Interesting and Humour - page 3462
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Not long ago that was the case.
They had their own ship, completely independent of the "civilised" world. Not only did they sneeze, but they taught the whole "civilised" world how to live by breaking up their colonial system in a tough, big way. Together with their allies and satellites, they were masters of life until recently.
And then they disowned the wisdom of the khokhls, who sang all their lives: "build a hata z loboda, and in someone else's nada". We did not just sink our own ship, and we do not tire of spitting on the place where it sank, we sail on someone else's ship in the cave, we eat freedom and democracy instead of bread, and we still whine "When will the sanctions be lifted!"
but this model has been convincingly shown to be a complete failure.
You should... read it before discussing it)))) It does say that fonts have already been developed:
Cool, but I don't see how this font is different fromTimes New Roman???
Apparently there will still be a lawsuit.
But this model has been convincingly shown to be completely untenable
but this model has been convincingly shown to be completely untenable.
No it hasn't. Norway has built exactly the same model in form (although ideologically different) and nothing, just a progressive taxation scale on both business and property.
So they didn't go by the dogma that capitalism and socialism are antagonists, and they succeeded.
So the socialist model is quite viable. Then again, there is no conclusive evidence that a planned economy is not viable (well, if you are not fanatical, and don't shove it wherever you can).
If you have researched carefully you should understand that large US corporations were formed out of monopolies. And what is a monopoly but a planned economy? When decisions are made from one centre and the work of hundreds of enterprises is planned. It was only later, when the industry was established and the situation began to stabilize, that lawmakers passed laws on de-monopolization. But the factories were built in a monopolistic (read: planned) way.
Many different forces had a hand in the collapse of the USSR, but the experience itself does not deny the possibility of building and, most importantly, exploiting socialism.
Please, just leave Norway out of this!
You have been taught VERY poorly in your time - the main and distinguishing characteristic of both socialism and communism has always been, is and will always be the absence of private ownership of the means of production.
So it was, so it is and so it will be. Study Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Bukharin, Rykov, etc.
There is only one socialist state left on the entire globe that has not yet died: North Korea.
China has built a Confucian version of capitalism. The only word left of communism in China is the name of the only ruling party.
But this model has been convincingly shown to be a complete failure.
It would not be a bad idea to flesh out the word "failure".
If you compare 1928 with 1975 or even 1985, it is hard to find an area in which to justify the word 'failure'.
If by "insolvency" you mean the collapse of the country, then yes. But then how do you understand the collapse of the country after February 1917 with far more dire consequences.
Given February 1917, the lesson of 1991 does not cast a shadow over the idea of socialism. Unfortunately our civilisation is extremely vulnerable to the betrayal and perplexity of its elites.
And this is not the first time in our history.
1. Yaroslav the Wise. State from sea to sea. In the 100 years after him, when the Tatar-Mongols came, the prosperous European country broke up into a bunch of small principalities which were continuously fighting among themselves. Having forgotten about these 100 years we tell that it is all the fault of khan Batyj.
2. 1612. In general, to the point of idiocy. Our Russian elites invite the Polish tsesarevich to the throne. Just shameful. Telling us about the treacherous Poles who arranged the intervention.
3. 1917. In six months the total destruction of statehood by the elites of the time. By September 1917 there was no state at all. Here too there is someone to blame - the Bolsheviks, who appeared six months later on the political scene
4. 1991. The USSR was destroyed with a few strokes of the pen of a few louts. Imperialism is to blame here.
Or maybe there is something wrong at home? Maybe there is no such inoculation against traitors that the Anglo-Saxons have?
It would not be a bad idea to give meaning to the word "insolvency".
If you compare 1928 with 1975 or even 1985, it is hard to find an area in which the word 'insolvency' could be justified.
Agriculture, per capita food production. And in general - all Group B industry, except for defence group goods.
Again, there is no conclusive evidence that a planned economy is unsustainable (well, if you are not fanatical about stuffing it in wherever you can).
A centrally planned economy is a much more efficient use of available resources than a market economy. But the main problem with a planned economy is the continuation of its advantages. To build an effective plan - you need to know exactly what society needs. When I want a piece of bread, my neighbour wants a piece of bread, all around want a piece of bread - a planned economy can provide this much better, and at lower cost than the market.
But when I'm given five kinds of bread and twenty kinds of sausage, and today - give me five-layer toilet paper with the smell of almonds, and tomorrow - with the smell of strawberries (bo, how my ass can not stand the others), my neighbour wants twenty varieties of bread, and five sausages, and ten-layer toilet paper with the smell of dreams - no fucking planned economy will provide it. But a market economy, especially one with marketing tricks, will do it.
Agriculture, food production per capita. And in general - all Group B industry, except for defence group goods.
It would not be a bad idea to give meaning to the word "insolvency".
If you compare 1928 with 1975 or even 1985, it is hard to find an area in which to justify the word "insolvency".
If by "insolvency" you mean the collapse of the country, then yes. But then how do you understand the collapse of the country after February 1917 with far more dire consequences.
Given February 1917, the lesson of 1991 does not cast a shadow over the idea of socialism. Unfortunately our civilisation is extremely vulnerable to the betrayal and perplexity of its elites.
And this is not the first time in our history.
1. Yaroslav the Wise. State from sea to sea. In the 100 years after him, when the Tatar-Mongols came, the prosperous European country broke up into a bunch of small principalities which were continuously fighting among themselves. Having forgotten about these 100 years we tell that it is all the fault of khan Batyj.
2. 1612. In general, to the point of idiocy. Our Russian elites invite the Polish tsesarevich to the throne. Just shameful. Telling us about the treacherous Poles who arranged the intervention.
3. 1917. In six months the total destruction of statehood by the elites of the time. By September 1917 there was no state at all. Here too there is someone to blame - the Bolsheviks, who appeared six months later on the political scene
4. 1991. The USSR was destroyed with a few strokes of the pen of a few louts. Imperialism is to blame here.
Or maybe there is something wrong at home? Maybe there is no such inoculation against traitors that the Anglo-Saxons have?