|
People traditionally have lots of children in poor countries because children help work the fields, the house etc.
When countries increase their prosperity the first generation that has the ease of living experiences a baby boom and the next generation has less than 2 children per household because children are no longer helpful but a liability in financial terms.
We can see this happening in China today.
They had the 1 child policy which didn't work all that well but sort of did.
Today, the Chinese have less children than they did during the 1 child policy (first generation of the increased prosperity). They want to increase their birthrate but it's not working because the natality naturally declined with the increased prosperity.
Rich countries have fewer children.
|
|
|
|
The price has been lowered.
For anyone who doesn't have this great book, the starting bid is well below retail pricing... great chance to scoop this up  Happy Holidays Since when? I thought the hardcover was $100 on Amazon. Or was that the softcover. I really thought the hardcover was like 120 This version is 160$ + shipping (30$+). I'll lower the price to 0.01 BTC and just let people bid. This is basically new, completely unused. |
|
|
|
Nisam za niti jednu od dvije opcije HDZ-SDP. Ali ne razumijem zašto ljudi misle da će se nešto promijeniti ako dobijemo treću opciju? Zar ju nismo imali kad je Most dobio velik broj glasova? I što se dogodilo? Opet su koalirali s HDZ-om i na kraju propali. Ne znam kakva bi ta treća opcija morala biti da uspije nešto promijeniti. Stvarno sumnjam da itko kao treća opcija može osvojiti dovoljno glasova da samostalno sastavi vladu. A bez toga promjene nema. Uvijek će netko od dvoje glavnih biti upravo to - glavni.
Most nije došao na vlast. Most je dogovorom uspio postaviti na vlast nestranačkog premijera (unpopular opionion: Orešković je bio bolji premijer od svih HDZovih/SDPovih premijera), no HDZ je naravno srušio istog i postavio svog čovjeka jer ih ovaj nije slušao jer je - nestranački premijer. Naivno je misliti da Skoro moze dugorocno pomrsiti racune HDZu samo zbog ovog rezultata na predsjednickim izborima. Ta stranka je toliko prozeta interesima da kad dodje do parlamentarnih izbora (desno) disciplinirano stranacko tijelo ce glasati kako se naredi iz sredisnjice da nebi izgubili svoje privilegije, iako se ne slazu sa politikom sredisnjice. A uostalom Skoro nije nista bolji od standardnog HDZovca vulgaris, isto sranje drugo pakovanje.
I sada su glasali po naredbi iz središnjice pa su skoro izgubili izbore sa mizernih 2% prednosti. Po čemu Škoro nije bolji od standardnog HDZovca? Čovjek ima 3 fakulteta i akademiju, a jedini meni bitan od tih svih je doktorat iz ekonomskih znanosti te predavanje Uvoda u ekonomiju u Osijeku. Jedini zna nešto od ekonomiji od svih kandidata koji su bili prisutni (osim Kovača koji iako vjerovatno zna više je marginalan kandidata sa ispod 1% glasova). U prvoj anketi nakon prvog kruga izbora, na Nova TV, u drugom krugu Milanović dobiva 48 % a Kolinda 41% glasova. Oko 30% glasača koji su glasali za Škoru u prvom krugu u drugom svoj glas daje Milanoviću. Još jednom se pokazuje da za Škoru nisu glasali samo simpatizeri desnice ili razočarani glasači HDZ-a već da je dobio i veliki broj protestnih glasača. Zbog toga je bilo prenaivno očekivati da će svi ti glasači po nekom defaultu i automatski u 2. krugu glasati za Kolindu. Veliki broj njih će glasati po osobnom dojmu i preferencama. Izbori nisu matematika pa da se može reći da glas za Škoru u 1. krugu znači glas za Kolindu u drugom  Mislim da će na kraju ove priče najzadovoljniji moći biti Plenković. Propao je pokušaj desnice da ga preko Škore sruše i isprovociraju unutarstranačke izbore, gdje bi sa aureolom ''dvostrukog gubitnika izbora'' vjerojatno ''pao'' i zamjenio bi ga netko s desnog krila HDZ-a, Stier, Kovač, Brkić... Kolinda će nakon 2 tjedna najvjerojatnije također biti ''bivša'' i više neće biti opasnost za Plenkovića u borbi za vodstvo nad HDZ-om. S obzirom da će Milanović vjerojatno preuzeti ured predsjednika, to će biti savršena prilika za Plenovića da mobilizira stranku i glasače pred ''crvenom opasnošću'' i da stvori strah od povratka crvenih, partizana, orjunaša i komunista, i na valu toga pobjedi na parlamentarnim izborima, a to su ionako za njih najvažniji izbori. Opet ćemo slušati priče o 1941. 1945 i 1991 umjesto o budućnosti, razvoju društva, digitalizaciji, korupciji, nepotizmu... Sve će to postati nevažno jer se ''crveni'' vraćaju na vlast U međuvremenu, još će par tisuća mladih pobjeći u Irsku, Njemačku i drugdje.... Ukoliko Milanović dođe na vlast, moći će to zahvaliti isključivo Škori. Anti-propaganda za Kolindu se ne bi nikako širila tolikom količinom i brzinom da ljudi već nisu imali spremnog drugog kandidata, a da je njihov kandidat ranije bila Kolinda, došlo bi do odmahivanja rukom itd. Iz moje neposredne okoline većina ljudi koji su glasali za Škoru neće uopće izaći na izbore, uistinu jesu tradicionalno desno nastrojeni, ali ne vide razliku između Kolinde i Milanovića. Smatram da Škore nije bilo, većina ovih ljudi bi glasala za Kolindu jer nikad ne bi usvojili toliko ekstremne položaje protiv kandidata koji je 'najmanje zlo' prema njihovim stavovima. |
|
|
|
This impeachment will prove counter-productive for the Democrats. The Senate will clear him anyway. What will happen is that Trump's existing supporters will support him even more as the valiant underdog fighting the establishment, and in all likelihood it will get him some new anti-establishment votes, too. I can't see how the Democrats gain from this at all; Trump will remain in power, and support for him will increase.
The Democrats tried to impeach every single Republican president ever. It comes with no shock they're such bitter lowlifes to try to impeach this one as well. |
|
|
|
|
Did you ever play football with the moon?
No?
That's because it's fucking flat.
|
|
|
|
Of course, all the plays and concerts the Nazi leaders went to, show that they were socialites at heart, right?  there is general humanist socialism and limited socialism. soviet union was about general global humanist socialism, but there where natural borders, like russian nationalism and xenophobia, expertism nazism and gazism, have banking cartels that rule them and limit access to consumption capacities. regards btw we could also call the usa a liberal monarchy, run by a banking cartel around hamilton. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamiltonhe controlls the banking licenses in the usa, so thats the nobility of the usa. regards Having borders is nationalism and xenophobia? Guess I'm a nationalist and a xenophobe. |
|
|
|
|
The price has been lowered.
|
|
|
|
Mislim da ovo nije baš blisko istini. HDZ se provukao kroz iglene uši i dobro je dobio po nosu. Sama činjenica da se može pojaviti politički anonimus (doduše poznati glazbenik) i pokupiti 24% glasova samo tako pokazuje da ljudima ipak je dosta duopola i da će dati šansu nekoj trećoj opciji. Biti će jako zanimljivo nagodinu kada dođu parlamentarni izbori, ako budu slični rezultati sa 3 strane sa po ~25% glasova, ni HDZ ni SDP čak i kao relativni pobjednici neće biti ni blizu slaganju vlade. Ujedinjenje Saveza Komunista na pomolu?  M Skoro je pokupio glasove radikalne desnice, nema veze tko je on, ti su glasaci preko stranacke pripadnosti dobili input kome dati glas Ako bude po njihovom planu, dobar postotak tih glasaca ce prekriziti listic u drugom krugu Ovo je druga igra na vecoj razini MOST i Suverenisti imaju mogućnost skupiti 24% glasova? Nemoj biti smiješan. Škoro je osvojio Osijek, Veliku Goricu, Slavonski Brod, Vukovar, Vinkovce, Đakovo, Županju itd. itd. svaki grad u kojem su te stranke potpuno marginalne i ne mogu skupiti 5% glasova. Nikakva stranačka mašinerija ne stoji iza njega, neke stranke su mu dale potporu, a po statistikama je ispalo da su za njega najviše glasali i birači drugih stranaka koje su podržale sasvim druge kandidate poput npr. Živog Zida Tako da nije Škoro skoro srušio kandidata HDZ-a već je 1 ''prikriveni'' kandidat HDZ-a izgubio (ako ne vjerujete potražite Škorin govor iz Cibone) a drugi prošao dalje. Škoro je svjestan kao i svatko s imalo mozga u glavi da može i treba pokupiti razočarane glasače HDZa, to je vrhunski marketing osuđivanja vrha stranke, a ne svih članova. Bez toga se ne pobjeđuje,a Škoro nije glup. Škoro je skoro isti k kao Kolinda, kradezeov projekt i meni se čini da je njima svima bilo svejedno koji kandidat prolazi u drugi krug.
Kolindu ni Plenković nije mogao maknut-da se ne kandidira
Škoro je smišljeni HDZov projekt da sruši HDZovu kandidatkinju i vjerovatno HDZ zauvijek. Zbog njega neće moći sastaviti vladu nagodinu. Odličan potez. |
|
|
|
Na ovim izborima ljudi su zaista imali dobar izbor i mogućnost da nađu "svog kandidata " i glasaju, pa nije vrijedilo ono "nemam za koga glasati ".
Bilo je tu svega, od mainstream desnice i ljevice, do alternativne desnice i ljevice, ex socijalista, cro verzije Trumpa do anti političara i komedijasa
Na žalost, ljudi su po inerciji opet izabrali mainstream političare a to znači da ostaje status quo i u politici i društvu.
Impresioniraju me zaista ti "penzici " koji žive od skupljanja flaša po kontejnerima jer ne mogu preživjeti od mirovine, sinovi i kćeri su im pobjegli u Irsku i Njemačku ali oni uporno daju glas istoj stranci jer to su "naši " ljudi koji su nam dali hrvatsku državu.
Nema veze što lažu i kradu ali to su "naši " ljudi 😁
Uz ovakav mentalitet ljudi ove 2 mainstream stranke ne trebaju se ničega bojati, nikakvih promjena, a ne moraju se čak ni truditi da imaju neki smisleni program ili da promjene dosadašnji nepotizam i političku korupciju jer im sve prolazi.
Bolje naši lopovi na vlasti nego njihovi 😂😂😉
Mislim da ovo nije baš blisko istini. HDZ se provukao kroz iglene uši i dobro je dobio po nosu. Sama činjenica da se može pojaviti politički anonimus (doduše poznati glazbenik) i pokupiti 24% glasova samo tako pokazuje da ljudima ipak je dosta duopola i da će dati šansu nekoj trećoj opciji. Biti će jako zanimljivo nagodinu kada dođu parlamentarni izbori, ako budu slični rezultati sa 3 strane sa po ~25% glasova, ni HDZ ni SDP čak i kao relativni pobjednici neće biti ni blizu slaganju vlade. Ujedinjenje Saveza Komunista na pomolu? |
|
|
|
Lol, džezvica za kavu je vrh Nije džezva, šalica je Šteta što ne idemo dalje, al na parlamentarnim izborima rokamo dalje |
|
|
|
So far in this thread we've seen socialist supporters claim France is socialist because of nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains and energy but National Socialist Germany which had nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains, energy and the car industry isn't. They claim France is socialist because of unions although every single capitalist country has unions and those unions are voluntary organizations with consenting individuals. How many times can you shift definitions in order to make it fit your narrative |
|
|
|
Do you know if this is a 1st or 2nd edition?
The 2nd edition has an extra page highlighting the photo errors from the 1st edition.
Thanks
It was the newer regular print version of the book, I purchased it in 2017, from you actually. It has 282 pages. |
|
|
|
Revised edition https://imgur.com/a/7JOqzbHThe book doesn't have a single scratch on it and was kept in bubble-wrap the whole time since purchase.  Starting price: 0.01 BTCMin. bid: 0.001 BTCAuction ends on 30th December 9 PM forum time Sniping: Another bid can be made up to 30 minutes after the last bid even after 30th December 9 PM |
|
|
|
Yes I've never gave the example of the French unions controlling heavy parts of the industry and the whole healthcare and retirement system until 1995.
I'm tired of you and your inability to read. Stay in your ignorance, keep thinking free market is the only possibility in the world. So now unions are not centralized organizations are they? Keep shifting those definitions each time flaws in your argument are pointed out, clearly it is working well for you. Not in France no. Anyone can create one, completely free process without any kind of limit. You just have to be a group of at least 2. Then you get a decision power proportionated to the number of people in your group. The only thing you can do to get even more decentralized is by giving a voting power directly to each individual. That's what I said before. Again, read. Stop talking for an hour please and fucking read. If you need to have a group of at least 2 to form a union. That's capitalism. Voluntary interactions between consenting individuals are capitalism. If there's no central entity, that's not socialism. The unions don't control the economy, they control their own companies. 2. Quote the part where I've insulted you.
Hard to do once you've edited your post. You don't understand because you don't read. France nationalized healthcare, education, transports, energy and military industry by force plus some heavy industries like cars (not just the funds, the workers are picked by either the government or the unions/public organization). Now only parts of this remain that's why I say it went from 60% to 40%. And if you haven't understood the difference between government control and proletariat control I don't see what I can add to this debate. And National Socialist Germany didn't have nationalized healthcare, education, transports, energy and military industry? Germans literally invented the pensions plans, I assume you've also heard of some of their "heavy industries" like the Volkswagen Beetle. thats because stalin was in power, the king also puts his fellow citizens into slavish work, in the west instead of stalin there is the masonic banking cartel, and they are having everyone else being their salary/wage slaves.
thats how life is. majority of people dont have power they have to give power to others. Yes. We're exploited so hard the average poor person in the US owns air-conditioning, a microwave, and 70% own a car. That's the average poor person, not an average person. Meanwhile, Stalin stole grain from Ukraine and sent it to National Socialists while Ukranians starved (7 million dead) so hard there were documented cases of people hunting children so they could eat them. This is how system design works. Old versions of the telephone are still telephones but new telephones do not share all of their flaws. We keep redefining because we keep improving upon previous designs. 100 years from now, it will have shifted again based on the failures of the 21st century.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." When each try resulted in millions of corpses, yeah, trying again is definitely a good idea. nationalization and proletariat controlled Proleteriat = workers Therefore proleteriat control = capitalism Nationalization = socialism |
|
|
|
they don't nationalize companies, it's all decided individually unlike in National Socialist Germany where the party decides that.
Aaaaaaaaaaah ok I see. The problem is that you have absolutely no idea of how the rest of the world works. So you don't see the problem because you're not even aware that the rest of the world is not USA. That in lots of countries, government and public groups directly control huge parts of the economy. Well I would be glad to explain you how in France 40% of the GDP is not controlled by private companies for example (it was 60% 40 years ago) but you're not only uneducated, like TECHSHARE you like to insult people you discuss with and don't really read them (I've made the difference between nationalisation and proletariat controlled pretty clear I believe). So please, stay in your world where socialism has only one definition (polysemic isn't real sure) and the whole world is identical to USA. 1. I'm from Croatia, not USA. 2. Quote the part where I've insulted you. 3. Having a taxpayer funded education system or taxpayer funded healthcare is not "controlling" the economy, that's taking part in it. When you can pick workers and managers in companies then you control the economy. 4. Proleteriat controlled can exist in capitalism as long as it's voluntary. What's your definition of socialism? I still don't understand how France is socialism but National Socialist Germany isn't. |
|
|
|
Please, can you try to read with the least amount of bias what I've written? I understand that you don't like socialism and it's fine, I'm just trying to show you that your definition of socialism isn't very useful because it applies either to nearly every country or to none of them that's all.
I don't want to fight here, I try to have a civil debate over an important social idea.
If I sum up what you've said until now, for you a country is "socialist" when the government controls parts of the economy directly.
The problem is that by this definition, nearly all countries in the world CURRENTLY have such government.
So it's not a very useful definition because it designates a group far too wide of countries and societies. What's the point of a word that can qualify at the same time Iran, France and China?
I'm trying to tell you that socialism wasn't defined by Marx as a society where GOVERNMENT owns parts of the economy but where PEOPLE own parts of the economy.
And it's not the "real socialism hasn't been tried" argument because it HAS BEEN TRIED. It was the case until very recently in France.
And by this definition, Nazis were not socialist, they were just a dictatorship.
Can you at least agree with me that if your definition of socialism is "when government owns parts of the economy" then EVERY DICTATORSHIP is socialist. Which, again, makes the word quite useless.
How do France,Iran and China control their economies? They do not decide who works where, how much he gets paid, how much you can produce, they don't nationalize companies, it's all decided individually unlike in National Socialist Germany where the party decides that. Socialism existed before Marx. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialistshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialismIt's not "my" definition, it's the definition https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp |
|
|
|
You're making one huge appeal to emotions here by making an enumerations of very specific facts, too specific. No other country has ever done this, not even USSR. Here if being a socialist country would mean all of this was true, then ONLY Nazi Germany would have been socialist. You see my point? You're trying to put one single word on the broad concept of "government is heavily intervening in the economy". That's not possible or at least, that's not really usefull. -------- You didn't answer me again. Tell me which country had socialism or has real socialism never been tried? Sorry the answer didn't fit well in the last post. No country has implemented a 100% socialist system I believe but it's the same for capitalism, no country is 100% capitalism and free market. France is a good example with whole parts of the economy being totally socialist. The retirement and health systems were (they got nearly completely destroyed in the last two decades) under the direct control of the unions, which is MUCH CLOSER to direct control because we had hundreds of different unions all very locally implemented and managed. The results were extremely successfull because France had (still has in fact but things are changing) one of the best healthcare system in the world and one of the lowest poverty level of retired people while dedicating a very small part of its wealth to it. (for the healthcare it's 10% of GDP against 15% of GDP in a capitalist system like USA if I remember correctly).Now with modern technology it would probably be possible to go even one step further in socialism by putting parts of the economy not under the control of the unions but directly under the control of the people, and blockchain could be a part of this. So that's a good example of socialism. Until the last presidents, we had an important part of the economy that was not in the free market, but neither under the control of the executive government. It was owned by the unions which were owned by the people directly. Can we get rid of the unions and go for direct control? I'd say so. Edit: I'd like to make my auto critic (very communist behaviour :p ) by saying that I'm not trying to say socialist is awesome here. You asked for an example and I gave you the French one, discussing the result would be discussing how effective capitalism/socialism can be and it's not the subject. Socialism has pros and cons and so has capitalism (mainly a question of freedom against justice). But socialism is a very specific social organization that has been experimented in just a few situations. Still, lots of people are doing exactly what you are saying here, and calling "socialist" what are simply dictatorships. In a dictatorship the government owns everything yes, but the government is one man, not the people. How are facts about the National Socialist goverment controlling the market and the companies an appeal to emotion? It's stating facts. No other country needs to do any of it. We already said that socialism is the collective control of the means of production. I wrote lots of examples in which the National Socialists controlled them. They decided how many of what was produced, who worked and how long, and how much he was paid. The USSR didn't have collective control of production? They did, hence they're socialist. France today is socialist but National Socialist Germany isn't?  They literally controlled the whole fucking economy. France has an almost completely free market. |
|
|
|
Which of the countries you've written talked like this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721Which country was giving quotas on production, price controls, deciding what's supposed to be produced, how much of it and when, nationalized entities, dissolved companies, forbade farm selling, eliminated importing, had wage controls and made it impossible to fire someone, controlled and decided who works&where for how much? Farms up to 308 acres could not be sold, divided, mortgaged or foreclosed on for debt. Reich Food Estate was established to regulate the conditions and production of the farmers. In 1936, Göring's Four Year Plan was inaugurated. Protectionism was decreed and autarchy the desire-the so-called "Battle of Production." Consumer imports were nearly eliminated, price and wage controls were enacted, and vast state projects were built to manufacture raw materials. All employment was under the exclusive control of government employment offices which determined who would work where and for how much. And on June 22, 1938, the Office of the Four Year Plan instituted guaranteed employment by conscripting labor. Every German worker was assigned a position from which he could not be released by the employer, nor could he switch jobs, without permission of the government employment office. Worker absenteeism was met with fines or imprisonment-all in the name of job security. A popular Nazi slogan at the time was "the Common Interest before Self"! Corporations below a capitalization of $40,000 were dissolved and the founding of any below a capitalization of $2,000,000 was forbidden, which wiped out a fifth of all German businesses. Private firearms were outlawed and confiscated -------- You didn't answer me again. Tell me which country had socialism or has real socialism never been tried? |
|
|
|
|
Is the hot wallet still empty or is there some bug?
The send to my balance button does nothing for days already.
|
|
|
|
Ok so for you a socialist country is any country where the government owns part of the economy that's it?
If that's your definition then yes Nazis were socialists indeed.
As you seem to ignore the definition I have written I will ask you to give us your definition of socialism and which countries implemented it You will probably say "Real socialism has never been tried" Right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
