Ask a Communist

[Max zero]

Capitalism is the best motivation for productivity..... but its also allows that productivity to be abused by greed.
Striving for complete Equality is a waste of time because its never going to happen.... The best I hope for is a society that can reward its self by providing everyone an opportunity to better themselves through Education... rewarding people on merit and not the inheritance or where they were lucky to be born.
Education, health and providing affordable housing is the key to secure any community.

Capitalism is going to kill itself eventually unless it is controlled. Corporations are now becoming stronger than countries.... I cant see that ending well?

Our obsession with GDP growth whilst ignoring sustainability will eventually hurt us too.

The problem is everyone has a different definition of what is a 'fair go.' What makes it worse is as a society becomes more prosperous what defines a 'fair go' becomes more entitled.

In other threads we have people discussing whether 'affordable housing' (whatever that means) should be a right. That's how far the idea of a 'fair go' has stretched.

If capitalism will kill itself eventually then communism already has, multiple times. How is that anymore sustainable?

I have no problem with people pointing out flaws with capitalism, there are plenty. But if you are going to replace it I would hope that the replacement would be better. Based on track records I don't see how communism could be considered better.

 

[smokingjacket]

Strong picking on the weak? If communism was a much better system why weren't they strong enough to fend off outside influences?

Communism is flawed because capitalism is better at state violence? Strong statement but you might be on to something.

 

[smokingjacket]

The problem is everyone has a different definition of what is a 'fair go.' What makes it worse is as a society becomes more prosperous what defines a 'fair go' becomes more entitled.

In other threads we have people discussing whether 'affordable housing' (whatever that means) should be a right. That's how far the idea of a 'fair go' has stretched.

Shelter is a basic need of humanity. That's why we have public housing already. I could rattle off hundreds of things I find more symptomatic of what you call 'entitled' Australia, before I got to knocking a system where people can afford to buy a house in the place they're expected to work. Just like most generations before I should add.

 

[Moo]

all of them in fact.

&*%#@ that's a stupid question....is hardly answering questions comrade

 

[nut]

The problem is everyone has a different definition of what is a 'fair go.' What makes it worse is as a society becomes more prosperous what defines a 'fair go' becomes more entitled.

In other threads we have people discussing whether 'affordable housing' (whatever that means) should be a right. That's how far the idea of a 'fair go' has stretched.

If capitalism will kill itself eventually then communism already has, multiple times. How is that anymore sustainable?

I have no problem with people pointing out flaws with capitalism, there are plenty. But if you are going to replace it I would hope that the replacement would be better. Based on track records I don't see how communism could be considered better.

Well we can start with Education and Health.... plenty of exampleas of universal Health and free educstion around the world. We can also start educating people about Tax and its benefits to everyone.
What I ment by affordable housing is basically stronger regulation in the banking sector.... Everytime you lower tax people can spend more.... So banks increase a persons borrowing power allowing a larger percentage of a persons disposable income on mortgages.... thus increasing house prices and profits for the banks... whilst a persons buying power actually remains the same.

The trickle down affect doesnt work.... a strong Tax system does.

I'd make capitalism, through taxes, pay for universal Health (i'd slowly get rid of private Health because per capita Health does not work), Tertiary education, Income protection (like in Denmark)..... I'd also use the 9.5% super (which is a form of Tax given to the private sector) to fund retirements and have a system where the more you contribute the more your pension will be.

We have slowly reduced taxes and the net result is MASSIVE profits to banks........

 

[nut]

Communism is flawed because capitalism is better at state violence? Strong statement but you might be on to something.

 

[Max zero]

Shelter is a basic need of humanity. That's why we have public housing already. I could rattle off hundreds of things I find more symptomatic of what you call 'entitled' Australia, before I got to knocking a system where people can afford to buy a house in the place they're expected to work. Just like most generations before I should add.

And whats an acceptable level of shelter? 1/4 acre block with 4 bed 2 bath?

My point is what is considered acceptable shelter in other countries would not be considered acceptable shelter in Australia. The idea of what is basic changes as a society becomes more prosperous.

 

[Max zero]

Well we can start with Education and Health.... plenty of exampleas of universal Health and free educstion around the world. We can also start educating people about Tax and its benefits to everyone.
What I ment by affordable housing is basically stronger regulation in the banking sector.... Everytime you lower tax people can spend more.... So banks increase a persons borrowing power allowing a larger percentage of a persons disposable income on mortgages.... thus increasing house prices and profits for the banks... whilst a persons buying power actually remains the same.

The trickle down affect doesnt work.... a strong Tax system does.

I'd make capitalism, through taxes, pay for universal Health (i'd slowly get rid of private Health because per capita Health does not work), Tertiary education, Income protection (like in Denmark)..... I'd also use the 9.5% super (which is a form of Tax given to the private sector) to fund retirements and have a system where the more you contribute the more your pension will be.

We have slowly reduced taxes and the net result is MASSIVE profits to banks........

Taxes already pay for universal health care. If you got rid of private health care expect a a dramatic rise in tax because there would be no more private contributions.

Then the question is who is face these higher taxes?

Higher super I have no issue with.

 

[nut]

Taxes already pay for universal health care. If you got rid of private health care expect a a dramatic rise in tax because there would be no more private contributions.

Then the question is who is face these higher taxes?

Higher super I have no issue with.

The cost to countries without private Health care is less compared to GDP... than countries with. Private Health increases the total cost of Health. Thats FACT.

yes we have to pay... so up the medicare levy. Pretty Simple.

 

[Max zero]

The cost to countries without private Health care is less compared to GDP... than countries with. Private Health increases the total cost of Health. Thats FACT.

yes we have to pay... so up the medicare levy. Pretty Simple.

How can it be less? The fact is the government pays more per public patient then private patient. The extra funding in the private system come from private systems who CHOOSE to pay more.

The fact is the public system as it is could not survive without the private system.

Your solution to everything can't be "just raise taxes."

 

[smokingjacket]

And whats an acceptable level of shelter? 1/4 acre block with 4 bed 2 bath?

My point is what is considered acceptable shelter in other countries would not be considered acceptable shelter in Australia. The idea of what is basic changes as a society becomes more prosperous.

Don't strawman when we've already had a fairly comprehensive discussion on the topic of affordable housing. Nowhere in that discussion did I say chopping up more 1/4 acre blocks was either desirable or a solution.

 

[nut]

How can it be less? The fact is the government pays more per public patient then private patient. The extra funding in the private system come from private systems who CHOOSE to pay more.

The fact is the public system as it is could not survive without the private system.

Your solution to everything can't be "just raise taxes."

I'm talking total cost on the community..... Norway has no private Health and spends less per GDP on Health than us and its a proper free and argubly bettet than our health system.

 

[manboob]

I'm talking total cost on the community..... Norway has no private Health and spends less per GDP on Health than us and its a proper free and argubly bettet than our health system.

They also have the SPU - an advantage/structure that not many other nations have... it's value is almost 900 billion dollars.

 

[nut]

They also have the SPU - an advantage/structure that not many other nations have... it's value is almost 900 billion dollars.

Thats a pension fund...... only 4% of the oil revenue gets used in the budget. How much of our mining revenue gets used in the budget? Hmmmmm shitloads more.
Norway has the richest poor people and the poorest rich people.

 

[manboob]

Thats a pension fund...... only 4% of the oil revenue gets used in the budget. How much of our mining revenue gets used in the budget? Hmmmmm shitloads more.

Strictly speaking its not a pension fun (its just sounds nicer that way).
4% of the fund value can be used in the national budget (the expected return) - that's a shit tonne of cash right there.
It also spends more on health than we do in terms of GDP and PPP.

 

[Max zero]

Don't strawman when we've already had a fairly comprehensive discussion on the topic of affordable housing. Nowhere in that discussion did I say chopping up more 1/4 acre blocks was either desirable or a solution.

The point you keep avoiding is that what is acceptable overtime and changes as a country becomes more prosperous and even the current definition is subjective.

Who decides what is acceptable?

 

[smokingjacket]

The point you keep avoiding is that what is acceptable overtime and changes as a country becomes more prosperous and even the current definition is subjective.

Who decides what is acceptable?

eh?
What are you talking about? It's affordable housing. ie. basic. The aim is to roll it out as cheap as possible not nice as possible. I didn't address that because it's pretty bloody obvious. The keys in the name - affordable housing. Not acceptable housing. Cheap housing near public transport nodes. People will accept it because it's all they can afford.

 

[The Coup]

eh?
What are you talking about? It's affordable housing. ie. basic. The aim is to roll it out as cheap as possible not nice as possible. I didn't address that because it's pretty bloody obvious. The keys in the name - affordable housing. Not acceptable housing. Cheap housing near public transport nodes. People will accept it because it's all they can afford.

Thing is, a lot of those dodgy looking Russian apartment blocks in Berlin were a lot more spacious and functional than their German counterparts.

Tends to happen when workers design their work instead of NATO Committees.

 

[haden1999]

Apartments on the East side of Berlin are fantastic

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

An article that describes the Soviet way of apartment living in Moscow - as well as conditions today.

http://russianreport.wordpress.com/come-to-russia-get-a-visa/life-in-russian-housing/

 

[Max zero]

What are you talking about? It's affordable housing. ie. basic. The aim is to roll it out as cheap as possible not nice as possible. I didn't address that because it's pretty bloody obvious. The keys in the name - affordable housing. Not acceptable housing. Cheap housing near public transport nodes. People will accept it because it's all they can afford.

And how do you define affordable? Public housing rent is currently at a max of 25% of wages/welfare payments. That's $60 a week roughly. What do you reckon is a reasonable house for $60 a week rent?

 

[Max zero]

An article that describes the Soviet way of apartment living in Moscow - as well as conditions today.

http://russianreport.wordpress.com/come-to-russia-get-a-visa/life-in-russian-housing/

So this is the type of housing you would suggest we build?

 

[little graham]

An article that describes the Soviet way of apartment living in Moscow - as well as conditions today.

http://russianreport.wordpress.com/come-to-russia-get-a-visa/life-in-russian-housing/

Mate of mines mum grew up in Hamburg in the 30's. Married a limey in 46 and ended up In Elizabeth in the 60's. She spoke of trams using technology where they produce most of their power from their own momentum. she spoke up the heating in the apartment buildings, being mostly supplied by burning the rubbish of the residents

Dat socialism!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So this is the type of housing you would suggest we build?

Maybe a bit 'prettier'. We don't have to do things EXACTLY the same - I think everybody needs a bit of personal space, and taking it all away in favour of an everything-must-be-the-same-absolutely-everywhere collective is probably going a bit far.

But housing for everyone - it's a noble goal.

By the way Max - just as an aside, how would you define your political ideology? Just as you've delved into our noggins a bit I'd like to see what's inside yours.

 

[Max zero]

Maybe a bit 'prettier'. We don't have to do things EXACTLY the same - I think everybody needs a bit of personal space, and taking it all away in favour of an everything-must-be-the-same-absolutely-everywhere collective is probably going a bit far.

But housing for everyone - it's a noble goal.

By the way Max - just as an aside, how would you define your political ideology? Just as you've delved into our noggins a bit I'd like to see what's inside yours.

Probably pretty moderate. I am a libertarian but within reason. There should be a social safety net but not a welfare society.

I recognize while it's nice to strive for equality it is an impossible goal.

I have issues with what you would consider the traditional 'right' and 'left.'

I tend not to have a strong overall framework because I find that too inflexible in practice. I tend to take it on a case to case basis.

I have little time for 'good intentions' or naive and vague social justice. It's easy to say things should be better, things can always be better. The real test is how you will do that and what you plan on changing too.

I mean look at how evasive Coup is in this topic. He's vague as hell and spouts stuff you expect to see in a communist pamphlet on a university campus. He never goes beyond that.