Bernie Sanders Yells at Clouds, Deodorant

[Hygro]

There is no such thing as an economic system, let alone an economic system that has failed. All economics are transactions between people. Failures and successes in the economy happen form day to day, as people simply make mistakes. Sometimes, such are larger than normal, but the basic idea is the same.

The reason we do not Communism is because we have a fairly acute sense of scarcity, which may or may not be justified. Capitalism was made possible because religious prohibtions on lending were gradually relaxed and property rights were forcibly simplified through government intervention (i.e. land enclosure). I wouldn't say other systems of economics failed, rather, political choices that favoured centralisation and secularism (leading to the end on the taboo on lending) led to the advent of capitalism.

While economic systems by definition exist, I'm glad when I see people understanding capitalism as something other than an economic system.

 

[jackelgull]

Lack of government control doesn't mean free markets. Markets must be enforced somehow and that's usually done by governments. Without a functional government, markets are only based by trust, and that can be easily abused.



Agreed.

Having said that, Zaire did function exactly as it should: Mobutu filled his coffers, and that's all that mattered.

From what I heard of Zaire, Mobutu made an unofficial deal with foreign governments- they could essentially take over the economy of Zaire and do as they pleased as long as Mobutu got to fill his coffers with "foreign aid".

 

[Ajidica]

From what I heard of Zaire, Mobutu made an unofficial deal with foreign governments- they could essentially take over the economy of Zaire and do as they pleased as long as Mobutu got to fill his coffers with "foreign aid".

Eh, it is far more complicated than that.
The short answer is under 'Zaireization' Mobutu nationalized basically all foreign companies and then conveniently failed to pay compensation. As Gerard Prunier pointed out in Africa's World War, what was remarkable about Zaire and the nascent DRC was how little foreign presence there was in Congolese mining operations (the lack of foreign presence in other areas can easily be explained by the complete collapse of basically all other areas of the Congolese economy. The continued existence of the mining sector could be explained by some equipment miraculously remaining intact and the government selling off the same parcel of land to shady fly-by-night mining contractors or diamond counters.). The parastatal Gecamines MIBA had been so completely looted there was simply no money or infrastructure to keep the mines going. (In one case in the 90's, a cobalt processing plant in Katanga was running at 20% capacity -during the cobalt boom- and it was considered a good situation.) It was not unusual for workers or bosses to steal parts from the mines, sell the parts to neighboring mines in Zambia, and then the Zambian mines would sell the looted parts back to the Congolese mines at two to three times the original cost.

As far as Mobutu stuffing his coffers, that is an even more complicated situation, but suffice to say it was more than Mobutu benefiting from the graft and corruption in Zaire.

 

[jackelgull]

Eh, it is far more complicated than that.
The short answer is under 'Zaireization' Mobutu nationalized basically all foreign companies and then conveniently failed to pay compensation. As Gerard Prunier pointed out in Africa's World War, what was remarkable about Zaire and the nascent DRC was how little foreign presence there was in Congolese mining operations (the lack of foreign presence in other areas can easily be explained by the complete collapse of basically all other areas of the Congolese economy. The continued existence of the mining sector could be explained by some equipment miraculously remaining intact and the government selling off the same parcel of land to shady fly-by-night mining contractors or diamond counters.). The parastatal Gecamines MIBA had been so completely looted there was simply no money or infrastructure to keep the mines going. (In one case in the 90's, a cobalt processing plant in Katanga was running at 20% capacity -during the cobalt boom- and it was considered a good situation.) It was not unusual for workers or bosses to steal parts from the mines, sell the parts to neighboring mines in Zambia, and then the Zambian mines would sell the looted parts back to the Congolese mines at two to three times the original cost.

Then I have obviously heard from a bad source. Thank you for your explanation.

 

[Ajidica]

Then I have obviously heard from a bad source. Thank you for your explanation.

Just to clarify, foreign mining companies kept throughout the Cold War and even today a MASSIVE interest in Congolese mining operations. The southern 'copperbelt' region in Katanga is one of the richest locations for rare earth metals and copper, while Kasai to the west has a higher concentration of non-industrial diamonds than South Africa. It is just that the country has been too unstable to exploit on an industrial scale after the Belgian UMHK (Union Minere du Haute-Katanga) was nationalized by Mobutu in the mid 70's.
The mining of resources has still continued, in an increasinly informal capacity, by all the countries that jumped into the First and Second Congo Wars. Foreign companies have continued to buy those minerals from frequently shady intermediaries. (IIRC, in the early 2000s Rwanda was one of the largest exporters of coltan despite geologically possessing effectively no coltan inside Rwanda. It was all coming from mines of dubious legality run by elements of the Rwandan military inside the Congo.)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

At its heart, having your economy based on the whims of the market is sound for all parties involved.

We will not disagree that there needs to be a market or that there there needs to be market mechanisms. But that is because the mere idea of a market is a ridiculously broad concept, of which the only alternative - just as ridiculously broad - is authoritarian direction.
I say ridiculously broad because there is an virtually infinite diversity to actually implement those ideas - that is to establish a framework for those concepts to unfold themselves.

Now what makes you say that the framework we currently use is "sound for all parties involved"? Other than that this is a convenient believe to hold I mean Are you aware what an assuming statement that is? Yet you simply mentioned it almost in passing like that the weather you had yesterday.
On the other hand, it seems exceedingly easy to me point out what is gravely unsound for not all but very many parties involved. The fundamental aimlessness of our economies for one, which emphasizes 40-h-works days above all actual purpose and use. The culture of subjection in our business world, a world of masters and servants, which doesn't help to make the 40-work-day any more pleasurable. The general vast loss of collective living quality caused by the present model of individual competition. A wealth distribution that is mostly dictated by what you can take rather than what is "sound".
I have no reason to believe that any of these issues is some sort of natural constant we have to abide with, for sure not because the Soviet Union had a crappy economy itself.

 

[bhavv]

How does a thread about some nutter screaming about deodorant even manage to get to 6 pages?

THERE ARE CHILDREN STARVING IN AFRICA!

 

[Hygro]

How does a thread about some nutter screaming about deodorant even manage to get to 6 pages?

THERE ARE CHILDREN STARVING IN AFRICA!

He's not a nutter and he's the only opposition to H. Clinton.

 

[bhavv]

What? How??? Lol the republics.

 

[Hygro]

What? How??? Lol the republics.

I kno rite its magick

 

[Lohrenswald]

Late response
A lot hapened in this thread, and I don't remember everything - some of it I remember I liked, though

well

First, competition helps reduce the cost of goods to customers.

1. I'm not so sure about that, and
2. So what?
It doesn't really relate to what I said, nor do I think it's something that neccasary should be achieved

Second, there's no causative relationship between deodorant and food for children―unless, maybe, Sanders is implying that we should be feeding children deodorant.

Well think of it like this:
Deodorants are unnecessary. Devoting recourses and attention to them are nonsensical. Feeding children is more important.

Although things used to make deodorants can't feed children, there is labour being directed unoptimally. It's also a problem that people think that deodorant variety is as important as they do, and that they don't think feeding children (poor ones) is as important as they should

Also, deodorants are really just one measly example

Third, if reducing poverty is so great a problem that having deodorant choice is absurd, isn't it absurd that you are spending your time replying to my post when you should be out helping the children? Go!

I don't quite know what to think of this
There are many things in the world
can things only be important if I devote all of my forces and attention to them?

I try not to think about living there! Obviously the Nordic countries suffered no ill effects from the brain drain of people leaving a frozen tundra only to move to another frozen tundra with mosquitos.

there are musquitos here...

 

[amadeus]

Well think of it like this:
Deodorants are unnecessary.

I won't think of it like that because that's nonsense. If people didn't need deodorant they wouldn't buy it.

Devoting recourses and attention to them are nonsensical. Feeding children is more important.

So between these three items, (1.) replying to me (2.) manufacturing deodorant and (3.) feeding hungry children, which is most important?

You've obviously placed 1 ahead of 3.

Although things used to make deodorants can't feed children, there is labour being directed unoptimally.

Comrade Lohrenswald will obviously, as head of Gosplan, know how to optimally direct resources.

there are musquitos here...

Don't buy any bug spray, though; you'll just be wasting resources that could go to feeding hungry children.

 

[Borachio]

I won't think of it like that because that's nonsense. If people didn't need deodorant they wouldn't buy it.

Are you saying people never buy stuff which is unnecessary?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are you saying people never buy stuff which is unnecessary?

Well, that would put paid to consumer driven capitalism, wouldn't it?

 

[warpus]

My old roommate is a materialist, he has boxes of stuff he never uses. He didn't understand why I didn't spend all my money on .. things. Could never be like that.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure. You now seem to be approaching the issue from the opposite direction, Mr Nothin.

I'm still trying to come to grips with the notion that everything a person buys is essential to them "otherwise they wouldn't buy it".

If you define "essential" as "something somebody buys" then I suppose it has to be true. But it's a rather novel idea, to me. I've a long history of squandering money on things that I neither wanted or needed. Or I thought I had.

 

[warpus]

I'm a practical guy first and foremost, not a minimalist. I don't buy things that I don't need, generally speaking. I hate clutter and I hate the hassle of having to organize things that I don't use. So I just don't buy them. I save up my money instead and spend it on experiences and/or beer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm a practical guy first and foremost, not a minimalist. I don't buy things that I don't need, generally speaking. I hate clutter and I hate the hassle of having to organize things that I don't use. So I just don't buy them. I save up my money instead and spend it on experiences and/or beer.

I used to do that. Then I got old and lazy and I quit drinking, so I was able to just quit making money altogether.

 

[illram]

I read the whole interview and it just made me like him more.

Dude's for real. He'll never win, and that's too bad, but he's great. We need more people like him in politics.