Rereading Karl Marx

[Sion]

1. This is not philosophy class.

Any who knows how to press a button considers himself as an expert of Canonism or Nikonism which are the two leading schools of philosphy.

 

[Sion]

how far thou have fallen.

He has not fallen.

He is just tired of you.

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Silence Sky]

I do like what you have said.
We must strike a balance somewhere, and whatever system we chose to adopt, we must practice it in moderation and not to the extreme.

Isn’t it time for us to reflect upon our meritocracy system, a system where the winner takes all? Widening income gap is solid evidence.
eg. We can pay a CEO of a transportation company million of dollars just to warm the chair he sits in, while those lower rank have to work their *** off to put dinner on the table.

I have a very simplistic view, as long any system can produce entrepreneurs; encourages technology advancement and social cohesion, it is a good system.

Personally, I prefer a mixed economy. Best of both worlds? Nothing is certain....
Striving for a free market economy with a degree of government intervention is most ideal. Then again how do you balance the two. On one hand, everyone would love to have lower taxes. On the other, welfare for the poor is equally important too. Can we achieve the equilibrium?

Every country is unique due to its own limitations in resources, technology and education...etc etc. So there can never be applied the same way.

Whatever the crisis maybe, I strongly believe in a Chinese parable:

Near China's northern borders lived a man well versed in the practices of Taoism. His horse, for no reason at all, got into the territory of the northern tribes. Everyone commiserated with him.

"Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a blessing," said his father.

After a few months, his animal came back, leading a fine horse from the north. Everyone congratulated him.

"Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a cause of misfortune," said his father.

Since he was well-off and kept good horses his son became fond of riding and eventually broke his thigh bone falling from a horse. Everyone commiserated with him.

"Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a blessing," said his father.

One year later, the northern tribes started a big invasion of the border regions. All able-bodied young men took up arms and fought against the invaders, and as a result, around the border nine out of ten men died. This man's son did not join in the fighting because he was crippled and so both the boy and his father survived.



Maybe time and again in life, we need crisis of some sort. So, we know we are smarter or dumber? :devil:

 

[Silence Sky]

He has not fallen.

He is just tired of you.

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

not just "him".:bsmilie:

 

[Silence Sky]

carpark: Do I have to pay for others' "ungracious" habits? Do I have to pay for people's greed?

healthcare: its obvious you have not seen people - esp poor people - dying.

botox. why are resources and energy and labour consumed and greenhouses gases and pollutants generated to make people beautiful and not healthy?

why cant everyone gets what they need? Not a reasonable goal for any society/system? All the brains and minds in all the world cannot designed/conceived such a system?

if science is shaky, economics is not?

Hahaha.. Take it easy, he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Carpark: Later he will ask you to park in Africa!! When I told him about Shanghai’s elevated highway, he also say build a longer one in Africa and become more powerful than Shanghai.

Healthcare: I can understand that you are talking about treating chronic illnesses. He makes it sound so simple like treating flu.
No doubt fund is needed to advance medical research, but it should not be taxed on the already dying.
I want to invite him to answer why it cost more than double to treat cancer in Singapore than in Malaysia, while both sides are using the same drug and procedure.

His theory "Transportation cost is a sunk cost" is the most solid.:thumbsup:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

but i don't mean anything personally - strong words are strong words, but they are just for the sake of discussion, to make a point. i'm sure espion is more than mature enough to take what i say in stride since we have had such discussions before. in my defense, i have not made any attack on his personage, or character - only the points he has brought up.

assumption 1.

it depends on how you view elitism, if we look at it fundamentally, and assume a good selection system,...

assumption 2. textbook knowhow does not reflect the complexities of reality.

in many sense, elitism is simply a form of meritocracy. in fact, most democratic systems are run on the fact that "a select group of people with outstanding abilities" can run the country (to a certain extent freely) and should be given the power to decide. however, in recent years and times it has often been mixed up with discrimination - i.e. that people with higher abilities are given special rights over others. the two are not equal, and elitism is not really a bad thing , just a point of view, which can be right and wrong depending on how you look at it.

if u would like to dwell further into elitism, a new thread would serve a more focused discussion. dun drift so far off topic eh...

 

[Benign]

Isn’t it time for us to reflect upon our meritocracy system, a system where the winner takes all? Widening income gap is solid evidence.
eg. We can pay a CEO of a transportation company million of dollars just to warm the chair he sits in, while those lower rank have to work their *** off to put dinner on the table

Actually, I don't mind million of dollars for a CEO who is capable to perform in his/her chair. :bsmilie:
Because, if you want to pay carrot for a donkey. Then again who can argue with you :bsmilie:
As long as that donkey brings home the bacon for everyone.....

Healthcare: I can understand that you are talking about treating chronic illnesses. He makes it sound so simple like treating flu.
No doubt fund is needed to advance medical research, but it should not be taxed on the already dying.
I want to invite him to answer why it cost more than double to treat cancer in Singapore than in Malaysia, while both sides are using the same drug and procedure.

It is hard to compare orange to apple, certainly the cost of treating cancer in M'sia is cheaper than Singapore. But if you can afford the treatment, which country would you rather seek treatment? A lot of things in life can't be summed up in just a few words, but I am certain that the pasture always look greener on the side of the fence. :embrass:

Luckily in this world, there is a thing called choice. If you don't like it, vote with your feet then. This grandfather saying always ring a bell in my head "If you are 'true' gold, you will shine where ever you are.." 是金子总是会发光

Nothing is easy. But those who work hard, live moderately...and with the saving accumulated over the years. Now it is the time for you to double or triple your wealth. On the contrary, I don't feel sorry at all for those who lived beyond their means....

有多久風流就有多久折墮

Then again, why should I pay for someone else "gamble" with my taxes :think:

 

[Sion]

....what of africa? it has been stuck in a rut as an entirety for so many years now. why isn't anybody taking the initiative to make the average african's life better?

We will welcome you after your graduation to contribute your political skills and philosophical thinking to develope our Africa.

For your sacrifice you can have any village girl you want and as many as you want as long as your religion and body allow you. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

every argument has its assumptions.

name one which does not have any assumptions.

just for example, bolded above is an assumption. the irony!

u seem to assume where it fits u too casually.

FYI, there is not such word as bolded leh. lol.

the words in bold, an assumption? :dunno:

 

[sORe-EyEz]

Are you really sure you want to start being anal about English here?

There is no such word as "u". There is no such word as "FYI". There is no such word as "lol". I could go on. :kiss:

Jokes aside: what I meant was, could you say with absolute confidence that "textbook knowhow does not reflect the complexities of reality" is a given truth? If you cannot, and there are situations where textbook knowhow does and can reflect reality, then the statement is an assumption.

As for casual fit, one could say the same about any argument - but there is a difference between proving a overly casual fit, as opposed to just claiming it and believing that the claims are true for the sake of disproving others' arguments. Take for example, Silence Sky's argument that cancer treatment should cost the same in Singapore as it does in Malaysia. I could have just said that doctors are paid more in Singapore, but taking the extra step to show that his "casual assumptions" are false with the added provision of solid figures, it makes any argument more substantiated. It also shows that you are serious about a discussion, by bringing substance, instead of hot air to the game.

Otherwise, we could all just fling "casual assumption" accusations at each other all day long. I could tell you that you casually assume that my assumptions are casual. And you could tell me that I casually assume that you casually assume that my assumptions are casual. And Sion can make a joke about it sometime later. Take it a step further - tell me WHY my assumptions are too casual. Give solid reasons, good substantiation, rather than throwing funny statements like the above that make zero logical sense.

lol. textbook examples are simplified, diluted versions to for educational purposes. at most it can reflect a slice of that particular reality, the question is how big/small the slice of reality. it can reflect reality but not always. hence, assumption on ur part too casually used.

practice wad u preach lor. lol...

 

[sORe-EyEz]

missing posts? :bigeyes: :bigeyes:

 

[Silence Sky]

lol. textbook examples are simplified, diluted versions to for educational purposes. at most it can reflect a slice of that particular reality, the question is how big/small the slice of reality. it can reflect reality but not always. hence, assumption on ur part too casually used.

practice wad u preach lor. lol...

Short, simple and straight to the point.:thumbsup:
Economic theories found in the textbook, are just models being developed by acdemics trying to explain humand behaviours and predict market reaction. At best they only give a general indication or direction.
Textbook says, bring the interest rate down and people will start to spend their money.
If DBS brings the interest rate to zero, you see those anuties and uncles will spend their retirement fund or not.

 

[Silence Sky]

practice wad u preach lor. lol...

This is one thing Nightmare has to learn.:bsmilie:
I was questioning why the medical cost is doubled. And he simply assumed that I want to agure that the cost of Cancer treament has to be the same on both side.:nono:

This is one of his TM, to distord his opponent's point of arguement and bring people around the moon. Waileong and epsion are fast to point that out.

I remember he said anyone who stays in singapore long enough will pick up English. This assumption also very solid. :thumbsup:

 

[waileong]

This is called the "But I didn't inhale" argument.

well, it depends on what you define as "right".

you see, in philosophy there is the relative concept of "validity" as opposed to "soundness".

if we examine marx's argument/logic rudimentarily - then you cannot deny that he is valid, given certain premises, i.e. that humans are not self-serving. if the premises STAND, then by his flow of logic, he is not wrong.

of course, we all know that humans are always self-serving, and the premises will never stand, thus it is not a sound argument. nonetheless, because it is valid, it can be considered to be right, only to a certain degree. i hope i'm not sounding too argumentative here, just presenting my point of view on what constitutes right and wrong.

to give an example of a ridiculous valid argument:
1. cows have wings
2. all animals with wings can fly
3. cows can fly

so if you say marx was entirely wrong, i don't think it is as simplistic as that. he was definitely overly optimistic about human behaviour though.

as for #2, there are many situations whereby economic rationality flies out of the window. just for the sake of argument, do you not agree that there are people who exist that might actually place the wellbeing of the state before self? and if we gather these people, no matter how few, and dump them onto an island where a socialist ideology, that socialism might work in that micro-community? (even though undoubtedly all the capitalist countries will seek to undermine that way of thought and life) this is a thought experiment, if you are familiar with the term, and not meant to be realistic. i hope no one comes barging in and starts complaining about how silly it sounds, because the matrix was based on another thought experiment.. and no one complained about how silly it sounded.

 

[TheQuestion]

Hahaha.. Take it easy, he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Carpark: Later he will ask you to park in Africa!! When I told him about Shanghai’s elevated highway, he also say build a longer one in Africa and become more powerful than Shanghai.

Healthcare: I can understand that you are talking about treating chronic illnesses. He makes it sound so simple like treating flu.
No doubt fund is needed to advance medical research, but it should not be taxed on the already dying.
I want to invite him to answer why it cost more than double to treat cancer in Singapore than in Malaysia, while both sides are using the same drug and procedure.

His theory "Transportation cost is a sunk cost" is the most solid.:thumbsup:

i would give more credibility to mankiev if he talked about econ...not the guy who talk about super highway in africa.

 

[night86mare]

This is called the "But I didn't inhale" argument.

well you could certainly say that. i'm actually tickled by the reference.

on the other hand, other than Sion and your posts, that is called the "quantity > quality" argument.

 

[night86mare]

For your sacrifice you can have any village girl you want and as many as you want as long as your religion and body allow you. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

:think: can i have a pet monkey instead? :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

i would give more credibility to mankiev if he talked about econ...not the guy who talk about super highway in africa.

a lot of people argued that al gore lost the elections to bush back then because he "sunk to bush's level", by playing at his level.

i guess the super highway in africa was an example of that - Silence Sky made an insinuation that shanghai was performing better than singapore, his only supporting statement being that they have a super highway. so that was ludicrous to me, since it would equate to us building a longer super highway in africa, and thereafter declaring that africa was performing better than singapore or shanghai. and i said that, and here i am misquoted.

but of course, certain people would not mention the other half of the statement. :sweatsm: distorting arguments is not enough - distorting words is far easier!

i would certainly give more credibility if people talked about economics; but i think past dicussions have more than reinforced my firm belief that economics have no place here in Clubsnap - there is a general tendency to end up going through fundamental concepts before we can even have a vaguely useful discussion, and that is way too tiring for me, since such could be easily googled or picked up from popular bookstore. hence we have to use super highways. :angel:

 

[Silence Sky]

Actually, I don't mind million of dollars for a CEO who is capable to perform in his/her chair. :bsmilie:
Because, if you want to pay carrot for a donkey. Then again who can argue with you :bsmilie:
As long as that donkey brings home the bacon for everyone.....

I agree with you here, you will not hear anyone complaining how much Bill Gates or Sim Wong Hoo earned each year. Simply because they created the wealth and their hands have every right to access the money.
But, for some CEOs in the major organisations, they did not bring home the bacon and yet still take some peanuts away from you.
When there is any price increase, just pass it on to the consumer loh..

 

[night86mare]

I agree with you here, you will not hear anyone complaining how much Bill Gates or Sim Wong Hoo earned each year. Simply because they created the wealth and their hands have every right to access the money.
But, for some CEOs in the major organisations, they did not bring home the bacon and yet still take some peanuts away from you.
When there is any price increase, just pass it on to the consumer loh..

i would like to borrow this here to link it back to the original argument, because i am not interested in drumming on the really OLD and STALE topic of ceo pricings, etc. the mods of kopitiam should just sticky the old threads where all that has been repeated quite a few times already.

since no one argues about bill gates or sim wong hoo's earnings - does this mean that capitalism work? why does it work then? why doesn't it work in the alternative case that you mention?

would like to hear what you think about that. since the thread was really, originally about marxism versus capitalism. what do you think of marxism as a workable system? :sticktong or do you only join in only when there is a chance to gripe about the same old, same old, tired things that you gripe about?