Originally Posted by contracycle
|
|
They don't make it irrelevant, they just mitigate the backwardness,making the relationship non-linear.
|
Exactly. But it really does make it irrelevant on the timescale/case under consideration.
|
Quote:
|
|
Your ignoring what I'm saying. That would be true of the 80's, but up until the mid 60's you would have been better of in most areas of the WPO.
|
... than in the UK, probably. Not so sure about the US or Continal Europe. In any case, so, yes, as agreed, the soviet centralisation system delivered infrastructure better than 'capitalism' simply because centralisation beats the market mechanism in things like infrastructure/public goods provision.
|
Quote:
|
|
Plus, if the war aspect had been eliminated, the USSR would no doubt have become less centralised and expended more effort on consumer goods.
|
?! After 45, they lived in the same kind of 'peace' we all lived in so sorry but that doesn't cut it.
|
Quote:
|
|
But it might be if what you needed was infrastructure and to win a war. And seeing as that is what the USSR had to do, it's not very surprising that they chose the best means to go about them, is it?
|
See above. Till 45, they were at war. Till the mid-60s, they were getting basic infrastructure in place. After that, pffft... the system couldn't deliver the consumer goods the people required and the high tech stuff needed to keep up with the American militaro-industrial complex (wasteful and centralised as it is, it still managed better).
|
Quote:
|
|
Plus, I don't see that it is at all the case that people "chose the West".
|
I meant, if you were a 'soul'/spirit of a baby looking to get 'incarnated' in the 80s and you had the choice, would you choose the soviet bloc or somewhere in the West? Anyone not hell bent on making an ideological point would choose the West.
|
Quote:
|
|
You're conveniently assuming they have a choise in the matter and have ther ability to do so. Which for most people is not the case.
|
As with salary negotiations before the conservative revolution. You could ask for anything you want and then you can negotiate. As I said, there are advantages to paying your employees with shares. In a way, an integrated conglomerate is a bit of the same: You're paying your suppliers and clients with equity...
|
Quote:
|
|
It would be more important to look at the mode.
|
OKay. What's the mode, then?
|
Quote:
|
|
There are many people to day whose wages are so low that they are still entitled to state benefits to allow them a decent standard of living. So no, they don;t have any discretionary spending power to speak of, and would not be able to afford a cut like that at all.
|
So, as I said, the cut I mentioned was 10%. The 25/35% cut is based on my personal experience with the french system. I got unemployed. Technically, you're supposed to receive 80% of your salary. In practice, this is gross. Since taxes still apply to your unemployement benefits, it really meant that I was left with around 65% of my previous net. This allowed me to keep my roof over my head (as opposed to 'a' roof, which, in the UK, sucks ass as far as indemnisation systems go) and pay on-going bills and food. But all discretionary spending was erased.
My point is that this is true for a large amount of people, both on higher and lower earnings.
And while you are right that some may have no discretionary amount at all, this is not the general situation, especially not in the 60s with unionised personel, about whom we were really talking about... not present-day, part-time, service workers...
|
Quote:
|
|
I'm not sure who "they" is in this paragraph.
|
The British people.
|
Quote:
|
|
Wealth "creation" (i.e. expropriation) isn't easier now for anyone except those who already rich.
|
So that's my point - I feel (but I don't know for sure) that the proportion of entrepreneurs getting very rich is higher now than back then. You seem to disagree. I don't really have the time to dig into tax returns and stuff to figure it out but that'd be what it'd take - Looking at how many people jumped tax bands and how many people (%-wise) converted into millionaires/billionaires between 50s and 70s vs. post-80s...
Linear Mode
