I hate socialism but..... shouldn't a nations resources be nationalized?

[Brunic]

When a forest is owned by "the people", you just have to bribe "the people" (aka government), in order to chop it down. Much less expensive.

Politicians are cheap, compared to actually buying massive amounts of resources.

Ding ding ding!

The government has to create a corporation to nationalize the resources. It's a business like every other and is managed like any real business out there. It exist to make profit for its shareholders (in this case, the state) and will try to get the best deal possible for the resources instead of simply playing the politic game.

You can't simply lobby a politician anymore to get the resources, you need to close a deal with another business and buy massive amounts of resources for the right price. I don't care if the buyer has to pay more, I'm completely against social security for private businesses. Make money or die. Big corporations are always out there crying out to get bailed out, be subsidized or having laws changed. They are the biggest welfare leechers, always looking for taxpayer money to stay profitable. At least, by paying the right price for natural resources, they can't leech taxpayers anymore.

[JohnCoins]

It seems kind of wrong to me to see nations around the world with the most resources being the poorest.  I love capitalism but ... should national resources really be exploitable? To me it means it will lead to two things: environmentally destructive practices possibly. But also the siphoning of wealth from one country to another country.

No.

[Lethn]

What I find a lot of people who support these kind of socialistic or communist ideologies is that what they are supporting is thievery, either through stealth inflation or direct taxation, I'm all for spreading the wealth around, I'd even be for building roads etc. in inhospitable places so it would make peoples lives easier. What I can't stand though is people who use emotional blackmail and extortion to get their way.

All the time we hear about how it would be a disaster if we got rid of taxes but of course these arrogant people don't realise there is such a thing as charity which shows you how little they trust their fellow humans, if governments really do end up collapsing because of Bitcoin the first thing I'm going to do is donate to some hospitals

[Brunic]

What I find a lot of people who support these kind of socialistic or communist ideologies is that what they are supporting is thievery, either through stealth inflation or direct taxation, I'm all for spreading the wealth around, I'd even be for building roads etc. in inhospitable places so it would make peoples lives easier. What I can't stand though is people who use emotional blackmail and extortion to get their way.

All the time we hear about how it would be a disaster if we got rid of taxes but of course these arrogant people don't realise there is such a thing as charity which shows you how little they trust their fellow humans, if governments really do end up collapsing because of Bitcoin the first thing I'm going to do is donate to some hospitals

Charity doesn't work when there's discrimination from a stronger group toward a weaker group. It often transform into a collective mental masturbation between members of the strong group. Like how those native americans are so "lucky" that rich white english people build schools for them to brainwash them to the "good" culture. Or how the rich white english people are so generous by trying to make the french-canadians "evolve" by trying to assimilate them in every way possible.

It was the same thing with the black people back in the states. You're black? Oh, you're sooooo lucky young man, with my true american charitable spirit, I'll let you eat 2 times a day.

It's not that charity is bad, it's more that it's easily contaminated by discrimination. Charity is the act of choosing who gets the privilege and who is left behind. In my own society, we have another mentality, more of the type "no one left behind", that's may be why I don't like charity that much.

[myrkul]

Charity doesn't work when there's discrimination from a stronger group toward a weaker group. It often transform into a collective mental masturbation between members of the strong group. Like how those native americans are so "lucky" that rich white english people build schools for them to brainwash them to the "good" culture. Or how the rich white english people are so generous by trying to make the french-canadians "evolve" by trying to assimilate them in every way possible.

Think of it more like mutual aid associations. Get enough French-Canadians together, without Ottowa shoving it's nose in, and they can help each other out, assimilation be damned.

[Lethn]

It's not that charity is bad, it's more that it's easily contaminated by discrimination. Charity is the act of choosing who gets the privilege and who is left behind. In my own society, we have another mentality, more of the type "no one left behind", that's may be why I don't like charity that much.  

You know how you don't discriminate don't you? Mathematics and a brain OOOOOOO! It's like how I don't give to major charities because I know just how much they get tax free and how a lot of it goes to 'administration' costs, I got pretty pissed recently with people from charities who claimed on the radio that the 1 billion they were getting ( seriously 1 fucking billion and I think it was either in pound or euros ) was not enough to help the people in Syria long term.

Charity may have it's problems but they're far better and more single minded than a government who is far more likely to extort you for money and use a large percentage of that money to pay for their armies and equipment than anything genuinely useful to their people.

Edit: I just re-read my post and realised it's a bit daft since I wrote it while I was sleepy, while it's true you can choose not to discriminate by mathematics and brain, humans are discriminating by nature, sorry about that >_<

[xisnotx]

nah, my resources are mine. nation schmation.

[gapthemind]

It seems kind of wrong to me to see nations around the world with the most resources being the poorest.  I love capitalism but ... should national resources really be exploitable? To me it means it will lead to two things: environmentally destructive practices possibly. But also the siphoning of wealth from one country to another country.

Consider this. Japan was poorest country decades ago but they changed their internal politics and changed their way of transfer of technology. What they did is implemented science and made progress with that. Japan doesnt have resources but it has amazing techological progress and GDP of japan is amazing and its growing ( getting higher ). https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:JPN&dl=en&hl=en&q=japan%20gdp

But i agree with you. Globalization is bad. Rich countries get richer while poor get well.. Also globalization is a way to keep other countries occupied without the use of military power, just take a look at Germany now and some 70 years ago. Same thing only without mass murders, war and such....

[Richy_T]

Poorer countries get richer too. Working long hours in a factory may not be fun but slaving away in a field is no picnic either. It's something the first world went through a couple of hundred years ago and look where we are now.

[gapthemind]

Poorer countries get richer too. Working long hours in a factory may not be fun but slaving away in a field is no picnic either. It's something the first world went through a couple of hundred years ago and look where we are now.

Industrial revolution and progress after that when World wasnt owned by a company or multile companies that share interest only to gain more profit are 2 different things. Now you have companies that generate more money then entire countrie. Poor countries work for rich, thats the fact and that will never change. Thats why USA still has so many satellite states, draining reasurces from them ( oil, copper, gold... )

[Richy_T]

Corporatism is a different thing than globalization. Corporations are better placed to take advantage of globalization, it's true but that doesn't make globalization itself a bad thing.

[gapthemind]

Corporatism is a different thing than globalization. Corporations are better placed to take advantage of globalization, it's true but that doesn't make globalization itself a bad thing.

Well there isnt much difference. many countries are runned by big corporations thus goal of that corporation is same as goal of entire countrie. thats the reason why some countries are occupied with or witout military presence. Globalization is bad, very bad since the only goal of globalization is to drain one country and fill pockets of rich countrie. Think like this. You have a big land, thousands oh acres rich with oil, mines...  but you dont have cash to start production. My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.

Globalization helps rich countries keep poor countries as subjects and its a nice way to leach their ppl giving them flase hope and left overs by filling own pocket. I gave you example of Germany in Europe.

[Richy_T]

My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.

Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer.

The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you.

[FirstAscent]

My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.

Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer.

The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you.

Such are the naive views of those who worship the free market.

Let me correct you: the value of a good is not what the market settles on. The market settles on what the knowledge between two parties have about a good and it's supply and renewability, their perceived individual projection of their need for the good in the future and the unique economic and often peculiar situations both parties find themselves in. Their knowledge is also almost certainly devoid or significantly lacking in the ramifications of the consumption of that good, both in terms of depletion and effects on the world, and furthermore, even if not lacking, often indifferent. Anyone who can think clearly can see that.

Since you clearly cannot see that, I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.

[salfter]

Last century, Americans company were coming in Canada, pumping iron and buying mining companies for cheap. With the same iron, they shipped it back into the US, made steel with it and sold it back to us at like 5x times the original price. I know "capitalist/freedom/etc", but this type of business doesn't create any plus-value.

That's a rather ignorant statement on your part.  No added value?  Try building something out of iron ore.  As it comes out of the ground, it's rather useless. Refining ore into steel is an energy-intensive process.  Try telling me with a straight face that there's no value in that.

[gapthemind]

My country has cash so i go to you and tell you, Ok sir will you sell me, lease me or anything similar your land for 1billion $. You rub your hands thinking how good deal that was but in fact real value of your land is lets say 100billion $.

Free & fair trade leaves both parties the richer.

The value of a good is what the market settles on. If you sell your land for 1 billion, that's what it's worth to you.

Again worng. there is no fair trade when one side is getting richer and one losing money.

Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

[gapthemind]

Last century, Americans company were coming in Canada, pumping iron and buying mining companies for cheap. With the same iron, they shipped it back into the US, made steel with it and sold it back to us at like 5x times the original price. I know "capitalist/freedom/etc", but this type of business doesn't create any plus-value.

That's a rather ignorant statement on your part.  No added value?  Try building something out of iron ore.  As it comes out of the ground, it's rather useless. Refining ore into steel is an energy-intensive process.  Try telling me with a straight face that there's no value in that.

Well you are ignoring the fact that phase products arent calcualted into GDP. You cant calculate iron ore 2x 3x 4x or even more. You can opnly calcualte it 1 time and you will chose when. So a company that buying iron ore and making ingots is contributing to GDP more then a miner mining that iron ore. You cant add value of iron ore and iron ingots. When you use that iron to make cars, bridges, building then its a new process thus it is calculated gain, Its not cumulative number...

[Richy_T]

I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.

Fortunately, I categorize you as someone who's categorizations have no significance so, meh...

[FirstAscent]

I categorize you as someone who can't think clearly on the subject, given your general worship of the free market.

Fortunately, I categorize you as someone who's categorizations have no relevance so, meh...

I wouldn't expect you to be able to effectively categorize me given your starry eyed views of markets.

You're clearly lacking some information in your analysis, as are market participants.

[Richy_T]

Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.

If you consider that every time you sell something and someone is able to sell it for more that you lost something, you are calculating things wrong and in for a disappointing life. Why would anyone wish to purchase your labor if they were not able to profit off of it somehow?