A Resource Based Economy - page 7. | Bitcointalksearch.org

LightRider

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1021

I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 05:25:30 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:09:50 PM

Are you kidding? Whoever owns the controlling stake of an enterprise (sometimes it is even below 50%) appoints its top management, be it state, a private investor or an investment group. There is no such thing as private management unless the management themselves have the controlling stake...

Whether this management is up to the task is another matter

I`m not going to debate the corporate structures because i`m not that familiar with it.

However if it's a government appointed CEO and director board, then it might not be as efficient than a private one, because it will be subject to international politics influence and other political decisions. They might decide to embargo 1 country from exports, politically, wheareas this would be a poor decision from economic point of view.

You're not familiar with a resource based economy but you've been trying to debate against it for a while now. Whence the double standard?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 05:51:13 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:42:07 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 05:36:16 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:26:59 PM

Aramco, no? It has not just a government-appointed management, it is actually managed by the royal family of the KSA with all their whimsies and fancies like gold cars and pans

Ok then its neither government nor corporate, it's royal property then, because it belongs to that kingdom?

To the royal family, to be precise. According to your logic, it should be even worse than if it were controlled just by government

No:

Quote

If the owner = government = 1 person, then it might be a different thing and it has more in common with aristocracy than capitalism.

If its owned only by 1 king, then it's more efficient because it is only influenced by 1 person, whereas if it were a government, it would be influenced by hundreds of politicians fighting for control over that enterprise.

Do you know how large is the KSA royal family? It is not just "hundreds of politicians fighting for control over that enterprise", it is literally thousands of princes permanently intriguing against each other behind the scenes...

As it has always been in royal families

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:42:07 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 05:36:16 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:26:59 PM

Aramco, no? It has not just a government-appointed management, it is actually managed by the royal family of the KSA with all their whimsies and fancies like gold cars and pans

Ok then its neither government nor corporate, it's royal property then, because it belongs to that kingdom?

To the royal family, to be precise. According to your logic, it should be even worse than if it were controlled just by government

No:

Quote

If the owner = government = 1 person, then it might be a different thing and it has more in common with aristocracy than capitalism.

If its owned only by 1 king, then it's more efficient because it is only influenced by 1 person, whereas if it were a government, it would be influenced by hundreds of politicians fighting for control over that enterprise.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 05:36:16 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:26:59 PM

Aramco, no? It has not just a government-appointed management, it is actually managed by the royal family of the KSA with all their whimsies and fancies like gold cars and pans

Ok then its neither government nor corporate, it's royal property then, because it belongs to that kingdom?

To the royal family, to be precise. According to your logic, it should be even worse than if it were controlled just by government

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:26:59 PM

Aramco, no? It has not just a government-appointed management, it is actually managed by the royal family of the KSA with all their whimsies and fancies like gold cars and pans

Ok then its neither government nor corporate, it's royal property then, because it belongs to that kingdom?

In my imagination, i would consider government enterprise as something controlled by either a local government council (transportation,subways,etc) or a national company (dams, power plants, government oil company)

And needless to say that all of them are innefficient, because they are heavily influenced by politics and every politicians own interest.

If the owner = government = 1 person, then it might be a different thing and it has more in common with aristocracy than capitalism.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 05:25:30 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:09:50 PM

Are you kidding? Whoever owns the controlling stake of an enterprise (sometimes it is even below 50%) appoints its top management, be it state, a private investor or an investment group. There is no such thing as private management unless the management themselves have the controlling stake...

Whether this management is up to the task is another matter

I`m not going to debate the corporate structures because i`m not that familiar with it.

However if it's a government appointed CEO and director board, then it might not be as efficient than a private one, because it will be subject to international politics influence and other political decisions. They might decide to embargo 1 country from exports, politically, wheareas this would be a poor decision from economic point of view.

Aramco, no? It has not just a government-appointed management, it is actually managed by the royal family of the KSA with all their whimsies and fancies like gold cars and pans

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 05:09:50 PM

Are you kidding? Whoever owns the controlling stake of an enterprise (sometimes it is even below 50%) appoints its top management, be it state, a private investor or an investment group. There is no such thing as private management unless the management themselves have the controlling stake...

Whether this management is up to the task is another matter

I`m not going to debate the corporate structures because i`m not that familiar with it.

However if it's a government appointed CEO and director board, then it might not be as efficient than a private one, because it will be subject to international politics influence and other political decisions. They might decide to embargo 1 country from exports, politically, wheareas this would be a poor decision from economic point of view.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 13, 2016, 04:44:12 PM

That is illogical, if it's not managed by government bureocrats then it's not a government enterprise. Yes they get 100% the revenue, and they legally own it but that doesnt make it so.

That is like saying that if I had a corporation and pay 50% taxes on profits, that the government is 50% shareholder.

No, if they have private corporate boards, and CEO and they get their salary and bonuses by managing the enterprise then it's privately managed but government owned. So there is a distincition there.

However there cannot exist a government enterprise like the ones in soviet union, because there a government appointed individual controlled it, mostly very inneficiently and with big corruption. It would go bankrupt soon.

Are you kidding? Whoever owns the controlling stake of an enterprise (sometimes it is even below 50%) appoints its top management, be it state, a private investor or an investment group. There is no such thing as private management unless the management themselves have the controlling stake...

Whether this management is up to the task is another matter

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: deisik on July 13, 2016, 12:31:28 PM

This is what precisely makes it a "government" enterprise.

That is illogical, if it's not managed by government bureocrats then it's not a government enterprise. Yes they get 100% the revenue, and they legally own it but that doesnt make it so.

That is like saying that if I had a corporation and pay 50% taxes on profits, that the government is 50% shareholder.

No, if they have private corporate boards, and CEO and they get their salary and bonuses by managing the enterprise then it's privately managed but government owned. So there is a distincition there.

However there cannot exist a government enterprise like the ones in soviet union, because there a government appointed individual controlled it, mostly very inneficiently and with big corruption. It would go bankrupt soon.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: ngupowered on July 13, 2016, 10:47:19 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

Open Source softwares are not an antithesis to capitalism, it's just a voluntary cooperation, which is compatible with capitalism.

That's like saying vegetable soup is compatible with capitalism. It doesn't make any sense. Capitalism isn't just private property, but also trading for profit, in the free market, which really isn't compatible with free software, unless you're Bill Gates where money doesn't matter and you can play philanthropist.

Capitalism is like a religion saying "try joining us or die" whereas an RBE is more like "don't join us and don't die".

Vegetable soup is compatible with capitalism, you can sell it in restaurants..

Free software can be used to build non-free software.

RBE is like saying: "join us or go to the gulag"

Quote from: ngupowered on July 13, 2016, 10:47:19 AM

So you believe that when a 3-year old says "mine", it really means it like an adult would, rather than "hey, I'm playing with that now; await your turn!"?

I like to play with my property until i die. I would certainly not feel comfortable if somebody stole my laptop or cellphone and watch all my private photos on it, and start sending prank SMS or emails to my contact list.

It would be very weird wouldn't it?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 02:01:28 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 12, 2016, 01:54:34 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

Quote from: ngupowered on July 12, 2016, 11:57:23 AM

Now to Venezuela. You fail to comprehend that an ALREADY capitalistic world isn't going to invest in an ALREADY poor country with low property rights and security - not going to happen - meaning that they are essentially cut off from the world, hence their problems; but it doesn't prove that Venezuela is a failure, just that the "market" doesn't like it. Let's face it: if you believe something to be yours, you're not going to hand it over to someone intent on destroying it.

They have tons of oil, if they had exported that, and divided the profits amongst all citizens, they could have lived in this sort of "utopic" socialism.

But it didnt happen. Why? Because government enterprises are always inneficient. Only private businesses can operate in efficiency

Aramco, no?

You are bubbling something without a second thought if what you say is actually true

Then check the wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

It has a President and CEO, which means it operates like a private corporations, where 100% of the shares are owned by the government.

So it has the structure of a private corporation, and only the shares are owned by the government

This is what precisely makes it a "government" enterprise. The correct term is national company, i.e. a company fully or in larger part owned by a national government. You seem to have completely decoupled with logic. According to your words, government enterprises are always inefficient, but since Aramco is owned by the KSA government and assumed to be efficient, this means that no government enterprise can be owned by government...

Which essentially equals stating that government enterprises are not government enterprises, lol

Quote

Saudi Aramco [...] is a Saudi Arabian national petroleum and natural gas company based in Dhahran

Quote

A national oil company is an oil company fully or in the majority owned by a national government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_oil_company

ngupowered

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

Open Source softwares are not an antithesis to capitalism, it's just a voluntary cooperation, which is compatible with capitalism.

That's like saying vegetable soup is compatible with capitalism. It doesn't make any sense. Capitalism isn't just private property, but also trading for profit, in the free market, which really isn't compatible with free software, unless you're Bill Gates where money doesn't matter and you can play philanthropist.

Capitalism is like a religion saying "try joining us or die" whereas an RBE is more like "don't join us and don't die".

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

Well then good luck changing 1 million years of human genetic evolving in a few decades with anti-private property propaganda.
compatible with capitalism.

So you believe that when a 3-year old says "mine", it really means it like an adult would, rather than "hey, I'm playing with that now; await your turn!"?

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: deisik on July 12, 2016, 01:54:34 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

Quote from: ngupowered on July 12, 2016, 11:57:23 AM

Now to Venezuela. You fail to comprehend that an ALREADY capitalistic world isn't going to invest in an ALREADY poor country with low property rights and security - not going to happen - meaning that they are essentially cut off from the world, hence their problems; but it doesn't prove that Venezuela is a failure, just that the "market" doesn't like it. Let's face it: if you believe something to be yours, you're not going to hand it over to someone intent on destroying it.

They have tons of oil, if they had exported that, and divided the profits amongst all citizens, they could have lived in this sort of "utopic" socialism.

But it didnt happen. Why? Because government enterprises are always inneficient. Only private businesses can operate in efficiency

Aramco, no?

You are bubbling something without a second thought if what you say is actually true

Then check the wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

It has a President and CEO, which means it operates like a private corporations, where 100% of the shares are owned by the government.

So it has the structure of a private corporation, and only the shares are owned by the government.

That is not the same as a communist factory where the people vote directly in direct democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

And even the cooperative doesnt fit the marxist ideology.

So I`m sure when communists talk about "common ownership of the means of production" they dont have any real world examples of that, because all organization entities are somewhat centrally controlled and have some form of private property.

Marxists just cant comprehend that private property is a totally natural phenomena.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 12, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

Quote from: ngupowered on July 12, 2016, 11:57:23 AM

Now to Venezuela. You fail to comprehend that an ALREADY capitalistic world isn't going to invest in an ALREADY poor country with low property rights and security - not going to happen - meaning that they are essentially cut off from the world, hence their problems; but it doesn't prove that Venezuela is a failure, just that the "market" doesn't like it. Let's face it: if you believe something to be yours, you're not going to hand it over to someone intent on destroying it.

They have tons of oil, if they had exported that, and divided the profits amongst all citizens, they could have lived in this sort of "utopic" socialism.

But it didnt happen. Why? Because government enterprises are always inneficient. Only private businesses can operate in efficiency

Aramco, no?

You are bubbling something without a second thought if what you say is actually true or universally applicable

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: ngupowered on July 12, 2016, 11:57:23 AM

RealBitcoin, of course it takes willpower to change a capitalist; but it doesn't take capital; take Linux for instance: developed purely from will, WITHOUT capital (money).

Well then good luck changing 1 million years of human genetic evolving in a few decades with anti-private property propaganda.

Open Source softwares are not an antithesis to capitalism, it's just a voluntary cooperation, which is compatible with capitalism.

You can still use open source software to create private property, and in this sense it can create a good balance between "no ownership" and
"private ownership".

Bitcoin is owned by nobody, which is not equal to "owned by the totalitarian soviet politbureau".

Quote from: ngupowered on July 12, 2016, 11:57:23 AM

Now to Venezuela. You fail to comprehend that an ALREADY capitalistic world isn't going to invest in an ALREADY poor country with low property rights and security - not going to happen - meaning that they are essentially cut off from the world, hence their problems; but it doesn't prove that Venezuela is a failure, just that the "market" doesn't like it. Let's face it: if you believe something to be yours, you're not going to hand it over to someone intent on destroying it.

They have tons of oil, if they had exported that, and divided the profits amongst all citizens, they could have lived in this sort of "utopic" socialism.

But it didnt happen. Why? Because government enterprises are always inneficient. Only private businesses can operate in efficiency.

But hence they have shitty property rights systems, so obviously no capitalist invested in that country, so they suffer from a lack of capitalism now, which is just called socialism.

ngupowered

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

RealBitcoin, of course it takes willpower to change a capitalist; but it doesn't take capital; take Linux for instance: developed purely from will, WITHOUT capital (money).

Now to Venezuela. You fail to comprehend that an ALREADY capitalistic world isn't going to invest in an ALREADY poor country with low property rights and security - not going to happen - meaning that they are essentially cut off from the world, hence their problems; but it doesn't prove that Venezuela is a failure, just that the "market" doesn't like it. Let's face it: if you believe something to be yours, you're not going to hand it over to someone intent on destroying it.

MingLee

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 520

Quote from: LightRider on July 10, 2016, 08:33:39 PM

Everyone will die under capitalism. It will spare no one.

And everyone dies under communism, socialism, feudalism, traditional economies, everything. There isn't anything that capitalism does or has that other economic systems do as well.

No-one is spared under any system, and I can't believe anyone would think that someone is enslaved by one system or the other. All systems enslave.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1007

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: ngupowered on July 11, 2016, 03:23:50 PM

The facts below are what keep staring at RealBitcoin, every time he opens his mouth to say something he thinks clever:

Do we (the earth) have the technology and resources to give everyone a decent standard of living? YES

No we dont have the willpower. Because that requires capital, it requires capital to organize humans, unless you want to do it by force , at which point you admit that RBE = Stalinism.

The technology didnt came out of thin air, it required 200 years of research and capital investment to be done, in a (semi)free market enviroment.

Quote from: ngupowered on July 11, 2016, 03:23:50 PM

Do we have the money, or is it profitable to do so? NO

Those answers are what you ever need to show RealBitcoin.

"We" dont have the money, because that would imply robbing people of their hard earned wealth and lifestyle to sarcifice it for the cult-like "common good" theory.

The lowest common denominator is the lifestyle of an average venezuelan in the middle of hyperinflation. How is the leftist economy working out there? Not very well.

So there is money to do so, but that money is not yours and it will only move as much as the owners want it to move.

Yes we can considerably improve the lifestyle of the average people in the next decades, but it will not be necessary to forcibly impose RBE on every human.

ngupowered

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

The facts below are what keep staring at RealBitcoin, every time he opens his mouth to say something he thinks clever:

Do we (the earth) have the technology and resources to give everyone a decent standard of living? YES

Do we have the money, or is it profitable to do so? NO

Those answers are what you ever need to show RealBitcoin.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 10, 2016, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 10, 2016, 04:41:14 PM

And so what? I hope you won't blame the Russian tsar Nicholas II (and his predecessors) in sympathy toward communism? The tsarist Russia had been even more underdeveloped and backward country than the Soviet Union circa 1940 with famines and all those things you mentioned...

Now tell me that it is communism that should be held responsible for the overall backwardness of the tsarist Russia

Yes and it all worked fine in feudalism, at least it wasn't a tyrrany, it wasnt good ,and i`m not defending feudalism, but it was better than communism

Yes what? That we should blame communism for the devastating backwardness of the tsarist Russia?

I'm singularly curious how you can claim that "it all worked fine in feudalism" if Russia under tsars had been one of the most backward countries in Europe back then?

Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 7. (Read 288301 times)