Conservatives are so greedy. Just look at Bush states.

[The One and Only...]

Intriguing, isn't it? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11052003.shtml)

[Perndog]

These are ranks, in order from most generous to least generous. The top 20 most generous states voted for Bush.

I just thought I'd clarify, since I was too dumb to get it at first and I didn't want others to be confused too. ;)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

God, what bullshit. At least it isn't from the fucking Cato Institute this time.

Tell me, is the only charity worth measuring that which is tax deductable...? Apparently so, according to this retarded "give-o-meter," or whatever.

And you're not a conservative OAO, you're a traditional liberal, so what gives? Charity is for suckers who don't read Ayn Rand, right???

[sspadowsky]

Intriguing, isn't it?

No, not really. Unless you're foolish enough to believe that only those who voted for Bush made charitable contributions, which is what this fellow's site most certainly tries to imply.

[The_Rorschach]

Yes well, Republicans traditionally favour big business, big business favours tax shelters and kick backs.

I didn't see anything shocking about this at all, but then, I simply read the comments rather that the article itself. I make charitable donatives too, but I sacrifice of my time and ability as my assets are anything but monetary.

[derrida]

Sociologists have long observed that charitable initiatives are heavily supported by conservative social movements. I think the logic goes something like this: charity serves to acknowledge inequality but doesn't challenge its underlying causes, thus serving to perpetuate the existing order. In addition, charity makes a nice political token, regardless of the fact that it does very little to remediate the problem of poverty.

There is a distinct difference between Charity and Justice.

[The_Rorschach]

Sociology is not a science, it is a stastic based superstition. Sociologists carry about as much weight with me as members of the Catholic clergy.

[mburbank]

Sociology bashing aside, I would only find this Bush states Vs. Generosity chart 'intriguing' if it was cross referenced with

Bush states VS Tomato consumption
Bush states VS Child Pornography arrests
Bush states VS Shoe size
Incidence of Psoriosis VS Generosity
Abidexterous High schoool dropouts VS. Generosity
People named Dave VS Generosity

[derrida]

Sociology is not a science, it is a stastic based superstition. Sociologists carry about as much weight with me as members of the Catholic clergy.

Wow! 3DGY! Look out, folks, we've got a real iconoclast here!

[kellychaos]

You can still make a fairly good educated guess if the statistics are fairly consistent. Matter of fact, they used statistics generously in quantum physics due to the nature of subatomic particles and the results are fairly successful when the sample set of trials is significantly high.

[The One and Only...]

I'm banking that most of these states have low taxes.

Lower taxes mean people can give more to charity, which is what conservatives have been saying all the time.

The point is that charity does not have to be forced by the government in the form of welfare, etc.

[The_Rorschach]

Depends upon who you ask, really OAO. President Lincoln, President Theodore Roosevelt and President Reagan felt it was the responsibility of the government to do for individuals what individuals could not do for themselves. Hence programs for veterans, disabled and otherwise, foster care and the Career Services Centre where unskilled, unemployed civilians can be taught a trade on the governments dime.

There is a fine line behind helping people who cannot help themselves and helping those who simply refuse. To be honest with you, I have trouble seeing it myself sometimes, so I tend to be a little bit more reserved when criticizing issues like welfare. You're not punishing the mother by refusing her financial aide, you're punishing the child, and that seems a bit Draconian to me, and hardly the benchmark of a civilized society.

[camacazio]

That's why FDR's approach to the Great Depression was so ingenious. He didn't give things to people, he provided all sorts of ways for people to get things for themselves. I agree with this method heavily: don't make people dependant. There needs to be some level of help, and even some level of giving, but making people dependant on those kinds of things isn't good.

[The_Rorschach]

Rothbard was right, Franklin Roosevelt was a socialist sycophant and Gary Glitter is a fucking nancy. You're an idiot, go away.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

syncophant like a fox!

[The_Rorschach]

I couldn't tell if you agreed or were being sarcistic Kev, so I felt motivated to reply. . .My God, I believe this is my first real post here in like six months or something :(

Communism is like a virus, according to Marx it is the inevitable conclusion of all democratic and republican countries ("What the bourgeoisie therefore produce, above all, is its own gave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the Proletariat are equally inevitable", the Communist Manifesto), according to Lenin it is a philosophy which must eclipse any extant government for the good of all men ("The capitalists will supply us with the materials and the technology which we lack. They will restore our defense industry, which we need for our future victorious attacks upon our suppliers." V.I.Lenin, 1921). These are tenants which were espoused by the Soviet Union until its dying day ("The leading and guiding force of Soviet Society . . . is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [which is] armed with Marxism-Leninism and imparts a planned systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of Communism." Article 6 of the constitution of the USSR adopted October 1977 ).Unlike any other polity which seeks only to care after its governed, communism is imperialistic in narure -And it is that nature which prompted Germany animosity during World War 2, and the cold war waged by our own country. Roosevelt wanted to involve himself in the war as early as 1938 when Czechoslovakia fell to Germany, but there was no public support. None, and for good reason. Germany was never a threat to us. Herr Hitler actually found himself in open admiration of the US, both as a political and economic institution which prompted him to emplace National Socialism, not to be confused with communism or modern socialism, seeing that the real enemy to any peaceful country's existance would be communist imperialism.

This is not a defense of Hitler, I'm ommitting quite a bit purposely, however it is important to note that while Germans and Americans looked upon Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili's (Stalin's real name, for those who don't know it) manner of leadership with open disgust and contempt, Roosevelt never did. Despite the overwhelming evidence presented to him. We all remember the show trials right? There were four key trials from 1936 to 1938, The Trial of the Sixteen was the first (December 1936); then the Trial of the Seventeen (January 1937); then the trial of Red Army generals, including Marshal Tukhachevsky (June 1937); and finally the Trial of the Twenty One (including Bukharin) in March 1938. But his barbarism didn't stop there, even after his power base was ensured, he went on to order assassination of Trotsky in Mexico, 1940 -Trotsky having been a severe impediment against his rise to power years before.

What he did to his own populace was worse - terrorizing large segments of the Soviet population, such as the Kulaks, and orchestrating massive famines in the places such as Ukraine whereby an estimated 5 million people died - yet ever to Mr Roosevelt would he be considered "Uncle Joe." I won't mention Roosevelt's socialist policies enacted domestically, as we have laboured over those points in the past, and I'm sure OAO could contribute them as readily as a I, but if this doesn't qualify Franklin Delano as a socialist sycophant, I don't know what does >: [/i]

[Protoclown]

this thread is boring :(

[mburbank]

Once is enough, what the hell kind of economist are you going to make if a simple chart graphing two totally disperate sets of facts against each other with no attempt to explain a correlation is meaningful to you in any way? I can't believe you have the audacity to fault other people for posting bad writting. Giving to charity vs, voting for President? Which charities, what household percentage of giving, who's the governor, what's tha average individual donation how many donations, what were the giving statistics in years the states voted democrat, who did the research, how was it done? You realize, don't you that the comparison graph was posted by pundit who did NO RESEARCH at all as to causal correlatives here, right? That the graph is absolutely without any merit in any argument at all and that if I was teaching a high school research class and got that graph I'd have given the kid a D becuase he made an effort but in no way understood what research was?

See, I think you actually DO know all that. I think you hold the avergare intelligence here in disdain, you underestimate it, and you think you're somehow scoring points by being an agent provocateur. I hate it when people play stupid, especially people who aren't as smart as they think they are to begin with.

[ziggytrix]

"Sociology is not a science, it is a stastic based superstition."

So is quantuum physics, but both fields do a pretty good job of making prediction models for their subjects of study. :P

[mburbank]

Know what's a good, hard science. Economics. I think economists have every right to look down a sociologists. I mean, once you've established a really good set of totally provable theorems and an ability to acurately predict outcomes, like economics has, you can really thumb your nose.

[The One and Only...]

That is great and all, but then there is the fact that is a message board - not a high school.

This wasn't intended to actually prove anything, it was just something to make you go "hmmm..."

It was more of a smack into the face of people who claim all conservatives and/or neoconservatives are greedy, self-centered, and don't care about their fellow man.

Throwing in the thing about lower taxes = more willing to donate to charity was fairly assuming, built around a postulate that those states which came out Republican have lower taxes. I don't have time to look up all of this, and it is not such an illogical thought if you consider the tax rates in average.

Now, does that prove that there is a correlation between taxes and donation to charity? No. I would laugh my head off if someone tried to say that, or anything similar. But, it is something to make you go "hmmm...," and it doesn't defy logic or theory.

[Anonymous]

Know what's a good, hard science. Economics. I think economists have every right to look down a sociologists. I mean, once you've established a really good set of totally provable theorems and an ability to acurately predict outcomes, like economics has, you can really thumb your nose.

No way. My economics teacher tried to explain why buying a season pass to an amusement park is more expensive than going to the park often enough to overshoot the cost of a season pass, and to this day, I still don't understand why. It's because of that that I can never bring myself to go to Six Flags any more.

[kellychaos]

Know what's a good, hard science. Economics. I think economists have every right to look down a sociologists. I mean, once you've established a really good set of totally provable theorems and an ability to acurately predict outcomes, like economics has, you can really thumb your nose.

Actually, not only are both linked by a somewhat common theme but also considered "soft sciences" due to their heavy reliance on probability and statistics in their approach. That's not to say that economics does not make use of proveable mathematical tools.

[The One and Only...]

Am I the the only one who saw that burbank was being sarcastic?

Kelly, not all forms of economics have heavy reliance on complex mathematical equations (Neoclassical trains of thought do, which most people simply equate to economics), but you are correct that they are soft sciences.

[mburbank]

So wait, is it something to make you go "Hmmmm..." or a slap in the face?

Cause mostly slaps in the face don't make me go "Hmmm..."

[The One and Only...]

That's what makes this one special.

Along with metaphors that involve a hand.

[mburbank]

If by 'special' you mean 'handicapped' then I'd agree.

[The One and Only...]

Har. Handicapped.

[The_Rorschach]

Sociology has no applicable paradigm, neither does political theory (political "science" that is), economics does however. There is nothing soft about it. Neither does it embrace Baconian Idols -as sociology clearly does with its assumption of relational power existant in human interaction.

I'd put more faith in Economics than I would either of the above mentioned any day of the week for all the fact I'm a Political Science major.

[Ninjavenom]

(generalized political group) are so (adjective)! Look at these (plural noun) i found, indicating that (past or current president) is a (verb) (adjective)! (verb)ing (noun)(verb)er!

[ziggytrix]

say whatever you want about sociology, but statistcs and probability are part of MATH, which is THE foundation of all "hard" sciences.

[Supafly345]

Define hard science. Because in reality (not inside your computer) math is completely in theory. Meaning there is nothing hard about it. Everything that is truely "hard" is usually estimations.

Math and science are related period. But I really don't know what the hell point you were trying to make. SURE IS FUN TO ARGUE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING HUH?

[Anonymous]

Neither does it embrace Baconian Idols -as sociology clearly does with its assumption of relational power existant in human interaction.

I happen to like bacon, you ass. Leave it out of your damned discussions!

[The_Rorschach]

Be that as it may Zig, Sociology falls far short of living up to the scientific standard. How can you call sociology a science when there are so many interpretations, some even contradicting one another, yet all alike in that none can accurately be used to predict behavioural patterns or actions of a test subject. At best it is a tool used to rationalize events of the recent past-present.

And Boogie that's Sir Francis Bacon brother, not Farmer John

[Anonymous]

I don't care who invented bacon, it's still delicious.

[kellychaos]

As far as economics is concerned, I meant "soft" as it relates to sociology. For example: Could one truly predict the effects on the airline industry from the effects of the 9/11 trajedy through hard mathematical proofs? I tend to think that sociology and the statistics and/or probabality inherent to it are linked to economics in this instance as well as a multitude of trends involving the stock market. Is sociology necessarily linked to all aspects of economics? I don't see a necessay link in all cases but I believe that there are places where it may be helpful.

[The One and Only...]

Ror, there are probably just as many different economic schools of thought as there are sociology. It's just that neoclassical economics have dominated the others for so long.

Too many assume that analysis of statistics and other forms of number crunching are the main factors of economic study. They are not, save perhaps certain neoclassical schools. Economics should be about the application of logic to theory, because, quite frankly, studying economics empirically is rather inefficient as there are so many variables. Yes, certain trends may be noted, but one cannot say something necessarily caused something else because they usually occur at the same time without some logical explanation.

Economics has, in far too many cases, assumed the fully rational man, who makes all business decisions correctly. This is simply not true. There is no general equilibrium - human uncertainty prevents it. No one business has ever actually priced a good at the exact interaction between supply and demand. Pareto optimality is a fool's dream. To assume that value is determined by cost of production is wrong - value is in the eye of the valuer. It is for this reason that the use of overly complex mathematical equations within economics is so flawed; it makes too many minor assumptions, which ruins the system.

Hence, economics is, or at least should be, a soft science, because it must not assume anything about how well people make economic decisions - except, of course, what can be logically assumed. Sociology and economics are infinitely wound around each other.

Read up on what is gaining more attention every day. (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_subjectivism)

[Protoclown]

I agree.


Bacon IS delicious.

[ziggytrix]

SURE IS FUN TO ARGUE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING HUH?

Wow, it's like you know me and I don't even know you!

[The_Rorschach]

Zig upon faith, it is someone defective justifications for one parody

[Supafly345]

I hate bacon.

Unless it was cooked.

[camacazio]

That's just fucked up.

[mburbank]

I like to wrap it around a scallop.



I also like bacon.

[Brandon]

I like to wrap it around a scallop.



I also like bacon.
SHH! I WANNA TALK ABOUT ECONOMICS!

[The One and Only...]

Your avatar scares me.

[Zhukov]

Have you seen yours lately?

Some sad old man... probably a libertarian economist from Austria.

[The One and Only...]

Maybe one day I'll put a big anarchy sign on his forehead.

[Zhukov]

Well, how was I to know he was an anarchist.

He should be a sad clown.

[The_Rorschach]

You know Zhukov, I rather strongly suggest you learn a bit about Rothbard (Mr Murry Rothbard, OaO's avatar). I find him quite lucid and terribly insightful.

[Zhukov]

Well after such a good recomendation how could I not look him up?

He is an 'Austrian' Libertarian - you can't pull the wool over my eyes for long.

Unfortunatly, I started "The End of Socialism and The Calculation Debate revisited" (http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae5_2_3.pdfurl) I found the first paragraphs ignorant enough to warrant that I stop.

Silly, I know, but I have an awful lot to read.

Any specific recomendations?

[The One and Only...]

I would comment on whether or not the article is "ignorant", but the link is broken.

Tell you what. Why don't you read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value) first so you can understand why the labor theory of value is considered obsolete, and this (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_subjectivism) so you can understand an alternative approach.

After that, I would suggest reading this (http://www.mises.org/austecon.asp) so you can understand Austrian theory. Then, you should at least read the first 100 pages or so of America's Great Depression.

[ziggytrix]

You're a grad student, aren't you?

[The One and Only...]

Actually, I'm a high school freshman.

[The_Rorschach]

I can;t provide a title, I'm sorry, I'm still in the process of having all my things shipped to me, and so most of my books are lost to me at the moment. But his take on the Great Depression, his general contempt of the Federal Reserve Board's doings and Reaganomics as well as his not-entirely Austrian perspective mark him as interesting, even where I disagree with him

[ziggytrix]

Damn, I thought for sure with a reading assignment like that right before Thanksgiving break, you HAD to be a heartless Grad Student. :(

[Zhukov]

Tell you what. Why don't you read this first so you can understand why the labor theory of value is considered obsolete, and this so you can understand an alternative approach.

After that, I would suggest reading this so you can understand Austrian theory. Then, you should at least read the first 100 pages or so of America's Great Depression.

Shant. Not if you are going to be nasty. :rolleyes
http://www.mises.org/raeDisplay.asp?letter=t&action=alphaTitle
Dont pretend you've never been to this site, OAO. ;)

[The One and Only...]

Yeah. One of my links was to that site.

You didn't tell me your link was to that site.

So why is it horribly misinformed? The first paragraph?

[Zhukov]

You didn't tell me your link was to that site.

What's the problem? Do you have a terrible secret or some dark history regarding ths web site? You didn't tell me where your links were going after all.


So why is it horribly misinformed? The first paragraph?
Yeah.

"...And they had all decided, left, right and centre, that there was not a thing economicaly wrong with Socialism..."
Shame they never old anyone. While they may have come to such a conclusion - when was it puplished to the world? The Right, Centre and Left have never ver ceased to attack Socialism, from every angle.

"...everyone, socialists and non-socialists alike, had long realized that Socalism sufered from an incentive problem.
Not only does Socialism not suffer from an 'incentive prolem', but you wouldn't be much of a Socialist if you thought it did.

"If, for example, everyone were to recieve an equal income under Socialism..."
He has either never even read basic Marxist works, or he is just trying to further this fallacy on behalf of the ruling class.

"...Or, in another variant, everyone was supposed to "produce acording to their ability" but receive "acording to their needs"..."
Wrong again. This is simple stuff to be getting wrong; he does it on purpose.

"...Who, under Socialism, will take out the garbage?"
A garbage man.

He goes on a bit with more "religious communism", then calls Mao a Socialist. Why should I bother anymore with someone who is knowingly peddling lies? You might as well take it to the "Why we defended the USSR" thread if you want to make something out of this. :/

[The One and Only...]

Under true communism, everyone recieves their "wage" according to how long they work. Hence, the labor theory of value.

How does this not eliminate an incentive problem? This merely spurs the incentive to work, not the incentive to work certain jobs over others.

[camacazio]

The incentive, under such a system, switches from capitalism greed to doing what you want to do. If you don't want to do anything, you're stuck with the garbage man job. There's still the seperation of lazy and non-lazy, because there's those who go through enough school to become a highly specialized worker from those who wish to just take it easy and be the garbage man, both equally valuable tasks in society.

I do not advocate communism, though, only socialism. Communism is the mix between pure socialism and pure democracy, and that just begs to be corrupted. I believe people raised in capitalism are inherently greedy because of the way things function around them, but communism doesn't provide necessary structure. A government indissimilar from the current US government, though with a stronger power over economic sanctions and higher taxes to provide many more services, would be what I want. It pushes for socialism of the economic equality type, but provides many important aspects to government. It also maintains a certain level a step away from pure communism: you still have those who would work certain ways, but then you would also have increased wages for being a specializing working, instead of just being better learned and having a job you may enjoy more.

[The One and Only...]

So, under socialism, there will be an over-supply of some jobs, and an under-supply of others because of an inefficient allocation of human resources.

The only way such a system could work is if something was able to choose your job, in which case we return the economic calculation debate.

[camacazio]

I have no clue where that idea came from. It is entirely illogical. There is nothing that would cause any more of an unbalanced human resource allocation that isn't currently in the US.

[The One and Only...]

Yes, there would. That factor is called equal wages.

Equal wages distort the factors that determine the wage, the supply of and demand for people to fill certain occupations.

Because of that distortion, incentive to fill occupationsl either decreases or increases corresponding to the increase or decrease in the wage.

In layman's terms, fewer people would become doctors because the job pays less, and more would become artists because the job pays more.

This causes a shortage of doctors and an excessive number of artists.

Understand?

[Zhukov]

Under true communism, everyone recieves their "wage" according to how long they work. Hence, the labor theory of value.
Nobody mentioned Communism! Be relevant!

Under communism, nobody receives a wage. The labour theory of value is not a way of allocating wages.

How does this not eliminate an incentive problem? This merely spurs the incentive to work, not the incentive to work certain jobs over others.
The so-called Socialist 'incentive problem' is that since people are no longer disease-ridden or lacking education, they wont bother working. Under capitalism people apparantly have to work for these things.

The incentive, under such a system, switches from capitalism greed to doing what you want to do. If you don't want to do anything, you're stuck with the garbage man job.
Doing what you want to do is Communism, if you don't want to do anything under Socialism; if you want to lay around and do nothing, you get nothing.

There are a few ideas on how to get the undesirable jobs done in a Socialist society, although you have to realise that alot of garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever, do these jobs because they like them. Other than that, I see eveyone doing these jobs for a small period of time each year. Society can share the task.

Communism is the mix between pure socialism and pure democracy
There is only Democracy under Socialism, there is no Democracy under Communism. This is the "withering away of the state" that you may have read about. Engels? You know?

Communism is no money, no state, no class.

A government indissimilar from the current US government, though with a stronger power over economic sanctions and higher taxes to provide many more services, would be what I want. It pushes for socialism of the economic equality type, but provides many important aspects to government.
You have got to be joking. Socialism is workers democracy, not a richer government with more power. Such a system begs to be corrupted.

I don't mean to sound mean comrade, do you relate to any particular group or party?

Also, you and I, or anyone else, does not get a say in whether Communsim follows Socialism, or not. It either does or it doesn't.

That factor is called equal wages.
Moron! What have I told you! :lol Are you doing this on purpose? There is no equal wage under Sociaism. "Equal Wages" is one of the biggest lies that the ruling class has managed to get people to believe. Why would there be equal wages?

In layman's terms, fewer people would become doctors because the job pays less, and more would become artists because the job pays more.
Why would the doctor be paid less? Put your answer in any term you like. He would be paid more. The artist would be paid more too. But if a doctor works harder than an artist (which I am sure they do) then a doctor would be paid more.

This causes a shortage of doctors and an excessive number of artists.
Why does Cuba have so many doctors? They have so many that they send them away to other countries. You may be confused though, because it is possible that a waitress/waiter can earn more in a day than a doctor. This is result of tourists using the US dollar, not "Equal Wages".

Understand?

[The One and Only...]

[quote]Nobody mentioned Communism! Be relevant!

Under communism, nobody receives a wage. The labour theory of value is not a way of allocating wages.

Wage: Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

A wage need not be payed for in money. In may be payed for in food, clothing, etc.

The so-called Socialist 'incentive problem' is that since people are no longer disease-ridden or lacking education, they wont bother working. Under capitalism people apparantly have to work for these things.

The incentive problem is much more than that, as I already posted.

Doing what you want to do is Communism, if you don't want to do anything under Socialism; if you want to lay around and do nothing, you get nothing.

But you do not get more for working more productive jobs, hurting incentive.

There are a few ideas on how to get the undesirable jobs done in a Socialist society, although you have to realise that alot of garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever, do these jobs because they like them. Other than that, I see eveyone doing these jobs for a small period of time each year. Society can share the task.

But under communism, there is no authority to force people to take such jobs, and I have never met garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever who enjoy their job. Furthermore, even if society did share the task without the necessity of police enforcement, it could considerably hurt productivity as a result of weakened specialization.

Moron! What have I told you! :lol Are you doing this on purpose? There is no equal wage under Sociaism. "Equal Wages" is one of the biggest lies that the ruling class has managed to get people to believe. Why would there be equal wages?

Really? No wages? In that case, everyone gets everything, regardless of whether they work or not. You have no understanding of what a wage is.

Why would the doctor be paid less? Put your answer in any term you like. He would be paid more. The artist would be paid more too. But if a doctor works harder than an artist (which I am sure they do) then a doctor would be paid more.

I am comparing to modern doctor incomes. A doctor would necessarily be paid less under a communist system, because under communism all wages would need to be calculated to an average and then distributed per capita. Doctors currently make more than the average.

Why does Cuba have so many doctors? They have so many that they send them away to other countries. You may be confused though, because it is possible that a waitress/waiter can earn more in a day than a doctor. This is result of tourists using the US dollar, not "Equal Wages".

Understand?

Cuba is not a socialist or communist country. After the loss of Soviet foreign aid, Cuba enacted several market-based reforms. It is now a "mixed socialist economy in which both the government and the private sector interact to coordinate production and clear markets." http://www.cubafacts.com/Economy/econmain.htm

Even during times of greater socialism, doctors made more than other workers because wages were not the same for all classes and the government could choose your job.

Understand?

[Zhukov]

Sure, a wage can be paid in food or clothing. But there are no wages in a communist world.

What you posted on the 'incentive problem' is irelevant, because thre is no "Equal Wage".

Under Socialism, you get more for working more, you get more for working more productive jobs.

I have never met garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever who enjoy their job. Furthermore
I have. How old are you? Do you talk to many garbage men?

How much 'specialised training' would you need to take out rubbish?

Really? No wages? In that case, everyone gets everything, regardless of whether they work or not. You have no understanding of what a wage is.

DID I SAY "NO WAGES"? I SAID "NO EQUAL WAGES".

Are you thick? No wages under communism, no equal wages under communism or socialism. How many times must it be said? All wages do not need to be calculated to an avrage, all wages do not gravitate to a central wage, all wages are not paid regading how tall you are.

You have no undersanding of basic Socialist or Communist principles and ideas. Go and read some marxist works. Go and read an 'introdution to marxism', and stop bothering me with your repetitive insanity.

I've asked you before, where do you get your information?

[The One and Only...]

Under Socialism, you get more for working more, you get more for working more productive jobs.

Tell me, what determines the wage? The community? The government? Obviously this cannot be the case, because socialism lacks any sort of economic calculation with which to accurately determine productive value, demand, supply, and de facto price.

Furthermore, what is the point of socialism? This is the exact same end that capitalism comes to, only more efficiently and with quicker reaction to changing forces.