armyclonk
-
Content Count
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by armyclonk
-
-
Quote[/b] ]Well of course the system can work with 1% unemployed but not for long periods of time because the inflation will grow too fast in normal circumstances.i dont see why the inflation have to grow when you have few unemployed. can you please explain?
EDIT: ok, i looked it up. the basis is statistic. the theorie behind this is, that with less unemployed there is more demand for goods, which can't be satisfied because there isn't enough capaticy. but today the demand can't be so high. it isn't possible with all the capaticy we have for example in china.
what also opposes this theorie: the unemployed in germany are not realy poor, so it would not have a too big impact on the free market if they would be in work again
.Quote[/b] ]They've never been socialists (in the marxist sense). The only socialists you've got is Die Linke and DKP.now, i only said what they said. of cause they dont use the marxist sense, so it most likely is right that they are not socialist in a marxist sense.
Die Linke is more or less the old left wing of the SPD. so it's true, the SPD is gone a bit to the middle. and DKP are not realy important in germany.
-
Quote[/b] ]Back then the scandinavian states did have a more controlled market. Now it's free market everywhere. And it didn't work in the long run. The inflation went high because of neoliberal free market reforms in the 90ies. And unemployment rose.yep, but it shows, that the system can work with about 1% unemployed.
Quote[/b] ]Higher taxes should intuitively lower inflation somewhat.not sales taxes, they always raise the inflation.
Quote[/b] ]The german social democrats are no socialists. Socialists are opposed to capitalism. SPD is a social liberal party.they just reaffirmed that they are democratic socialists. if it's true or not will show, but that's what they call themselfes.
-
Quote[/b] ]And what do you base the 1% on? Where's your numbers and analysis?because some scandinavic states had for some time about 1% and the economie worked. if there would be less you can predict, that there's a problem because there are nobody to replace workers who quit.
Quote[/b] ]You've got 2.4% inflation in germany.yes, because the sales taxes were resently raised from 16% to 19%. the money is used to lower the costs for the companies, so they stay in germany. the predicted inflation for august 2008 is 1.9% and the econimic growth was at about 2.6%, is atm at about 1.9% and is predicted to be minimum 2.1% for the next year. the unemployment is dropping further at 0.5+% per year. i think germany is doing well atm.
better then only under the SPD, the solcialistic party of germany... at the moment we have got a coalition of SPD and CDU, which is the christian democratic union which and the conservativ force in germany.
-
Quote[/b] ]It's different. One can't say exactly what the percentage is that makes things go bad. But generally if you have inflation you have "too little" unemployment.yes you can, within well-defined error bars. because this >1% are needed to replace the people who get too old or sick to work and have to quite.
Quote[/b] ]Didn't soviet technology improve?thats because they had to face the improvement of the rest of the world.
-
Quote[/b] ]1. Oh great, market economy is better just because US is richer than Cuba?he never said that. he just said, that cubans doesn't seem to enjoy that "paradise" so much.
Quote[/b] ]No, the system requires unemployment.that might be true. but the system only requires less then 1% unemployed. and in germany he have atm 8-9%, and that not the top, we used to have abou 13%.
one of the problems is indeed, that there are no qualified ingenieurs, IT-people etc. on the free market. the companies have
hundred of thousand free workplaces, but noone to work there.
Quote[/b] ]There are many goods that wouldn't be needed like the 30 types of toothpaste.they are needed. because every toothpaste want to be sold. and to reach that every toothpaste have to have something that is better than in the others.
if you would only have one toothpaste there would be no need to search for something better, like chemicals that makes the tooth harder, because everyone would have to use that one and only toothpaste.
-
Quote[/b] ]I don't think you think so if you think about it.eventhough you don't think i think so if i think about it i think if i think i think so.
Quote[/b] ]What would happen to you and your country if all companies, all engineers, doctors and scientists moved?i would either move with them, because when the educated people move they have a reason, or try to create a climate where it attractiv to the educated to live.
-
Quote[/b] ]Yea, and if it's not in the interest of the people that some people who got their education paid by the rest, move to other countries, they should be stopped.But every human should have the right to go whereever he wants.
Quote[/b] ]No, not at all. It was one of the purposes, but not the only and not the main.Yes it was. The only other reason that could be valid is the spy-reason, but the main reason was to keep the people inside.
-
Quote[/b] ]It is true. After the war there were no industries to talk about and East Germany (part of Prussia and its junkers) has always had good soil.They still had some big industry parks around berlin and leipzig.
Quote[/b] ]In the west many industries were left intact, and weren't dismantled to compensate for western industrial war losses (as there hardly were any).Don't we forget they took the Saarland? and that french took away a lot out of the Ruhrpot?
Quote[/b] ]I don't see how it could be in the interests of the people to see skilled workers move.It isn't in the interesst of the people. But with the Stasi, the limited lifequality because of bad plans (In the summers the people in the east had problems with the drinkwater, becaue the industry had no aluminium to produce bottle tops. They had the workers, the machines, but no aluminium.) and nothing but propaganda.
Besides this wasn't the main purpose of the wall.
The only purpose of the wall was to keep the people inside of the DDR. The wall was a big border system with anti-personal-mines, automatic shoot system and all that stuff. But that stuff was not situated on the west side of the wall, because they didn't wanted to stop anybody from getting to the wall from the west, it was situated on the east side, to stop the people from the DDR to get out. The DDR-soldiers along the border had the order to shoot anybody who wanted to get out of the country. Many were shoot or died from the mines etc.
Quote[/b] ]At the same time your companies generate higher and higher profits. They steal work from the working people. If the USSR and Cuba can have pensions at 55 why can't Germany? Germany has the money to make life good for all, but only a few have it because they own, not work.Germany has got 1400 Billion € debts and try to get rid of them. The pensionfund are empty, because they were pumped into the infrastructure of the ex-DDR. The price for a workinghour in germany is one of the highest in the whole world, no matter which type of work, and because of that, a whole lot of companies move their factories from germany to china. BWe have about 4,5million people without work.
The biggest problem is, that the average woman only give life to 1,34 children, but the average lifetime is getting bigger and bigger. That means, that fewer people work, but more gat pensions. The only way tpo compensate this is to let the people work longer.
-
Quote[/b] ]No I don't think so, or did I?
Quote[/b] ]DDR had cheap cars all citizens could afford (that's better than in the west)Quote[/b] ]Initially DDR was agrarian.Nope, sorry, but that isn't true.
Quote[/b] ]Sure there were big industries but not like those in the west.The industry was quite big. even west germany buyed tons of east german goods, because they produce it fucking cheap.
Quote[/b] ]The engineers and scientists got better paid in the west so they moved there before the wall was erected as well.And tried to get out there some years later... but then they were trapped.
Quote[/b] ]United germany was a good deal for the capitalists in the west.United Germany had to use the money for the pensions for the people in the east. Even today west germany pay 10 billion € for the east, EVERY YEAR!
If you ask a west german, if he want the wall back, you will most likely get the awnser: HELL YES.
-
Half of Europe is taking funds from West Germany. Why would East Germany be any different?europe has about 500 million inhabitants get about 20 billion € from germany.
east germany has between 12-13 million inhabitants and gets 10 billion.
-
you started to compare the west and the DDR
the DDR wasn't an agrarian. i live in germany, and there are very big industry areas in the ex-DDR builded up by the nazi's, bombed down and rebuilded afterwards. the airpollution in the DDR was the highest in europe due to the industry.
and it's astonishing how the ex-DDR is stillin need of funds from the rest of germany. viva la solidaritätszuschlag...
-
no, thats not how it worked... and anyway, what if you crash your car with 19? the next time you have a car is with 34 then. just great
. -
[...]DDR had cheap cars all citizens could afford (that's better than in the west)[...]after waiting fifteen years for it
-
Democracy is not about consensus, it's about majority decisions. Therefore its definition is the dictatorship of the majority. The majority rules.this, good sir, is wrong.
democracy, in it's very meaning, is the rule of the people. for this rule you need the volonté générale.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Political_theory
of cause this isn't possible with more then lets say 10 people. that why there are other types of more or less democratic systems, but none of them is realy democratic.
today we say democracy to institutionel and representativ democracy, but in it's very meaning this is wrong.
-
Which democracy? The "democracy" in Greece or the one in the 19th century or maybe even the "democracy" we have now?Democracy means the rule of the people. The dictatorship of the majority.
ad 1: democracy was an example for a current system. if you don't consider you current system as democracy you may chose yes, i want radical change.
ad 2: democracy does not mean the dictatorship of the majority, it means the rule of all people. for this rule complete consens between all people would be necessary. as this is impossible there are different forms of "democracy", like representativ democracy in germany. communism is not necessarily democracy.
-
no, i dont believe that. but i believe, that currently most people are satisfied with the basic system (democracy). it will change, but not too soon. not in my lifetime and most likely not right after it.
-
Hi,
I am currently in a disscusion with a guy from my school. He states, that most people actually want a radical change of the political order in their country. And with radical he means for example the change from democracy to lets say anarchosydicatism (which is a kind of decentral communism without real autority). My opinion is, that most people are happy with the order, no matter if they are in favour of the currently leading party.
So I started a poll which give you these two opinions as basis for the poll alongside with a third "i don't care" option.
Please vote so I can see what you think.
(The poll-script is in german, but i guess you'll understand it anyway. If not, ask. Oh, and if i made some mistakes in formulating the question ect. please let me know. English is my third language so I most likely have made some mistakes.)
Thanks in advance... and now: discuss
! -
Hi,
i've got a Problem:
Everytime OFP had loaded a mission, my pc get an bluescreen with the error "IRQL_DRIVER_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL".
Can anybody help me???
thx,
armyclonk
-
Quote[/b] ]That hiker who ended up trapped under a boulder so amputated his own arm with a pen knife and walked to safety, he deserves an awardyes, he deserves an award but if you want to be the person of the year, you have to do something for someone else without expecting anything, e.g. rescue 123 childreen out of a burning building without any help.
-
Quote[/b] ]Or is the person supposed to have had an overall positive influence on the world?Yes
Quote[/b] ]Hmm...come to think about it...there isn't actually anybody famous that I can think of who has had a positive influence.He needn't to have be famous
-
What do you think, who are it?
And why?
-
you have to register...
-
COMBAT ANIMATION'S PROMO
where are these great-looking units from???
On Topic: Nice Anims, but the death anims should last till you abort them manualy.
Political Change
in OFFTOPIC
Posted
please explain this rational correlation.
the problem is the nonexistent trade-infrastruktur. first they have to build this up (with the money from EU funds and the stronger economy), then there will be less inflation and more economic growth as there will be no lack of goods anymore. then they should build new universities, which they can afford with the new money, so the costs for the students fall. and so on. the problem is not the system, the problem is, that there were some mistakes done.