11-26-2006, 07:42 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me see.. Manmohan in Delhi or Kurananidhi in Chennai will decide what I need? Seems like communisim to me doesn't it?
Did you miss the paper by Hayek debunking central planners?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which representative of "socialist government in India" exactly comes to your field and tills the land or scrubs the bullocks at the watering hole?
PM? CM? Mayor? IAS Officer? Practical solutions and answers please.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I highly doubt that current govt of India has conspired to keep millions of hungry mouths hungry. So what you are saying about grand plans to eradicate hunger and poverty are in place under the current infrastructure.
Problem's with execution and implementation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Compare this with free market economies, where fancy cars and beggars exist side by side. This is the result of development based on greed. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
History's shown that your form of govt has not put that beggar in the car but put that car driver on the street alongside with beggar. So yes, the playing field's been leveled for all. Before I forget, with your form of govt, the car's are usually impounded by 'state' in name of the motherland. Socialist Soviet Russia even had separate exclusive roads for those impounded cars driven by 'state'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The rich man would rather invest and create more casinos, dance bars, fancy cars, electronic gadgets, because there's enormous profit. This is scenario A. He wouldn't invest in fertilisers, for a starving farmer isn't a good customer. Even if he does, the prices have to be too high for the poor (to account for his production costs), and this will put more pressure on the already starving farmer. This is B.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds nice. But dosen't hold. "Rich" man invests in whatever that'll bring him higher rates of return. Even a "poor man" invests with same goal. To state anything otherwise is pure hogwash.
And your assumption that investing is industries producing fertilisers being less profitable than say in casions/cars is just plain naieve - I'll wager you don't invest in any stocks/markets.
Also, your basic assumption seems to me is that a 'rich man' is basically doing anything that he does to screw the 'poor man' - profits be damned. In free markets, market demand and competition for better goods and services at better prices will render your 'rich man' poor and make innovative and entrepeurial 'poor man' rich.
In real world even the poor farmer at end of day indulges in a bit of toddy and biddi and ain't nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that your socialist govt would be offended by such indulgences in past time of rich.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's foreign to me is your assumption that I'm unaware of tax evasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? This problem can be avoided in a socialist system<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err.. how? Details please.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wealth is proportionate to the work done. No work=no wealth. If no wealth is created, a 'lazy bumb' can make nothing, because there's no wealth to be shared.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so fast. You argued that all are equal stakeholders and all wealth will be shared equally. Human nature's such that some work hard and some don't work at all. In a system of guaranteed entitlement, there's absolute no incentive for any one to work when freebies are offered to all without merit.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most of you are living in USA ..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The quote by Vietnamese foreign minister was obiviously lost on you...sorry.
All in all, "in theory", you could be right, but in thousands of years of human history, it's not worked nor will it ever. For the very reason you state - human greed.
Now, suresh, if you respond, please address practical issues with some facts, figures and references and not some ideal state that you might have in your mind. As vishwas points out - explain in 'baby steps' the implementation of your ideas.
Let me see.. Manmohan in Delhi or Kurananidhi in Chennai will decide what I need? Seems like communisim to me doesn't it?
Did you miss the paper by Hayek debunking central planners?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which representative of "socialist government in India" exactly comes to your field and tills the land or scrubs the bullocks at the watering hole?
PM? CM? Mayor? IAS Officer? Practical solutions and answers please.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I highly doubt that current govt of India has conspired to keep millions of hungry mouths hungry. So what you are saying about grand plans to eradicate hunger and poverty are in place under the current infrastructure.
Problem's with execution and implementation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Compare this with free market economies, where fancy cars and beggars exist side by side. This is the result of development based on greed. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
History's shown that your form of govt has not put that beggar in the car but put that car driver on the street alongside with beggar. So yes, the playing field's been leveled for all. Before I forget, with your form of govt, the car's are usually impounded by 'state' in name of the motherland. Socialist Soviet Russia even had separate exclusive roads for those impounded cars driven by 'state'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The rich man would rather invest and create more casinos, dance bars, fancy cars, electronic gadgets, because there's enormous profit. This is scenario A. He wouldn't invest in fertilisers, for a starving farmer isn't a good customer. Even if he does, the prices have to be too high for the poor (to account for his production costs), and this will put more pressure on the already starving farmer. This is B.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds nice. But dosen't hold. "Rich" man invests in whatever that'll bring him higher rates of return. Even a "poor man" invests with same goal. To state anything otherwise is pure hogwash.
And your assumption that investing is industries producing fertilisers being less profitable than say in casions/cars is just plain naieve - I'll wager you don't invest in any stocks/markets.
Also, your basic assumption seems to me is that a 'rich man' is basically doing anything that he does to screw the 'poor man' - profits be damned. In free markets, market demand and competition for better goods and services at better prices will render your 'rich man' poor and make innovative and entrepeurial 'poor man' rich.
In real world even the poor farmer at end of day indulges in a bit of toddy and biddi and ain't nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that your socialist govt would be offended by such indulgences in past time of rich.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's foreign to me is your assumption that I'm unaware of tax evasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? This problem can be avoided in a socialist system<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err.. how? Details please.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wealth is proportionate to the work done. No work=no wealth. If no wealth is created, a 'lazy bumb' can make nothing, because there's no wealth to be shared.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so fast. You argued that all are equal stakeholders and all wealth will be shared equally. Human nature's such that some work hard and some don't work at all. In a system of guaranteed entitlement, there's absolute no incentive for any one to work when freebies are offered to all without merit.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most of you are living in USA ..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The quote by Vietnamese foreign minister was obiviously lost on you...sorry.
All in all, "in theory", you could be right, but in thousands of years of human history, it's not worked nor will it ever. For the very reason you state - human greed.
Now, suresh, if you respond, please address practical issues with some facts, figures and references and not some ideal state that you might have in your mind. As vishwas points out - explain in 'baby steps' the implementation of your ideas.