If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gallup)   Not news: Half of Democrats have favorable impressions of socialism. Fark: So do a quarter of Republicans   (gallup.com) divider line 183
    More: Amusing, Democrats, Republican, socialism, capitalism  
•       •       •

1273 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2012 at 4:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



183 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 05:48:14 PM  
This is the downside of the right's "call Obama a socialist and let 50 years of anti-socialist propaganda do the rest.". The problem is that most people not born in the 50's or 60's haven't been conditioned to hate the word "socialism"...so to them...a "socialist" does what Obama does....which is act like a pragmatic centrist.

The danger is that *a real socialist* (a la Chavez) could, sometime in the future, exploit this brand re-awakening, and all of a sudden the constant cries of "WOLF!!" would fall on deaf ears.
 
2012-11-29 05:48:23 PM  
The best laid plans are shat on by people.
Communism and socialism would be wonderful if everyone was honest and perfect already.
I feel like communism and socialism and even dictatorships would be perfectly reasonable in Utopias.
 
2012-11-29 05:51:20 PM  

seniorgato: The best laid plans are shat on by people.
Communism and socialism Capitalism would be wonderful if everyone was honest and perfect already.
I feel like communism and socialism capitalism and even dictatorships would be perfectly reasonable in Utopias.

 
2012-11-29 05:52:55 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?

By occupying a business niche that could only exist in 1940s America. Unless you intend to depopulate the world, destroy most mass communications and transportation infrastructure and then obliterate much of the world's production ability through thirty years of near-apocalyptic warfare, no one has the ability to create a Wal-Mart that way anymore.


The modern equivalent of a 5 and 10 is the dollar store. They still have those right? They had plenty of 5 and 10 stores back in the day, but very few grew into megacorps and only one grew into megamegacorp.

Besides, there are all sorts of employee owned companies. There's no need to use force and coercion to achieve this and you don't need to drive a megacorp out of business to sustain it.
 
2012-11-29 05:54:06 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?

By occupying a business niche that could only exist in 1940s America. Unless you intend to depopulate the world, destroy most mass communications and transportation infrastructure and then obliterate much of the world's production ability through thirty years of near-apocalyptic warfare, no one has the ability to create a Wal-Mart that way anymore.

The modern equivalent of a 5 and 10 is the dollar store. They still have those right? They had plenty of 5 and 10 stores back in the day, but very few grew into megacorps and only one grew into megamegacorp.

Besides, there are all sorts of employee owned companies. There's no need to use force and coercion to achieve this and you don't need to drive a megacorp out of business to sustain it.


I agree. By what token, however, is it okay to use force and coercion to protect big business or enforce that model?
 
2012-11-29 05:54:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?

By occupying a business niche that could only exist in 1940s America. Unless you intend to depopulate the world, destroy most mass communications and transportation infrastructure and then obliterate much of the world's production ability through thirty years of near-apocalyptic warfare, no one has the ability to create a Wal-Mart that way anymore.


Costco was started in 1983 America
Target expanded nationwide in 1982 America
Amazon was incorporated in 1994 America as an online bookstore and now makes about $60,000,000,000 a year in revenue selling the same shiat Wal-Mart does.

But why won't someone just give a company like this to workers?
 
2012-11-29 05:54:27 PM  

skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.


Google and Apple started in garages.
 
2012-11-29 05:55:26 PM  

skullkrusher: Communist_Manifesto: Because capital has captured the means to acquire capital and workers don't make nearly the amount of money that it would take to compete with them now. Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart? Or GM? Or any mega corp? There are barriers to entry that cannot be overcome in the manner you describe.

People start businesses every day without a huge amount of capital. What you're asking for is for the reigns of a huge, established company to be handed to the workers just because.

Why must a worker compete against the megacorp they work for? Sure, for poorly paid workers getting enough money together would be extremely difficult. Fry cooks aren't going to form a fast food collective to compete against McDonald's. Extremely well capitalized groups don't start new companies to compete with Wal-Mart on a level playing field. Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.


Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.
 
2012-11-29 05:56:13 PM  

jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.


and Microsoft and Joe Schmoe's Computer Repair Shop that he started as a side project when he wasn't working in Best Buy's Geek Squad and now provides a nice living for Joe and his family.
 
2012-11-29 05:57:01 PM  

jigger: Google and Apple started in garages.


And entered a completely new market, the same as Wal-Mart did in the 40's and 50's. You could create the next big thing, and create a brand new market, but in this environment, in our system, the end result will be the same, a global conglomerate with barriers to entry too high for it initial success to be reproduced.
 
2012-11-29 05:58:07 PM  

BMulligan: Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.


yeah, our problem has been that people are too stingy with loans...
 
2012-11-29 05:58:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I agree. By what token, however, is it okay to use force and coercion to protect big business or enforce that model?


Well, I'm not going to defend the current model of highly regulated, protectionist, intellectual property, etc. fascistic style of capitalism we have in the US today. I know there's initiation of force used these days, but we probably have different things in mind. What kind of force or coercion did you have in mind?
 
2012-11-29 05:59:33 PM  

jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.


Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.
 
2012-11-29 06:02:08 PM  

skullkrusher: But why won't someone just give a company like this to workers?


Socialists aren't asking for companies to be given to them. We're threatening to take over what we in fact built and rightly own-to re-appropriate what's been appropriated from us. Get it straight, SK! Sheesh.
 
2012-11-29 06:02:26 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: Google and Apple started in garages.

And entered a completely new market, the same as Wal-Mart did in the 40's and 50's. You could create the next big thing, and create a brand new market, but in this environment, in our system, the end result will be the same, a global conglomerate with barriers to entry too high for it initial success to be reproduced.


There were plenty of search engines around before Google and there are still plenty around.

There were many computer companies around before Apple and there are a hell of a lot around today.

A worker's collective could start one of these things. They don't have to put Google and Apple out of business to be successful.
 
2012-11-29 06:03:45 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: I agree. By what token, however, is it okay to use force and coercion to protect big business or enforce that model?

Well, I'm not going to defend the current model of highly regulated, protectionist, intellectual property, etc. fascistic style of capitalism we have in the US today. I know there's initiation of force used these days, but we probably have different things in mind. What kind of force or coercion did you have in mind?


The very underpinnings of capitalism, the hierarchical corporate model and capitalist ideas of property. The state creates and enforces both. Do you support eliminating the limited liability corporation? If not, you support use of state force to enforce the capitalist model. Do you support eliminating unnatural conceptions of property, like "intellectual property" law? If not, you support use of state force to enforce the capitalist model.

Capitalism is a product of the coercive state; even in the hazy "golden age" of capitalism it was more true than ever, with powerful landowners being dictatorial governmental powers in the own right. It cannot exist without it.
 
2012-11-29 06:04:29 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working".


but it is utterly valid to complain that workers cannot start companies to compete with these extraordinary examples, of course.
 
2012-11-29 06:05:54 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.

Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.


I'm using those examples to counter the claim that a small company started by a worker's collective can never compete with "the big boys." Once upon a time those "big boys" were small potatoes. They were small potatoes in a world where giant megacorps existed. How can Apple ever compete with IBM? How can Google ever compete with Yahoo or AltaVista?

A worker's collective could start small and one day become huge and there's no need to force a large corporation into that situation.
 
2012-11-29 06:07:08 PM  

Renart: Socialists aren't asking for companies to be given to them. We're threatening to take over what we in fact built and rightly own-to re-appropriate what's been appropriated from us. Get it straight, SK! Sheesh.


The people that built your house and sodded your lawn are coming to claim their property tonight.
 
2012-11-29 06:09:12 PM  
Half of Democrats and THREE quarters of 'Pubs couldn't define the word "socialism" if you gave them a forty-word head start.
 
2012-11-29 06:09:17 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.

Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.

I'm using those examples to counter the claim that a small company started by a worker's collective can never compete with "the big boys." Once upon a time those "big boys" were small potatoes. They were small potatoes in a world where giant megacorps existed. How can Apple ever compete with IBM? How can Google ever compete with Yahoo or AltaVista?

A worker's collective could start small and one day become huge and there's no need to force a large corporation into that situation.


You're using those examples to distract from the fact that the odds are vastly against anyone acceding to the aristocracy with structures in place to prevent it. No different than in Communist Romania or feudal Japan.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:14 PM  

jigger: The people that built your house and sodded your lawn are coming to claim their property tonight.


My house and lawn are not a means of production. They do not generate surplus value. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:58 PM  
Many conservatives/libertarians hold that "promote the general welfare" only means fund police and military to protect against people who want their stuff.
 
2012-11-29 06:14:13 PM  

jigger: They don't have to put Google and Apple out of business to be successful.


But the existence of Apple and Google makes success much less likely.
 
2012-11-29 06:14:31 PM  

skullkrusher: BMulligan: Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.

yeah, our problem has been that people are too stingy with loans...


But who gets the loans? Years ago, I was working for a law firm that represented one of the parties to a divorce in which a $1.3 billion estate was at issue. The husband came from an old money family (the local opera house is named after the guy's mother) that had fallen on hard times but, apparently, managed to bounce back. Our job - there were six rookie lawyers set up in a conference room for this - was to go through 5,000 boxes of documents looking for anything relevant. We found a copy of a memo from a junior officer at the bank, stating that the husband had already borrowed way more money than he could possibly repay to invest in his company. There was only one, slim chance of ever seeing any of that money ever again - loan him another $100 million. Sure, it was probably going to get pissed away, but it was the only thing that might salvage the original loans.

So that's what the bank did. The business turned around (on paper, anyway - the accountants working on the divorce were unimpressed, once all the nonsense had been cleared off the balance sheet), the husband sold the company to a huge corporation for about a billion and a half bucks, and the bank got paid off. Within a couple of years the original business was in disarray and the purchaser sold it at a substantial loss. The husband managed to lose about $300 million in misguided business ventures - but that left him with over a billion bucks, so banks were still lining up to lend him money (he hasn't had a business success in over a decade - his latest venture is deep in the red). But he still has his private island, he still has his 400-foot yacht with the helipad on the stern, and he still has no problem borrowing money. He was born into the capitalist class (why do you think the bank lent him all that money in the first place?), and even though his career has consisted of failure after failure aside from his one lucky break, he's still a member of the club. He still gets to host lavish fundraisers for Republican presidential candidates, and he's still a very wealthy man.

Meanwhile, no one is going to lend you or I $100 million to invest in our speculative ventures. But then again, our mothers' names aren't engraved over the door at the local opera house.
 
2012-11-29 06:18:04 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: The very underpinnings of capitalism, the hierarchical corporate model and capitalist ideas of property.


So you don't believe in property? You don't own anything?

A Dark Evil Omen: The state creates and enforces both.


The state does not create property and is not necessary to enforce property.

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating the limited liability corporation?


A distant investor that has no control on the actual operation of the company should have no more liability than his investment. If there were no state and no limit to liability, how would you claim your damages? How would you seize the assets/property of every passive investor in a corporation?

Let's say OilCorp spills oil in the lake next to where you live and ruins your crops (or whatever). By what method would you extract restitution from every single passive investor?

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating unnatural conceptions of property, like "intellectual property" law?


Yes, with a few exceptions. Copyright and patents should be abolished. I see a place for trademarks, because the fraud involved would create actual harm with victims and such. It's not necessarily that an idea is someone's "property." It's more in the idea of protecting the consumer from harm due to fraud.

A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is a product of the coercive state


No, it's just not. Capitalism is a method. Whether someone incorporates that method within the framework of a coercive state is another matter.
 
2012-11-29 06:19:22 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: You're using those examples to distract from the fact that the odds are vastly against anyone acceding to the aristocracy with structures in place to prevent it. No different than in Communist Romania or feudal Japan.


Who said anything about "acceding to the aristocracy"? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
 
2012-11-29 06:21:44 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: The very underpinnings of capitalism, the hierarchical corporate model and capitalist ideas of property.

So you don't believe in property? You don't own anything?


I don't believe in unnatural conceptions of property, no. I don't own any patents or trademarks or hold any copyright. I don't own any stocks. I don't have an unoccupied second home or own a factory that I never see but expect the workers to pay me to use it.

A Dark Evil Omen: The state creates and enforces both.

The state does not create property and is not necessary to enforce property.


Okay, then I'm taking your shiat. No need to enforce that, right, so I'm sure we won't see the cops showing up.

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating the limited liability corporation?

A distant investor that has no control on the actual operation of the company should have no more liability than his investment. If there were no state and no limit to liability, how would you claim your damages? How would you seize the assets/property of every passive investor in a corporation?

Let's say OilCorp spills oil in the lake next to where you live and ruins your crops (or whatever). By what method would you extract restitution from every single passive investor?


So, yes, you support unnatural conceptions of property and coercion to protect it.

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating unnatural conceptions of property, like "intellectual property" law?

Yes, with a few exceptions. Copyright and patents should be abolished. I see a place for trademarks, because the fraud involved would create actual harm with victims and such. It's not necessarily that an idea is someone's "property." It's more in the idea of protecting the consumer from harm due to fraud.


So, yes, you support unnatural conceptions of property and coercion to protect it.

A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is a product of the coercive state

No, it's just not. Capitalism is a method. Whether someone incorporates that method within the framework of a coercive state is another matter.

What "method"? It's a system of hierarchy created and enforced with violence.
 
2012-11-29 06:21:58 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: They don't have to put Google and Apple out of business to be successful.

But the existence of Apple and Google makes success much less likely.


Oh no it's too hard. We'll never have a giant computer company because it's 1976 and IBM exists.

Are you saying a worker's collective can't compete? They can't sell higher quality at a lower price?
 
2012-11-29 06:25:50 PM  

vpb: vpb: Lsherm: Everybody loves socialism as long as you get more than you're giving.

It's pretty much the same with capitalism, unless by "getting" you mean "getting it in the rear". The people who get to rob the middle class and poor live capitalism.

Love I mean.


I love capitalism and I'm not rich or ass raping anyone. A little socialism is nice too, provided you work to balance collective wants with individual rights. One group that does not like capitalism would be people who spent their younger years ignoring everyone who told them education, hard work, and not quitting leads to success. If you are a loser, you probably will be against whatever ISM you perceive to be in place in the area where you have managed to be such a failure. In my early twenties I was quite receptive to arguments that placed blame for my situation in life on things other than myself.
 
2012-11-29 06:29:33 PM  

BMulligan: skullkrusher: BMulligan: Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.

yeah, our problem has been that people are too stingy with loans...

But who gets the loans? Years ago, I was working for a law firm that represented one of the parties to a divorce in which a $1.3 billion estate was at issue. The husband came from an old money family (the local opera house is named after the guy's mother) that had fallen on hard times but, apparently, managed to bounce back. Our job - there were six rookie lawyers set up in a conference room for this - was to go through 5,000 boxes of documents looking for anything relevant. We found a copy of a memo from a junior officer at the bank, stating that the husband had already borrowed way more money than he could possibly repay to invest in his company. There was only one, slim chance of ever seeing any of that money ever again - loan him another $100 million. Sure, it was probably going to get pissed away, but it was the only thing that might salvage the original loans.

So that's what the bank did. The business turned around (on paper, anyway - the accountants working on the divorce were unimpressed, once all the nonsense had been cleared off the balance sheet), the husband sold the company to a huge corporation for about a billion and a half bucks, and the bank got paid off. Within a couple of years the original business was in disarray and the purchaser sold it at a substantial loss. The husband managed to lose about $300 million in misguided business ventures - but that left him with over a billion bucks, so banks were still lining up to lend him money (he hasn't had a business success in over a decade - his latest venture is deep in the red). But he still has his private island, he still has his 400-foot yacht with the helipad on the stern, and he still has no problem borrowing money. He was born into the capitalist class (why do you think the bank lent him all that money in the first place?), and even though his career has consisted of failure after failure aside from his one lucky break, he's still a member of the club. He still gets to host lavish fundraisers for Republican presidential candidates, and he's still a very wealthy man.

Meanwhile, no one is going to lend you or I $100 million to invest in our speculative ventures. But then again, our mothers' names aren't engraved over the door at the local opera house.


What does any of that have to do with obtaining a small business loan?
 
2012-11-29 06:30:20 PM  

jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?


They started when there was no WalMart
 
2012-11-29 06:30:43 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I don't believe in unnatural conceptions of property, no. I don't own any patents or trademarks or hold any copyright. I don't own any stocks. I don't have an unoccupied second home or own a factory that I never see but expect the workers to pay me to use it.


Stocks are contracts, agreements. If you don't believe in enforcing contracts, then I don't see how a worker's collective can ever get off the ground.

A Dark Evil Omen: I don't have an unoccupied second home or own a factory that I never see but expect the workers to pay me to use it.


I'll bet you have "unoccupied property." You don't use all of your possessions at all times, do you?

I'm not getting the second part. Workers are paying you to use a factory? Is this the whole Marxist BS about stealing the workers' labor?

A Dark Evil Omen: Okay, then I'm taking your shiat. No need to enforce that, right, so I'm sure we won't see the cops showing up.


The cops will probably come get me after what I do to enforce my property rights.

A Dark Evil Omen: So, yes, you support unnatural conceptions of property and coercion to protect it.


You can't defend your system because it's obvious you haven't thought it out. You don't have to have a state to limit liability. You have to have some sort of arbitration (or court if you prefer) to hammer out who owes what to whom in a dispute, unless we're all just going to act like raving mobs of monkeys with pitchforks.

In your system, would there be arbitration of any kind?


A Dark Evil Omen: What "method"? It's a system of hierarchy created and enforced with violence.


The method of investing resources (capital, if you will) in order to produce/multiply those resources. There is no need to initiate force to accomplish this.
 
2012-11-29 06:33:17 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?

They started when there was no WalMart


But there was Woolworths, and Sears, etc.
 
2012-11-29 06:33:50 PM  
Socialism in general is actually fine. The union movement's been far more help than harm, even if it is at times corrupt and frustrating (like, well, democracy always is), the rochdale model works very well in certain industries like group housing and banking (that's the model that credit unions follow, roughly speaking), general government restrictions on treatment of workers have actually _increased_ corporate incomes as well as individual well-being, certain industries do... well, all right when socialized, at least better than trying to have it both ways (single-payer health care is significantly cheaper per capita while providing more treatment per capita than our insurance-driven + emergency rooms free model).

What _hasn't_ worked is Marxist socialism. Actual industry takeovers by the workers and attempts to remove intermediate central control and private ownership of companies have been an absolute and unmitigated disaster for everyone that has tried it. Even the most successful go at Marxism, China, essentially nuked its own economy entirely and is only recovering because they've given up on the whole thing and gone full autocracy instead.

Making sure this is mentioned, because some people up-thread seem to be mistaking socialism in general for marxist socialism specifically. The latter is a very, very specific policy theory which is demonstrably incorrect. The former is a broader "movement" consisting of basically every single democratic policy innovation introduced between 1880 and 1940.

Lucky LaRue: So, that's like 75% of America, right? Why not just declare a socialist victory, and we can all go back to hating the French.


if you're serious, 50% * 1/2 + 25% * 1/2 = roughly 37% of the total population. I figure you're probably referencing a meme I'm unfamiliar with, but you can never tell, so just sticking that out there.
 
2012-11-29 06:38:21 PM  
Wow.

Its nice to see my red-tagged favorite squad all together.

/Lurker
//Wobbly
 
2012-11-29 06:39:27 PM  
So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.
 
2012-11-29 06:43:12 PM  

skullkrusher: What does any of that have to do with obtaining a small business loan?


If you think you're going to go toe-to-toe with WalMart, Comcast, Boeing, General Motors, or JP Morgan Chase with a small business loan, have at it.
 
2012-11-29 06:44:12 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.


And there are "Reagan Democrats" but I'm guessing you're OK with that.
 
2012-11-29 06:48:57 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.

And there are "Reagan Democrats" but I'm guessing you're OK with that.


yeah, why not?

good to see that about a third of democrats fit that category.
 
2012-11-29 06:51:02 PM  
jealousy and envy are not good character traits.
be a man. take control of your own life.
 
2012-11-29 06:52:48 PM  

jigger: Oh no it's too hard. We'll never have a giant computer company because it's 1976 and IBM exists.

Are you saying a worker's collective can't compete? They can't sell higher quality at a lower price?


What part of barriers to entry do you not understand?
Apple exploited new markets to get where they are, markets that they now dominate and close off to others. They sold desktop computers when they were some of the first players on the market. They marketed and sold iPods when the portable digital media market was tiny.
Workers' collectives can't compete, not because socialism, but because they don't have a huge market share and supply chain reaching back into China for maximum profitability. Either Apple screws the pooch, as IBM did, or there's little they can't do to crush a startup offering iPod clones.
Just because success is possible doesn't mean it's likely, nor does it mean things are working to everyone's benefit.
 
2012-11-29 06:58:50 PM  

colon_pow: jealousy and envy are not good character traits.
be a man. take control of your own life.


Fight your own wars, keep track of your own penis and if you are afraid of change stay in bed and hide under the covers. The be a man stuff swings both ways.
 
2012-11-29 07:00:17 PM  
Since this is Gallup, that means that most Americans hate socialism with a fiery passion.
 
2012-11-29 07:02:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.

And there are "Reagan Democrats" but I'm guessing you're OK with that.

yeah, why not?



That's cool. I like Obama Republicans.
 
2012-11-29 07:05:32 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: What part of barriers to entry do you not understand?
Apple exploited new markets to get where they are, markets that they now dominate and close off to others. They sold desktop computers when they were some of the first players on the market.


I've repeatedly brought up that they were not the only player in the PC market. They went up against IBM. And farking won. There were other, larger PC companies besides IBM. Where are they now? Where's your new Tandy? Where's your new Commodore?

Google went up against well established search engines. And farking won. They became the big boy. Then they went up against Facebook (who went up against MySpace and won) and lost (or are still losing badly).


Sergeant Grumbles: They marketed and sold iPods when the portable digital media market was tiny.


And the market got huge BECAUSE OF the iPod.

Sergeant Grumbles: Workers' collectives can't compete, not because socialism, but because they don't have a huge market share and supply chain reaching back into China for maximum profitability.


You don't have to start big to compete. I've never purchased an Apple product in my life. There's a big huge market out there for non-Apple products. You don't have to put Apple out of business to sustain your business model. You just have to sell shiat that people want at a price they're willing to pay. That's it.

Sergeant Grumbles: Either Apple screws the pooch, as IBM did, or there's little they can't do to crush a startup offering iPod clones. Just because success is possible doesn't mean it's likely, nor does it mean things are working to everyone's benefit.


Huh? There are plenty of different mp3 players out there to buy.
 
2012-11-29 07:12:38 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?

By occupying a business niche that could only exist in 1940s America. Unless you intend to depopulate the world, destroy most mass communications and transportation infrastructure and then obliterate much of the world's production ability through thirty years of near-apocalyptic warfare, no one has the ability to create a Wal-Mart that way anymore.


I was going to say "by starting in an economy where there was no Wal Mart to crush it."
 
2012-11-29 07:13:45 PM  

robotpirateninja: This is the downside of the right's "call Obama a socialist and let 50 years of anti-socialist propaganda do the rest.". The problem is that most people not born in the 50's or 60's haven't been conditioned to hate the word "socialism"...so to them...a "socialist" does what Obama does....which is act like a pragmatic centrist.


Made me chuckle.
 
2012-11-29 07:15:48 PM  

impaler: I was going to say "by starting in an economy where there was no Wal Mart to crush it."


Argh! There were giant national retail chains then too. Wal Mart did not invent discount retail.
 
2012-11-29 07:23:10 PM  

jigger: Argh! There were giant national retail chains then too. Wal Mart did not invent discount retail.


And at that time there were mom and pop shops as well.

In 2006, the big-box retailer promised to bring jobs to the cash-strapped community. But according to a landmark study by Loyola University, the company's rhetoric didn't match reality: Within two years of Walmart's opening its doors, 82 local stores went out of business.
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report