THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. WE MUST RESTORE THE SOVIET UNION!

You bet! The belief that taxing the rich is a good idea is lunacy! The rich are rich because they make their money work harder than they do. 24-7, their money is working. It doesn't sit in a jar or in a bank vault, it is invested in businesses, ideas, real estate, you name it.

Don't you just love the "brilliant" idea of taxing luxury goods as a means of punishing the rich. What the brilliant politicians, and the utter fools who vote for them, don't realize is that it isn't the rich who got to work and actually build the boats, planes, and luxury cars that carry the tax. It's the every day man and woman at the factories around the country who do and then are laid off when the only people who can afford the products of their skilled labor decided not to buy.

The public education system has screwed us over by not teaching us that we are screwing ourselves when we try to screw the rich.

"Could you kindly send me the proof?"

http://www.mises.org/econcalc/POST.asp

"There is no demand curve. This is certainly not true."

Actually, my statement is imprecise. There is a demand curve. It's just impossible to limn it with the data provided. Same thing as "no one is smarter than the market".

I don't know if you are familiar with Mises, Menger et al. Maybe you're not. I also don't know why I'm arguing with you over the glory days of the Soviet Union. Maybe you just want to prove how versed in economics you are. Congrats. If you are defending collectivized ownership of the means of production, I have no earthly idea why you're posting here.

I also don't know why I'm arguing with you over the glory days of the Soviet Union. I cannot speak for you, but this certainly was not my focus.

Maybe you just want to prove how versed in economics you are. No, no desire and no time.

But why do so much anger and frustration on your part? YOU were the one who made an uncommonly precise statement about the demand curve, and did so in an academic manner with a proper citation. Why cannot you assume that I simply want to learn? YOU claimed to have seen the proof; I have not; I merely wanted to learn from you.

Now, how does someone who wants to learn and says so become a "show-off?"

If you are defending collectivized ownership of the means of production, I have no earthly idea why you're posting here.

There are different levels of knowledge. One is to know the fact, and to know the antecedent, what explains that fact is yet another. We all know that "the Soviet Union is bad." To know WHY is more difficult but instructive: it makes it more clear why what we have is good.

You seem to enjoy the same level --- judging by the very precise satement you have made. Apparently, when unable to support it, you start to dislike it. This is fine: it iss not a contest, we give to each other here what we have and not more. But I do not think it nice for you to blame me or attribute to me some childish intent.

Thank you for writing. Have a good night.

"During WWII, the Soviets purposefully moved almost all surviving industry beyond the Ural mountains, to Siberia. I am not aware of any precedent for a similar move, before or after. That "Siberian industry" was created purposefully, quickly, and is still a backbone of the Russian production system."

During the battle of Stalingrad, the NKVD (Stalin's secret police) set up gas-cooled machine guns behind their own lines; they were ordered to shoot any Russian soldier that surrendered or retreated. Anton Beevor, in his excellent book "Stalingrad", reports that over 13,000 Russian soldiers were liquidated by their own countrymen in a six-month period for retreating or surrendering. In fact, the Germans became so desperate for Russian defections for intelligence purposes that they actually had to move their *armor forward to cover surrendering Russian soldiers* from friendly fire.

Beevor also reports that when the final victory of Stalingrad was won, when the 62nd and 64th Red Armies had routed the 6th German Army in the "Kessel", or pocket, they found approximately 50,000 Russians that had switched sides and were fighting with the Germans. This was due to the harsh, "motivational" discipline of their Russian superiors.

I guess it depends on what motivates this wonderful socialist production, huh?

I'm not at all angry or frustrated. I just don't know why you're defending collectivist economies. Anyway, if you need a summary of the Mises article I'll be happy to give you one.

If y'all can bear another long harangue,

GBA: ... the socialist state... does not seem to be innovative at solving problems or creating new technologies or products, and the industries that surround them.

Socialist states can be quite innovative in areas where they have an incentive to innovate, such as weapons and warmaking, the space race, doping drugs used by intl athletes. Where they are less innovative are consumer goods markets, because the state doesn't have an incentive to innovate here.

TQ: The Soviet Russia has almost entirely eliminated illiteracy within the span of one generation.

THere are 3 things that Communism did for the Soviet Union. 1. Near-universal literacy, 2. True labor mobility in the work force (for women, minorities, etc.), 3. Industrial development from feudal society to space technology in 70 years. Maybe the citizens there consider these imporvements worth the cost of life.

TQ: During WWII, the Soviets purposefully moved almost all surviving industry beyond the Ural mountains, to Siberia. I am not aware of any precedent for a similar move

The conditions for such a move probably dont exist anywhere else, so this move is probably not due to the superiority of the system, but rather the unique conditions: An industrializing nation with a large tract of unpopulated land to move to, and a mobile work force, with a guaranteed and captive food supply.

TQ: The Russian MiGs are very good

I agree, and Mikoyan (the "Mi" in MiG) worked for Boeing in the US for several years before going back to the USSR and starting the MiG aeronautical company.

TQ: There are two criteria for any action, not one: efficiency and effectiveness.

Dictatorial states are quite effective as long as leaders can stay in power. Even when it looks to us like they are being inefficient, they may be acting quite efficiently. If Stalin was willing to squander the lives of 20 million Ukrainians to feed Russians and to encourage Russian industry, he was spending what he considered a cheap and freely available resource to create the scarce resource gotten via industrial development.

TQ: Democracy is very well known to be extremely inefficient in its decision-making precisely because the long-run effectiveness is pursued.

Probably not. Democracies are extremely inefficient decision-makers (due to multiple veto-gates) which makes them extraordinarily stable, and allows them to enter into contracts with other states and even private parties. It is these contractual partners who can move technology in democratic countries.

TQ: When launching a war, a dictator is much more effective than a democracy, as we painfully witness at the present time

But, as you are wont to mention, this is not the only goal of a system of govt. Eg, when negotiating (peace treaties or econ treaties), a president (agent) who has little personal power is much more effective. ("I'd like to accommodate you, but the congress will never go for this.")

GBA: I disagree that individuals are not forward looking.

I also agree. And they are just as "Forward looking" in socialist societies. They just have to respond to different incentives. Witness the (perhaps apocryphal) nail factory in the Soviet Union who responded to their 5-year quota of nails by manufacturing tiny pins that were of no use to anyone, but met their numerical goals. When the state finally wized up and changed their quotas to pounds of nails rather than numbers of nails, the factory responded with a 2-ton gigantic nail the size of a missile.

GBA: Socialism is built on a false doctrine of egalitarianism

That depends on whether you are referring to inputs or outputs. Here in the US we like equality of opportunity; in the old SovUn, they had "labor output" equality where everyone who worked an 8-hour shift was paid equally by the state, whether you were a doctor or a janitor.

TQ: Re your efficiency-equity dilemma: Ken Arrow would agree.

The sad part is about 40% of our economy has been socialized in one way or another, IMHO. The middle class is being eliminated and they do not even care or realize it. Most are trying to coast to retirement while their 401K's implode under the pressure of computer games from the investment banks and brokerages, while there is no Social Security when there are no more young to support it. The shell game is up. And the ponzi schemes do not stop there. We use the insurance systems to prop up Medicare yet we give away the benefits to anyone, qualified or not (i.e., all those fine people crossing the desert from the south). The NEA has done what the Soviet Union could not: defeat America. Congratulations teachers, unions, and petty bureaucrats. You have your socialists in power in the courts and government on a national and local scale. Now that you've won, what will you do? Let the terrs attack again so you can re-write the Constitution? Or better yet, let's just dissolve the middle class entirely. The wealthy get their way of life, the rest of us live off the .gov and are assigned our way of life. Thank you very much. And us formerly upper middle class business people are dissolved because we do not agree. I guess I'd best learn how to hire slave labor and make cheap toys. It sounds like I'll have to move overseas to be a capitalist now.

Oh and you are correct about pure democracy. Can you imagine the idiots who vote for Cynthia McKinney being able to make life and death choices in their district? A truely terrifying thought.

This is an interesting and very telling account about the evil nature of the Soviet regime. The question I have is similar to the previous post: what does it have to do with anything on this thread?

I just don't know why you're defending collectivist economies. One more time: you are putting words in my mouth.

If you are interested, please reread my post AND the one that prompted this discussion. I do not know how else reply to you: it is silly for me defend something I never said or set out to do.

Ken Arrow would agree. I am glad. It's great that you are on a first-name basis with him.

I agree with most of what you wrote (the rest is mostly either misunderstandings or insignificant details. But to like Gypsy Kings best --- that surprises me. How about Paco de Lucia?

Exactly- poor people need to be taught that THEY PAY ALL THE TAXES in the form of higher prices for goods and services...

Sheesh the sheeple are so stupid...