 3.29% is enough to defend ourselves and 1.18% is not enough for Germany to defend itself. Germany at that rate is just counting on us to defend them.

I worked in Benelux for 10 months a couple years ago. I was based in Rotterdam. They were very aware of Russian intimidation right now. Is that the same in Belgium? I worked in Brussels, but that was in the 90s so I don't know how things are now.

Between Muslims and Russians, you need a lot more defense than we do right now.

BTW, I was in Antwerp the weekend before Xmas, it was awesome

I think relative spending compared to total GDP is a more honest way to assess the actual sacrifice of a budget item

It depends on how you phrase it. Percent of GDP is certainly a key measure regarding adequate military spending in a dangerous world. But you were talking about spending reductions, which is measured in percent. Germany cut their defense budget by over 1/2 with Russia not in any way going docile.

And no one expects any country in Europe to foot the defense bill yourselves. Which is why NATO agreed to 2%. And most of the rich, western democracies in Europe are spending nowhere near that. Including Belgium. You're just looking to us to make it up for you. Germany in your numbers was 1.2%, which is pathetic. Belgium is less than 9/10 of a percent in 2016.

Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Belgium

That's not paying your share

On a personal note I work in Antwerp next time you're around here send me a PM we'll have a beer and we'll have a real conversation, I always enjoy talking to someone I don't agree with more than someone like minded.

I will. And I agree, I'd rather have a real discussion with someone I disagree with than a party parroter on either side. I'm not on a project in Europe right now, but these things ebb and flow

It depends on how you phrase it.

This kind of is an object lesson in the value of statistics in a discussion. One can interpret them to make any point.

 

[kaz]

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

Yes, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba. Now there's freedom. Great point, Vladimir

Try again.

Sure. Cambodia, Venezuela, East Germany, Yugoslavia. Now there's freedom. Great point, Tito.

Better?

You're a man of few words

 

[rshermn]

You admitted that the term simply means the labor cost of an item, which didn't determine the price.

The price of a commodity is determined in the market. Is it not? The cost of producing a commodity would likewise be determined in the market since labor is also a commodity.

You failed utterly to demonstrate that the term "intrinsic value" means anything.

It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value.

There isn't one.

The cost of a commodity is determined by the market the commodity it is being sold in. So, if you have a completely competitive economy, which in the real world is pretty much non existent, then you get the agreement between many sellers and many buyers negotiating a price.
Add monopoly power, which is normal in any economy today, and you get an additional part of price determination. And as such, things get more expensive, based solely on monopoly power.
A good deal of socialism today is devoted to trying to mediate monopoly power.

So, while actual socialism does exist, the opposite end of the spectrum does not. Pure capitalism is a theory. Same thing as a Libertarian economy. No social, or government, component. But it never, ever works. There is no successful libertarian economy, and there is no purely socialistic, or communist economies. All we have are economies with some degree of capitalist and socialist mix. Except for a couple questionable communist economies which have not yet fully failed.

So, get over the idea that the only rational economy is one that is fully capitalistic, or LIBERTARIAN. They do not exist. The argument is how much socialism is best.

 

[Billy000]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

Are this much of a moron to believe Marxism is the same as social democratic principles?

 

[dblack]

You failed utterly to demonstrate that the term "intrinsic value" means anything.

It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

I can agree to that. As long as you don't try to equivocate and compare that measure to the market value. Apples and oranges.

 

[dblack]

So, get over the idea that the only rational economy is one that is fully capitalistic, or LIBERTARIAN. They do not exist. The argument is how much socialism is best.

That really isn't the argument. Socialism is government control over the "means of production". The question is whether we want to pursue a free market economy, or one controlled by government. Pointing out that absolutes don't exist is nice and all, but in no way addresses the real debate over whether socialism should be our goal, or is something we prefer to avoided.

 

[danielpalos]

Simply using "the other Peoples' tax monies", means socialism is mixed up in our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

So, get over the idea that the only rational economy is one that is fully capitalistic, or LIBERTARIAN. They do not exist. The argument is how much socialism is best.

That really isn't the argument. Socialism is government control over the "means of production". The question is whether we want to pursue a free market economy, or one controlled by government. Pointing out that absolutes don't exist is nice and all, but in no way addresses the real debate over whether socialism should be our goal, or is something we prefer to avoided.

I believe it is about ensuring full employment of resources in any given market, but especially markets where human capital is involved.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is an example.

Capitalism has had over two hundred years to solve simple poverty.

 

[Tehon]

We, as in homo sapiens, are not yet ready for it. We will be lucky to survive capitalism, imo.

Then it sounds like we should focus on getting capitalism right rather, rather than daydreaming about the distant future.

I might be a daydreamer, but you're delusional.

The system is inherently flawed. That knowledge was Marx's contribution to this world. If people didn't dismiss Marx out of hand, more people would probably see it for what it is.

In the early twentieth century people in this country, and especially in Europe, did see it. But those days are long gone. The capitalists have mastered the craft of persuasion and it is all but hidden now.

We've seen the movie, it never ends well.

You've got to read the book. They always butcher the movie.

Here Marx attempts to correct the storyline before the release of the movie.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

Idiots like the op have long existed. It's the reason Marx proclaimed that he wasn't a Marxist.

Billy000 is not a democratic socialist, he is a stooge for the capitalist state.

Are this much of a moron to believe Marxism is the same as social democratic principles?

You don't claim to be a social democrat. You claim to be a democratic socialist. Do you understand the difference?