"Marxists are clueless" (Funk N. Furter)

[H20nly]

you sexy thing...

[starving student]

oops wrong thread

[H20nly]

yeah, you were looking for Being a Whitey Makes Zero Sense.

[starving student]

no you didn't

[Steve Ballmer]

I tried NOT being a whitey for a few days, but it didn't take. I guess it's just not in my genes... *sigh*

[nathannn]

Ok, I'll bite. Or should that be peck? Right wing policies only benefit the rich. So being a righty makes no sense unless you are rich. When I say rich, I mean properly rich. And even then, you would be better off under socialism, even though you wouldn't be as rich.

I rest my case.

You're good at saying stuff. Let's see if you can back it up.

How could he back this up when its never been done properly. It first has to be given a chance.
Its like telling the many people who contributed to the invention of the airplane that it can't be done because they don't believe it can be done. If the airplane was never given a chance the airplane would have never worked. If socialism is never given a proper chance without capitalist sabotage it wont work.
The fact is socialism can work and in a modern society with civilizations it is the only proper and just form of economy. If you don't like socialism don't use public roads, don't go to public schools, don't go to libraries, stay out of all public parks do not collect any money from the government such as social security or the dole (?) all of these are socialist. Government is inherently socialist why shouldn't the economy be also.
The only other just government would be no government and we would be tribal once again.

[Steve Ballmer]

Because economics is not an empirical science. Funk et al have failed to demonstrate the viability of a socialist commonwealth a priori, and since it cannot be discovered a posteriori for both practical and theoretical reasons, you have no grounds to claim its superiory to other models.

[nathannn]

Because economics is not an empirical science. Funk et al have failed to demonstrate the viability of a socialist commonwealth a priori, and since it cannot be discovered a posteriori for both practical and theoretical reasons, you have no grounds to claim its superiory to other models.

Yes, did you not read anything I said? Socialism has never been given a proper chance each time a socialist economy shows the twinkle of starting, capitalism comes along and spends as much as it takes to create wars to crush it.
Germany's economy prior to WWII is the best evidence we have that socialism can work.

What makes you think it wouldn't work? Do you feel there is a lack of money for it to work? You do know that a handful of families have in their possessions wealth with an estimated worth more than that of the entire population of the world.

[Steve Ballmer]

I read everything you said, but you apparently didn't understand my answer.

[nathannn]

I read everything you said, but you apparently didn't understand my answer.

Yeah you are talking over the head of most people with that one but what I got was, Because economics is not an empirical science funk n and others cannot show how socialism is good for everyone and I have no proof to claim its is better than any other economic system.

If that is what you meant then I really can't respond because you are taking the conversation in circles.

[Steve Ballmer]

Yeah you are talking over the head of most people with that one but what I got was, Because economics is not an empirical science funk n and others cannot show how socialism is good for everyone and I have no proof to claim its is better than any other economic system.

If that is what you meant then I really can't respond because you are taking the conversation in circles.

Not at all. I said that because economics is not an empirical science, the fact that socialism has not been "tested" is neither here nor there. You need to be able to demonstrate its viability logically, which is something that Funk N. and co have thus far not been able to. I could add that Von Mises and others have already demonstrated its non-viability, but I wouldn't ask you to actually, y'know, read a book or nuttin'.

[Steve Ballmer]

Being smart is a burden best left to smart people.

[Steve Ballmer]

I think we can assume here that you didn't understand my post either

[Steve Ballmer]

Because economics is not an empirical science. Funk et al have failed to demonstrate the viability of a socialist commonwealth a priori, and since it cannot be discovered a posteriori for both practical and theoretical reasons, you have no grounds to claim its superiory to other models.

You've never asked me to demonstrate the viability of socialism. There is overwhelming evidence that it would work a million times better than capitalism.

There is no evidence.

[Steve Ballmer]

I'm not an economist