GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001
The above statement amounts to nothing more than right-wing dribble and nonsense. You are also confusing politics with economics.
Actually the (former) car industry here was heavily subsidized by the government (almost all levels of government), including tax breaks, and one by one they still disappeared. In Holden's case it was GM in Detroit that decided it was no longer viable. All of them were private companies, that were also privately operated. The fact is that it's far cheaper to make stuff in China for a number of reasons, like they don't have to pay their workers as much, they don't have to give them the same rights and working conditions, etc.
Your post also ignores the fact that the digital age has changed things quite fundamentally. The "bricks and mortar" business has far more overheads than the online business. An example of this is Australia Post; once upon a time, the bulk of their business was delivering the traditional letter, now it's mainly delivering parcels bought online - think "online businesses" and "email". They even invested in a new multimillion dollar processing facility for delivering parcels bought online.
Hazel also makes a very good point about secure, or should I say insecure work. A lot of the jobs on offer here are casual jobs, trying to find a permanent full time job is like looking for a needle in a haystack here - even if you have experience, even a lot of experience. Again, back in the day, you could get a job and more or less keep it for life, now, it's very unlikely you'll find a job and be able to keep it for life.
So what you're talking about is only a very small part of what is a far bigger picture, and therefore what I've said above is by far, a far bigger part of the reason for the current state of the job market/situation here. I suspect the same is far from limited to Australia, that said. So you're avoiding the real issues that therefore have very little to do with government or "Socialism", just to bolster your "pure capitalist" ideological agenda.
I must say, it's sad that both yourself, and the other poster quoted above can't look at an issue through non-political eyes. It speaks volumes about the world we live in, and really casts a lot of doubt on what you say about somehow being apolitical or some such...
jsb, your blinders are having you not realize that your accusations of blinders of others is blinding you from seeing your own. The car industry is a classic example of chrony capitalism ie: Socialism. In true Capitalism the government would not hand out bail outs to corporations they would sink or swim on their own merit. For those companies that sink the proper outcome is bankruptcy court and either restructure the debt or dissolve the assets or find a buyer for the company that is willing to absorb the debt etc... Bail Outs is a tool of the Socialist/Fascist system.
Interesting that you end the post with ....apolitical or some such, when you are bashing every good post/idea posited about Capitalism. Makes one wonder if apolitical really means you must agree with "us" similar to bipartisan.
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,826
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu
jsb, your blinders are having you not realize that your accusations of blinders of others is blinding you from seeing your own. The car industry is a classic example of chrony capitalism ie: Socialism. In true Capitalism the government would not hand out bail outs to corporations they would sink or swim on their own merit. For those companies that sink the proper outcome is bankruptcy court and either restructure the debt or dissolve the assets or find a buyer for the company that is willing to absorb the debt etc... Bail Outs is a tool of the Socialist/Fascist system.
Interesting that you end the post with ....apolitical or some such, when you are bashing every good post/idea posited about Capitalism. Makes one wonder if apolitical really means you must agree with "us" similar to bipartisan.
Interesting that you quote my whole post, even though you seem to have cheery picked only parts of it to respond to, and not to mention quoted a comment that wasn't even in response to your post, but anyway...
And now we are back to the argument that "if it isn't pure capitalism, it's socialism". And I'm the one with the "blinders on" ? Isn't that yourself making that argument ? Well, I believe it is. So clearly it's very much yourself that has the right-wing ideological "blinders" on. So nice try.
While I do actually agree that if a company isn't viable without government support, it's far better to let them either sell it to someone who can absorb the debt, and restructure it or let it dissolve... I'm not sure you could call our government's support of the former car industry a "bail out" per se. I think the better term would probably be "life support" as someone who actually lives here. Either way, it goes back to the same argument you were making before in that, "any government support (including tax breaks) means Socialism", which again, really amounts to nothing more than right-wing dribble from someone who just can't look at an issue through non-political eyes - again, very sad.
I don't think it's honestly worth dignifying your last comment with a response, other than to say it's just silly when you read what I've actually said - so perhaps you should try and understand my points properly through non-political eyes.
In any case, since you clearly can't divorce your right-wing ideological political views from the issue, then I doubt there's much point in continuing to repeat the same points over and over again. You also don't seem to have a very good working knowledge of Australian politics or our economy, welfare or likely health systems for that matter...
Usa is the worst of capitalism, Medical bankruptcies, people having to have many jobs, pathetic minimum wage. Wearing guns to church...
When I go the local pub I don't have to tip the barman, taxi or anyone. The country I grew up in had the highest living standard of just about anywhere. This was NZ. We had a free health system. Milk used cost to 4 cents a pint, bread was just as cheap. Also It was called the most socialist country outside Russia. Most people have never moved outside their bubble.
THe first beggar I ever saw in my life was when I went to USA on a training course.
Now, look at the democracy index: USA is a flawed democracy:
Alert Chuang-Tzu - I agree with you wholeheartedly that so-called Western Civilization knows little and dismisses more of the contributions China has made to Civilization for millennia, probably dating back much further than any other geographic area or peoples, but I hope you noticed that on the scale linked by nigelc above, currently China is 130th. Don't you have to admit, at least to yourself, that it is not a good example of real Capitalism? It really didn't stop with Mao's demise. By extension that implies there is no correlation between "having a little Capitalism" and enlightenment, morality or freedom. The system seems to me shackled just as it's people are, and have been for a very long time.
With all friendliness and respect toward you, I think combining your respect for Capitalism and that for China are at odds, and it hurts your arguments. You might consider making a more firm choice if you wish to champion Capitalism effectively.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelc
Usa is the worst of capitalism, Medical bankruptcies, people having to have many jobs, pathetic minimum wage. Wearing guns to church...
When I go the local pub I don't have to tip the barman, taxi or anyone. The country I grew up in had the highest living standard of just about anywhere. This was NZ. We had a free health system. Milk used cost to 4 cents a pint, bread was just as cheap. Also It was called the most socialist country outside Russia. Most people have never moved outside their bubble.
THe first beggar I ever saw in my life was when I went to USA on a training course.
Now, look at the democracy index: USA is a flawed democracy:
Most of the workforce in Australia is casual because that's the way the right wing loonies like it. To create insecurity and fear. FUD.
USA was not designed to be a Democracy. It was a Constitutional Republic, technically still is, however, the educational institutions, political elites and Socialists have over the last few decades began transitioning it towards Democracy. Keep in mind that Democracy is nothing more then mob rule, 51% tell 49% how all of them will live etc... Democracy works great for the elites and the majority, whoever that is at that time, not so much for the 49%. Democracy is a more modern term for Socialist/Fascist/Communist, it is a way to hide true intentions via elections and ballots rather then revolutions involving weapons.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
Alert Chuang-Tzu - I agree with you wholeheartedly that so-called Western Civilization knows little and dismisses more of the contributions China has made to Civilization for millennia, probably dating back much further than any other geographic area or peoples, but I hope you noticed that on the scale linked by nigelc above, currently China is 130th. Don't you have to admit, at least to yourself, that it is not a good example of real Capitalism? It really didn't stop with Mao's demise. By extension that implies there is no correlation between "having a little Capitalism" and enlightenment, morality or freedom. The system seems to me shackled just as it's people are, and have been for a very long time.
With all friendliness and respect toward you, I think combining your respect for Capitalism and that for China are at odds, and it hurts your arguments. You might consider making a more firm choice if you wish to champion Capitalism effectively.
Thank you for the Alert.
As I said previously, there is a major difference between ancient China and Modern China. Over the last 10 years, however, China is becoming more Capitalistic and freeing up the harsh restrictions put in place by the Socialist/Communist bureaucracy. They still have along way to go though before being called a "Free Society". The point I made earlier is that while China is becoming more Capitalistic, the USA is actually becoming more Marxist/Socialist as evident in the tax code and the ever growing nanny state/welfare state policies.
Over the last 10 years, however, China is becoming more Capitalistic and freeing up the harsh restrictions put in place by the Socialist/Communist bureaucracy.
I believe rather the opposite is the case.
They found a way to make a totalitarian regime "work" economically.
Here's a great docu about it: https://www.denkangebot.org/allgemei...made-in-china/
Unfortunately it's in German, but some of the links are English.
It makes me shuddder to think how they have most of the world's population (and regimes) by the balls with all the gadgetry that comes from there.
PS:
erm, wait. A thread ChuangTzu contributed to is being derailed into a pro/contra CHina discussion - again?
In true Capitalism the government would not hand out bail outs to corporations they would sink or swim on their own merit. For those companies that sink the proper outcome is bankruptcy court and either restructure the debt or dissolve the assets or find a buyer for the company that is willing to absorb the debt etc... Bail Outs is a tool of the Socialist/Fascist system.
Banks are also bailed out, under a Capitalist system, because the wealthy cannot afford to let banks go down the tubes. It is the tax payer who generally foots the bill.
Banks are also bailed out, under a Capitalist system, because the wealthy cannot afford to let banks go down the tubes. It is the tax payer who generally foots the bill.
That's one of the problems with modern capitalism. All the traditional writers like Adam Smith assume a Victorian world of small private firms competing ruthlessly against each other with the government simply providing a level playing field via the courts. But that kind of capitalism inevitably morphs into monopoly capitalism as more and more small firms are taken over or driven to extinction. Eventually you get companies (not necessarily banks) that are "too big to fail". If they did, the results would be disastrous, so the taxpayers have to bail them out.
This then creates a moral hazard. Companies can take crazy risks, knowing that they won't have to pay for them if it all goes belly-up: we will. Big business gets all the profits and the taxpayer bears all the losses.
That's one of the problems with modern capitalism. All the traditional writers like Adam Smith assume a Victorian world of small private firms competing ruthlessly against each other with the government simply providing a level playing field via the courts. But that kind of capitalism inevitably morphs into monopoly capitalism as more and more small firms are taken over or driven to extinction. Eventually you get companies (not necessarily banks) that are "too big to fail". If they did, the results would be disastrous, so the taxpayers have to bail them out.
Well put! Of course I'm biased in that I've been referring to the dynamic shifts in ideology that any system undergoes because... ta da!.. it's human beings implementing them, but you certainly encapsulated the capitalistic version nicely. I think it is a bit silly to not separate ideology from practical application, to assume, as Chuang Tzu does, that economics and government are strictly binary, all or nothing. I agree that is true in an abstract way but it doesn't apply in reality until people, the key "implementers", change through experience and education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel
This then creates a moral hazard. Companies can take crazy risks, knowing that they won't have to pay for them if it all goes belly-up: we will. Big business gets all the profits and the taxpayer bears all the losses.
...Or NO risks! No innovation. When competition is crushed why do anything more than just business as usual? This assumes short-sightedness but it appears that resource is bountiful.
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel
That's one of the problems with modern capitalism. All the traditional writers like Adam Smith assume a Victorian world of small private firms competing ruthlessly against each other with the government simply providing a level playing field via the courts. But that kind of capitalism inevitably morphs into monopoly capitalism as more and more small firms are taken over or driven to extinction. Eventually you get companies (not necessarily banks) that are "too big to fail". If they did, the results would be disastrous, so the taxpayers have to bail them out.
This then creates a moral hazard. Companies can take crazy risks, knowing that they won't have to pay for them if it all goes belly-up: we will. Big business gets all the profits and the taxpayer bears all the losses.
hazel and cynwulf you both bring up a great point. Banks are part of the problem as is the concept of the stock market being a barometer of the strength/health of the economy. No company should be supported by the government or tax money, no bail outs even for banks, perhaps, especially not for banks. Banks should be required to keep their banking and investment interests separate as they did a few decades ago. This way bad investments cannot take down the entire bank or the entire financial sector. Retirement accounts should not be tied to the Stock Market. The stock market should be viewed in a similar manner as Casinos, you have some money to play with that you are willing to lose and if you win, you take out the extra "winnings" and leave, you are free to go back another time with the original play amount but not the extra.
Thomas Jefferson once warned:
Quote:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
I may owe Chuang Tzu a sort of apology. It seems a variation of the old cliche that states "when you point a finger at someone be aware there are at least 3 pointing back at yourself". I am not as up to date on the inner workings of China as I thought I was. Thiss was made almost terrifyingly evident by another thread here regarding the PBS documentary - In the Age of AI. I was unaware of how much (or how specific) capitalism has been somehow integrated into a full on authoritarian system. Like most so-called "Westerners" I wasn't even aware such a thing was actually possible. Most importantly I didn't realize what a "Sputnik moment" Google's Deep Mind beating China's GO top dog was for them. The advancement in just a few years is quite astounding and not a little troubling since surveillance plays a huge role in both the positive and negative aspects of AI fueled surveillance.
It is troubling that their blend of Communism and Capitalism is working so well that it seems a large proportion of the citizenry is all too willing to trade freedom and self-determination for lifelong "parents". It seems to approach the level of acceptance of Divine Right Monarchies. Wow!
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,649
Rep:
enorbet, it is truly troubling indeed. One of the natural barriers of Socialism/Communism was the eventual bankrupt state, it appears they have figured out a way around it temporarily.
The race to 5G is a major part of that totalitarian surveillance state and it appears most "modern" nations want to be "first". Time for all of us to re-read Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, Walden and Civil Disobedience.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
