Thought of the Day - Please discuss

[IDrinkaRum]

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of the banks, which will have to be nationalized and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to Communism."

- Karl Marx
Das Kapital 1867

[Giggle Goose]

Whoa. That's all I have to say.

[guywithashovel]

Well if Karl Marx said it, then it has to be true, right?

[IDrinkaRum]

I'm not saying he's right. What I'm saying is tihs: This is whati s written in a published work of Mr. Marx's. He is generally accepted as the "Father" on Communism (along with his partner, Engels). However, I do believe this should lead people to pause, think, and discuss what is actually happening in this country and whether it's a good thing for us.



In case the picture doesn't show up, it's a picture of Putin as a "motivational poster"-type pic explaining the word "Irony"

[Boozy]

However, I do believe this should lead people to pause, think, and discuss what is actually happening in this country and whether it's a good thing for us.

Last I heard, the banks were not being nationalized... Am I missing something?

[IDrinkaRum]

Boozy - there are those out there that are screaming that President Obama and the Democrats are wanting to nationalize everything OMGRIGHTNAO! Then there are those who are screaming that the President and the Democrats aren't doing it fast enough.

The banks aren't being nationalized - yet. The healthcare isn't being nationalized - yet. But it might come to that. It might not. But people need to start thinking about it now ... and thinking about it might lead them to see if it's a good thing or not a good thing.

[daleduke17]

The banks aren't being nationalized - yet. The healthcare isn't being nationalized - yet. But it might come to that. It might not. But people need to start thinking about it now ... and thinking about it might lead them to see if it's a good thing or not a good thing.

It will be whichever thing the media tells them it is.

[Boozy]

US banks will never be nationalized. You have perhaps the most liberal administration you've ever had, and even they don't like the idea. Geithner has been very clear that nationalization is not in the cards.

The thing to remember about Marx is that his criticisms of capitalism were usually accurate, but his predictions for the future were terrible. His works should be read and understood in an historical context, not as economic primers.

The US is not the first country to have major debt problems. It's not the first country to be facing a serious economic crisis. It's a serious situation, but it's silly to pretend that it's the end of things as we know it. Japan and Sweden have been through very, very similar situations, and last I checked, they were still fully-functional democracies.

[Fashion Lad!]

Communism failed for everyone. Not everyone can succeed under Capitalism. Some people under capitalism can do very well. No one under communism can do very well, unless they work for the governemnt. But, they don't have anything going for them either because communism fails.

[Gerrinson]

US banks will never be nationalized.

Actually, some US banks were nationalized. During the Depression. It worked to clear up the problem banks and get them back on their feet or shut down for good.

There is precedent, and it can be a workable solution if done right. It was certainly not all of the banks and clearly did not lead to the US becoming a Communist country.

It could happen again, but only if the banks fail to fix their own problems, and it won't be all banks.

[Seshat]

But "affluenza" is a problem in Australia, and as far as I can see, in the US and many other first world places as well.

"Affluenza" being .. well, people trying to have more than they can realistically afford, and going into 'bad debt' to do it.

'Bad debt' is debt which they can't handle, and which isn't going to improve their circumstances.

For instance, the mortgage on my home has us eating cheap-but-healthy food; but in five years the repayments will be less than the likely rent for an equivalent home. In ten years, if all else remains unchanged, the repayments on the mortgage will be a LOT less, and we will eventually pay the house off and our housing costs will be repairs and rates (council tax). Therefore: good debt.

However, if we spent that amount of money on cars, sound systems, furniture, redecorating, and taking holidays - we'd get no long-term benefit from any of it. Therefore: bad debt.


Housing can be a bad debt too: if you keep buying bigger and fancier houses, and you never actually make a significant dent in your mortgage, you never end up with the 'housing costs are just repairs and rates' situation.


Anyway... a society suffering Affluenza does significant damage to their own economy. Over the whole of society, the money the citizens receive needs to approximately equal the value of the work they do. (Equity of distribution is a different problem.) If the society as a whole spends more than it earns, the society as a whole goes into debt.

If the social debt is, on balance, 'good debt', it can work out well - as long as the society has time for the benefits of the debt to show before the debt itself cripples it.

But if the social debt is, on balance, 'bad debt', the society is in reeeeaaaaallll trouble.


And a society whose citizens mostly suffer 'Affluenza' is going to have most of its citizen-based debt as bad debt. If that's balanced by good debt in the public and commercial/industrial sectors, the society can cope. If not ... worry.

[Slytovhand]

Nope, nationalism unlikely.

Now, partly socialistic society - most definitely.

But different countries will need to operate under different rules to survive. Let's take a look at Qatar. Very low population, but with a lot of oil. All state owned. Thus, the Qatar citizens receive a stack of benefits which come direct from the oil profits, and it's a nice little country with a stack of money, and everyone is happy (except the tourists who like to drink... or women who like their freedom...).

Or Sweden. Government has high tax rates, but again, gives a lot back in benefits to it's citizens. Not a great deal in raw materials, but has good manufacturing (which means high imports). But one of the best standards of living on the planet (NB: higher than, I think, any nation of those members of this forum!)

Clearly, some things need to change - and soon. And, realisitically, trying to leave it in the hands of the ones who want your money isn't the best idea... thus leaving it to a government to make the rules. Do you trust them? Probably not. Got anyone better in mind - who the high finance companies would listen to?

Sometimes, I think a few EMP's wouldn't go astray....


(Electro-magnetic pulses - they completely disrupt electricity... what would that do with our concept of 'possessions'?)