Ron Paul is NOT an Austrian economist

There you go again making assertions and defending them with "it's so obvious"

 

...making sense! To refer to socialism you have to refer to worker ownership and control of the means of production. There's no question in that. Given that, why the heck did you think you could get away with something as nonsensical as the bogus 'monetary socialism'?

 

would you prefer monetary fascism?

 

I'd prefer a term that you could define. Its not a scary proposition you know!

 

I can define lots of terms. I see little difference between monetary fascism and socialism, but I thought maybe you would like fascism better. You do, right?

 

Define monetary socialism then. Your dodging is boring

You can't even define monetary socialism, so stop with the nonsense

 

Sure I can. But I will wait untill you back up your accusation- like I asked for about 20 posts ago.

I'm done feeding you, troll.

 

No you can't as it is a nonsensical concept. Your appalling dodge is but confirmation of that

 

I think we've heard enough from the communists.

Let's go back to this statement and get some intelligent comments. Page after page of Reiver calling people cretins is getting tedious.

 

I'm not a communist so you don't half fib. Why don't you define monetary socialism for the fellow? He needs help!

 

Don't you get exhausted from so much trolling?

 

The troll would be you as you attempt to inflame while hiding from comment. I appreciaste that you cannot define monetary socialism. No worries, we'll ask Onion to offer a definition for you

 

we've been through this thoroughly. why do you troll on about it?

 

I want a definition of monetary socialism. You can't provide one. Fair enough. Your bogus attempts to try and inflame win't work. Juist wait for Onion to provide the definition for you

 

Sure you can. Money is a commodity and the Government is the people. If the Government controls the production of a commodity, then in theory, the people control the production of the commodity, hence it's socialized. Correct?

Since Government(people) controls the production of the commodity(money) that makes that commodity(money) socialized.

 

Its these sort of comments that they're trying to avoid (although you're quite right in terms of the definitions they believe). It of course shows no understanding of socialist political economy, naively suggesting that any shift from the unachieable (and unwanted) laissez faire is somehow a little bit of socialism. There is no worker ownership and control of the means of production. Exploitation continues unhampered

 

But (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) not everyone is a "worker". What about the people who refuse to work? They are not just abandoned in a socialist community. If they were, then socialism would work but we humans have compassion which means that those who aren't workers are taken care of just as well as the workers themselves. Also, those who are more productive are not given any more control over the political economy than those who only do enough to get by. There is no reward based on merit, only existence.

Without merit based rewards, no system can function.

 

Welfare can be used in capitalism and socialism. The difference is that its a requirement in capitalism, given the importance of the reserve army as a discipline device on workers

Socialism doesn't generate equality. It eliminates inefficient income differentials. Indeed, in terms of incentives, we can expect an improvement as we eliminat underpayment and allow a result closer to a merit-based outcome

 

That's not true, a merit based outcome can only come about if those without merit are allowed to suffer and die as a result of it.

No human system will allow that due to our compassion.

 

You're a broken record. We've already had this conversation.

 

The notion that a meritocracy must have zero altruistic behaviour is a nonsense! What's important is that effort is rewarded

 

I defined monetary socialism on page four.

His wife supports him. LOL

Just ignore the troll and comment on the OP.

 

That's the best you have? Some rant about government completely alien to socialism? You're making the extremely basic error of confusing government interventionism with worker ownership and control of the means of production

Academics aren't paid much. Shameful to some, but I reckon she gets splendid non-pecuniary benefits

 

And you share the same hobby.

 

I do like a bit of Andy. Your cultural ignorance though isn't an excuse for ignoring the previous post. Sort it out! Give content