Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518521) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

While I understand what you mean, I prefer not to play with word definitions. For me, spoken language is a democratic process, and words mean what the majority of people believe them to mean. That's how language develops. It's called semantic shift. If the majority of people have the "wrong" definition, then it perhaps the word has simply shifted its meaning, and it's time to acknowledge that.

That said, what is the colloquial meaning of socialism? How does the common man on the street define it? I'm from Eastern Europe, and here for example, anyone you ask will tell you that socialism mean the way things were in the Warsaw Pact - a one-party state, propaganda, jobs provided by the state, and all life organized by the state. Nobody here would call Norway socialist. In fact, most people here would simply call them a capitalist country, because to us, any country West of the Warsaw Pact, including Norway, was simply a capitalist country. Socialism meant Us, and capitalism meant Them, and Norway wasn't part of Us.

Of course, that's what socialism means in Eastern Europe, perhaps it has a slightly different meaning in America.

Oh, that's easy. In rightwing America today, socialism means "Anything I don't like". So that they all think Putin is acting like a socialist. Or that Al Qeda are socialists.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518427) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

Hmm. A corrupted state where a handful of powerful elites dominate politics and the economy and use a captive government to repress the people so a select few can have it unimaginably better than others... where else have I seen that...

It's what you get when you teach a species of chimps to talk and then let them rule the world. Just like in those movies.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518423) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

Communism is State Socialism. It should be wrong to say that it is the only socialism out there, but it is definitely socialism.

Soviet communism was (corrupted) state capitalism disguised as state socialism.

Russia was truly communist for a few years after the Russian revolution, until the Bolsheviks took over and turned everything on its head and forever corrupted the word "communism". Now, instead of thinking "oh, communal ownership of the means of production so all may be equal", most people think "oh, corrupted state owns everything and represses its people so that a select few can have it unimaginably better than others" - which is so far from (any of) the communistic ideals that it's almost impossible to go any further.

Soviet communism was communistic in name only.

The fact that so much of the Soviet state has managed to transfer over to the new, capitalist Russia without much difference kind of says it all. Find the greatest common factor or lowest common denominator or whatever.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518407) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More
As with many sociological/economic/psychological experts, Marx was pretty good with his observations and insights regarding existing phenomena, substantially worse with his predictions of what that would all lead to in the future, and just shooting in the dark regarding his suggestions to make it all come out better. Then along came the communist countries, and ignored most of what he said anyway, including the most correct parts. So, indeed, the failure of the Soviets and the transformation of China doesn't prove "Marx was a loon", any more than the failure of OS/2 proves that proponents of GUIs were crazy.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518349) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

Communism is State Socialism. It should be wrong to say that it is the only socialism out there, but it is definitely socialism.

Nonsense. Read your Marx. Communism and Socialism don't even remotely resemble one another. The only reason people get them confused is that Communism, as defined by Marx, was the ideal human goal and has never actually existed. What you describe as "State Socialism" is what most people just call Socialism... because socialism requires a strong State. While some countries liked to CALL THEMSELVES communist, they were not. They were anything but. The best any of them ever managed to achieve were bad forms of socialism and fascism. The reason for that is simple: socialism (the real economic theory of socialism) requires a strong central authority. Whereas communism (genuine communism, according to social and economic theory) has no "authority" at all. The problem has been that once a relatively few people got all that authority, under a socialist or fascist regime, they then never wanted to give it up. So societies never "evolved" beyond that to true communism. Nor is it likely to ever happen. Marx was a loon.

Israeli kibbutzes worked for quite a while, although that's not so much a socialist nation as it is socialism flourishing under a tolerant government. Their final collapse I think demonstrates that key factors in their success would have been both a solid belief in socialism coming into the project, plus universal dedication to some sort of higher calling, i.e. that they were building a nation from the wilderness etc etc,. that was more important that whether you got some sort of material bling. As Israel became an established Western style country, that feeling failed to catch hold among the young, whether born in the kibbutz or not, and since it wasn't being imposed by force from without, Eastern bloc style, they just faded away instead of repression/blowup. Other examples exist in the world though, often religiously based farming communes, off the top of my nonexpert head. Anyway, I guess my point is that it requires voluntary belief on the part of the participants to succeed, and the attempts to create a new man with such beliefs built in by force were predictably disastrous.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518277) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

If you looked at libertarian socialist societies them you'd likely find they are less likely to cheat thanks to a high degree of social trust. Also, in a capitalist society, you'll find that the rich are more likely to cheat.

[citation needed]

I'd more easily believe that the libertarians would cheat more, because they assume the rules don't prevent it, and that rich capitalists would actually cheat less, but they'd exploit every nuance of the rules to their advantage.

Gee, if there were only some way to search for citations regarding topics such as this. Something where you could enter in a couple of words and find links that you could follow to primary sources. Of course, people would probably use it to find and ogle dirty pictures, so we could call it something like go-ogle. anyway, http://media.wix.com/ugd/80ea2...

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518191) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

That same Capitalism, where everybody is not just allowed, but encouraged to do whatever other people are willing to pay for, will solve that problem. Whether it is creating entertainment, or growing healthier foods, or designing fancier gadgets — as long as people are allowed to profit from their ideas (rather than be told "You didn't build that!"), we are fine.

And then along came Enron, and the Savings and Loans bubble, and the housing bubble, and junk bonds, and corporate raiders, and outsourcing, and offshoring, and externalized costs, and strip mining, and toxic waste dumps, and we all profited from those ideas, as they trickled down upon our uplifted faces.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518147) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

From experience; I would be willing to bet that ANYONE living with scarcity threatening day to day living is willing to cheat, lie, con, finagle and it can get so bad that you steal, mug, burgle,injure and could possibly kill, dependent on circumstances.

And, really, the same thing happens on Wall Street.

Capitalism leads to cheating and malfeasance just as well.

The difference is the rich feel entitled to it, and some people think it's the natural order of things.

Also, the difference is that not cheating in East Germany could likely lead to an early death for yourself or a family member from actual poverty, whereas not cheating on Wall St. could lead to occasionally being forced to touch an object which is not made of genuine leather, hardwood, silver, or wool.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 616

by gzuckier (#47518107) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

If that was his point he failed miserably at expressing it.

Well, Marx expressed it quite well. Apparently, Russia and China didn't bother to read it there either, however. Thereby proving Marx correct, ironically. On another note, "Have you read Marx?" "Yes, I fear they're from bedbugs"

Comment: Re: Does anyone oppose this? tsarkon reports (Score 1) 155

by gzuckier (#47505103) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

> As I said, "models without agw are completely useless for the past 50 years" How does this not show that it's due mostly to man?

Models without the average shoe size of red-headed clowns are completely useless for the past 50 years. How does that not show that it's mostly due to clown shoe size?

Incidentally, what size are you wearing?

Because when you put in an AGW term, the models do much better than if you leave out any AGW term. As is abundantly clear from the link I provided. http://www.ipcc.ch/publication.... If you can demonstrate that models with the average shoe size of red-headed clowns as a factor do better than those without, then I will absolutely accept it as a parameter. Kind of have to, mathematically, and by the definition of mathematical model. Or, if you can provide a model without AGW that does anywhere near as well as the models with. How is it you are so ignorant of what is, not only the basic tenet of mathematical modeling, so completely intuitively obvious, that factors which make the model fit significantly better are kept, those that don't are dropped? Are you expending a lot of mental energy to maintain this impenetrable denseness? Why?

Comment: Re: Does anyone oppose this? tsarkon reports (Score 1) 155

by gzuckier (#47498061) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

If you have a model showing warming, you still have to show that it's due mostly to man, and you have to show that making a given change would slow, stop, or reverse it. That is all very difficult to do. But the current state of the science is that they can't even reliably predict the warming. That doesn't mean they are wrong. I have my method of study be flipping a coin and I could end up with the right conclusion. But the burden is on those who want to radically change energy consumption habits and/or cost structure, and that's where people, including me, aren't convinced. Trying to turn it around as if the burden is on "the deniers", as you say, is an old enough trick that I don't think anyone will fall for it.

As in, http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...? As I said, "models without agw are completely useless for the past 50 years" How does this not show that it's due mostly to man? Compared to the size of the miss without an AGW term, the overshoot in recent years is negligible. Of course, if anybody anywhere does have a model which does match climate history without including an AGW term, this is a great chance to post it and show how those IPCC folks are cherry picking, right? Anyone? Hello? If not, then any honest scientist is essentially required to include AGW in any climate hypothesis. Otherwise, you are indeed a denier. You don't have to show that making a given change would slow stop or reverse it. I have a model that suggests that if you swallow 200 mg of cyanide you will die. I strongly urge you to accept this model and not disregard it on the basis that it does not have a mechanism that would slow stop or reverse it. "If you have a model showing warming, you still have to show that it's due mostly to man"

Comment: Re: Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 155

by gzuckier (#47454473) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade
And that's why we take all the kids who have the impetus to come here from South America and send them home, rather than give them an education so they can support our society in the future when there will be more retirees then workets. So sad that they are already incorrigible criminals at age 7,having deliberately violated our immigration laws.

Comment: Re: Does anyone oppose this? tsarkon reports (Score 1) 155

by gzuckier (#47454439) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade
Actually scientists reinterpret old data all the time. You think they don't make relativistic corrections to estimated velocities from data pre relativity ? And you think that actual temperature data now that we have it should not be used because it no longer correlates with tree rings from the far north? Because that's more logical then to hypothesize that something might be happening in places like Alaska over the past 50 years that might affect tree growth? But you fudge the central question; if you don't know of any models that don't overestimate recent warming, then do you know of any models with no agw term at all that do a decent job of estimating recent temperature at all? The way they estimate 19th and early 20th century temps? It's a pretty standard axiom of modeling that if a term improves the model fit, it's a valid effect. What's the denials logic; models with the AGW term overestimate the warming in the most recent years, whereas models without agw are completely useless for the past 50 years, thereby disproving AGW?

May the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.

Working...