will someone hit this BiN?

[kikitwitme]

But that's not how he operates. He takes these books out of the hands of collectors who actually want them, at prices that are supported BY THE MARKET at that time, and then IMMEDIATELY tries to resell them to those very same collectors....for a much, much, much higher price.

Man this sounds like just like a guy on ebay named ff-xpress. There were certain Fireside books I was after, sure enough I know he'll be bidding on them too. I was thinking, "What the duck, biotch, you already got these books for sale in your ebay store." With all the comics, digests and records he's buying he turns around immediately and sells them with a high BIN at his store, capitalism at its finest I guess.......

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

But that's not how he operates. He takes these books out of the hands of collectors who actually want them, at prices that are supported BY THE MARKET at that time, and then IMMEDIATELY tries to resell them to those very same collectors....for a much, much, much higher price.

Man this sounds like just like a guy on ebay named ff-xpress. There were certain Fireside books I was after, sure enough I know he'll be bidding on them too. I was thinking, "What the duck, biotch, you already got these books for sale in your ebay store." With all the comics, digests and records he's buying he turns around immediately and sells them with a high BIN at his store, capitalism at its finest I guess.......

But that's NOT capitalism. It's price-fixing, a CLASSIC symptom of socialism.

The seller isn't trying to sell these for what the market will bear...he's trying to corner the market, by buying up his competitor's inventory and turning around and trying to force prices that the market will not bear.

REAL capitalism means that he would sell his items for whatever the market will bear....not his artificially high prices.

Unfortunately, with items that are uncommon, this is a relatively simple thing to do.

[BloodOfHeroes]

I'll accept your definition of "real" capitalism, but humbly request that you use a similarly "textbook" definition of "real" socialism.

In practice, socialism (and communism) and capitalism are full of examples of price-fixing/gouging, I'd agree. But neither ideology promotes it as a platform--they're both much more altrustic than that.

I suspect we're both red: you for the media-assigned "state colors" and me as a leftist leaner. We each have to protect our leanings.



BoH (just don't call me a "pinko")

[worldsbestcomics]

His NM/M books are more like VF or VF- if you go by CGC grading standards. I posted this in a previous thread where his name was brought up. He sniped me on a copy of Uncanny X-Men #297 Pressman variant. The original seller graded it as Fine with a large scan. From the scan, I would put the book at about a 5.0 just from the front cover. I thought my $20 bid was enough, but I didn't factor Vikes trolling Ebay for variants. Next thing you know, Vikes had the book listed up as a VF/NM for $100. Yes, you read me correctly...from a 5.0 to a 9.0. With that said folks....Vikes is nothing but a flat out crook!

I bought a "NM/M" copy of X-Men 297 Pressman variant from him many years ago - overpriced, overgraded, lesson learned the hard way...

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I'll accept your definition of "real" capitalism, but humbly request that you use a similarly "textbook" definition of "real" socialism.

In practice, socialism (and communism) and capitalism are full of examples of price-fixing/gouging, I'd agree. But neither ideology promotes it as a platform--they're both much more altrustic than that.

I suspect we're both red: you for the media-assigned "state colors" and me as a leftist leaner. We each have to protect our leanings.



BoH (just don't call me a "pinko")

Oh, come on. Price fixing, especially (and essentially) by the government, is STANDARD textbook socialism. That way, everyone pays a "fair" price (according to those who SET the prices, and they don't have any influence from the producers, or distributor, or retailers, NOOOOOOOOOO, not at ALL), and no one has to fall victim to those evil "market forces" that TRUE capitalism produces.

Come on, now.

As far as what color I am, according to the media assigned "state colors".....um. No, I don't lump myself in with anybody.

I'm interested, as always, why leftists think that what they believe will actually work with human behavior. Socialism, while great on paper, doesn't work in reality. Why there are people who continue to push world society in that direction, other than for self serving reasons, I'll never understand.

This is where a graph would come in handy. If this were 1789, I would be considered a radical extremist for my views. If this were 1845, I'd be considered a very left leaning radical. If this were 1932, I'd be considered a moderate. Now that it's 2008, I'm considered a moderate conservative.

So what shifted? Me, or society....?

The answer to that is easy.

[Elveen]

Socialism will never, can never work. People will always want more than the next guy.


"We" have not found the -ism that will work yet.

[Chiclo]

So, who wants to hear the good word about the Libertarian party?

[Dr. Solar]

I'm telling you, libertaricrat.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Socialism will never, can never work. People will always want more than the next guy.


"We" have not found the -ism that will work yet.

Capitalism is the form best suited for human nature.

Yes, it creates MASSIVE greed, but, ultimately, that greed becomes the catalyst for work, as the capitalist realizes he cannot make money alone, and so must hire people to work for him to help him make his money.

If those workers are smart, they can carve a significant portion for themselves at the same time.

Unfettered capitalism is bad, as the logical end is, of course, the quite literal destruction of competition, and that leads to a destruction of the very free market which created it in the first place, but with regulatory balance, capitalism provides the MOST people with the MOST opportunities in life.

True story.

The gist of it is to not fetter the capitalist too much, and the key to capitalist success lies in the EDUCATION and FORTHRIGHTNESS of each individual worker in crafting out an employer-employee relationship that is mutually beneficial. This means not placing overburdensome regulations on the EMPLOYER (which we now have) but empowering the EMPLOYEE (and not through unions, this is about the INDIVIDUAL) to negotiate his/her OWN equitable work arrangement.

Of course....in Europe and America, the industrialists have successfully "dumbed down" the working class, so they CANNOT fend for themselves, and so either get stuck being exploited, or join unions which, by their very nature, are corrupt and accomplish as much for the individual worker as the employer....which is "not much."

How can an employee successfully negotiate a higher place for him or herself, if that employee graduated high school not knowing how to read? Or add? Or communicate?

Welcome to the Worker's Paradise, indeed.

My last job, I started as a DRIVER for a company (just because I needed something to do, eBay sales were for *SQUEE*, and thought "well, this position should be easy, with little responsibility." I had HAD the "much responsibility" jobs before, and while they suit my personality and temperament, I tend to drive my body into the ground fulfilling those responsibilities....something I ended up doing in THAT job, too. But I digress.)

Within 6 months, I was running my own projects, and within a year, I was the de Facto Vice President of Operations.

That's just because I absorbed things like a sponge, paid attention, and had already spent time in management....they had a need, and I (unknowingly at the time) filled it....and ended up becoming the highest paid employee in the company within a year. Granted, it's a personality and aptitude thing, but EVERYBODY has the power to negotiate a better place for themselves, IF they're willing to improve themselves and their knowledge of their job situation.

I was willing to negotiate a better place for myself, and willing to walk if they could not provide that place. If you're not willing to walk if they don't give you what you want, you'll never get anything. The risks are there, but so are the rewards.

[Dr. Solar]

If you're not willing to walk if they don't give you what you want, you'll never get anything. The risks are there, but so are the rewards.

True of many things in life.

[Chiclo]

Capitalism is an unfair distribution of a nation's wealth. Communism is an equal distribution of it's miseries.

--Winston Churchhill (at least as well as I can remember the quote)

[BloodOfHeroes]

Oh, come on. Price fixing, especially (and essentially) by the government, is STANDARD textbook socialism.

And price gouging (price fixing at the extreme) is a fallout of capitalism run amok. Even in socialist economies, supply and demand applies. It's when people deliberately slow down production, limit supplies or collude to charge "fixed" rates, under the banner of capitalism, where the true perversion occurs. Come on, yourself.

That way, everyone pays a "fair" price (according to those who SET the prices, and they don't have any influence from the producers, or distributor, or retailers, NOOOOOOOOOO, not at ALL), and no one has to fall victim to those evil "market forces" that TRUE capitalism produces.

Come on, now.

Your examples of socialism are abuses in practice, not the intent, just as much as my examples of capitalism are abuses. In a true socialist model, items would cost what they truly cost, fully-burdened. In a "free market," rather than "capitalism," people would produce what they could and sell it at a price the market would demand. I understand and agree. I'd LOVE to live in a captalist nation. Or a socialist one. Provided EITHER model could be run according to the so-called textbook definition.

As far as what color I am, according to the media assigned "state colors".....um. No, I don't lump myself in with anybody.

Actually, I don't either. I lean to the left, generally, but have voted for candidates from both major political parties, as well as independents and even those on the "fringes."*

I'm interested, as always, why leftists think that what they believe will actually work with human behavior. Socialism, while great on paper, doesn't work in reality. Why there are people who continue to push world society in that direction, other than for self serving reasons, I'll never understand.

Socialism often fails for the same reason capitalism often becomes gouging, I agree. I don't know what the self-serving reasons are, but I'd propose once we became creatures of leisure, socialism became less and less effective. Look at most hand-to-mouth, "uncivilized" societies. MUCH more socialistic than capitalistic.

This is where a graph would come in handy. If this were 1789, I would be considered a radical extremist for my views. If this were 1845, I'd be considered a very left leaning radical. If this were 1932, I'd be considered a moderate. Now that it's 2008, I'm considered a moderate conservative.

Go back a few more millennia than you do, and you'd be driven from the tribe. Socialism on paper is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"; capitalism, when abused, is, "I, Me, Mine" and a hearty "Scr3w you" to the rest, if we want to broad brush either ideology.

So what shifted? Me, or society....?

The answer to that is easy.

Yup. Both models beg the "who watches the watchmen?" question. And both suffer in practice, usually. I'm just demanding equal representation for the slandered ideology.


* But not -wait for it - Ron Paul

[billypilgrim]

A friend of mine bought a run of Miracleman from him a few years ago, and when he went to read the books, there were small cookie crumbs inside the books

I saw the crumbs myself and, being obese, identified them as potato chip crumbs. I also think there were short, curly hairs in the bag.

[JustCallMeAric]

Are we really talking about Socialism on a Valiant forum?

[Rubiks-Q-Bert]

Are we really talking about Socialism on a Valiant forum?

Nothing is ever off topic here.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Oh, come on. Price fixing, especially (and essentially) by the government, is STANDARD textbook socialism.

And price gouging (price fixing at the extreme) is a fallout of capitalism run amok. Even in socialist economies, supply and demand applies.

Only at street level. Not as policy.

It's when people deliberately slow down production, limit supplies or collude to charge "fixed" rates, under the banner of capitalism, where the true perversion occurs. Come on, yourself.

I already told you that capitalism, unfettered, eventually destroys itself.

It was a point already conceded.

So, come on again.

That way, everyone pays a "fair" price (according to those who SET the prices, and they don't have any influence from the producers, or distributor, or retailers, NOOOOOOOOOO, not at ALL), and no one has to fall victim to those evil "market forces" that TRUE capitalism produces.

Come on, now.

Your examples of socialism are abuses in practice, not the intent, just as much as my examples of capitalism are abuses. In a true socialist model, items would cost what they truly cost, fully-burdened. In a "free market," rather than "capitalism," people would produce what they could and sell it at a price the market would demand. I understand and agree. I'd LOVE to live in a captalist nation. Or a socialist one. Provided EITHER model could be run according to the so-called textbook definition.

This is simply not TRUE. A major tenet of Marxist socialism is CONTROLLING the prices of goods and services, GOVERNMENTAL control, because Marx and Engels had seen the chaos of rampant inflation and governmental indifference in Europe in the early 19th century.

They believed...incorrectly....that this was due to unfettered capitalism, that price-gouging by those who had destroyed the lives of those who had not, and it did...but they ignored the much, much deeper issues of the society in which they lived.

They just blamed "those greedy middle class capitalists", and so, having reached their conclusion, built their hypotheses to support it.

As far as items "costing what they truly cost"....who decides that?

What is the very BEST mechanism for deciding what something is actually "worth"....?

The....free....market.

Capitalism, in all its raw brutality and greed, works because it exploits human nature. It exploits those base emotions and drives that, sadly, controls the vast majority of humanity.

Socialism....from each according to ability, to each according to need...is gorgeous and elegant....incredibly simple, and would be paradise....

Until it encounters human nature.

And human nature will never, ever change. There will ALWAYS be someone who will produce MORE than his ability and LESS than his ability, and there will ALWAYS be someone who WANTS more than their needs.

As far as what color I am, according to the media assigned "state colors".....um. No, I don't lump myself in with anybody.

Actually, I don't either.

No, but you felt free to lump me.

I lean to the left, generally, but have voted for candidates from both major political parties, as well as independents and even those on the "fringes."*

I'm interested, as always, why leftists think that what they believe will actually work with human behavior. Socialism, while great on paper, doesn't work in reality. Why there are people who continue to push world society in that direction, other than for self serving reasons, I'll never understand.

Socialism often fails for the same reason capitalism often becomes gouging, I agree. I don't know what the self-serving reasons are

Power, control. The source of all human misery. The desire to control other people.

Money isn't the issue. Just ask Bill Gates. At a certain point, money no longer becomes the object of desire, but merely a tool to accomplish the true goal: power.

Self serving reasons? I stated before: someone doesn't wish to produce according to his abilities, and someone wants more than they need.

, but I'd propose once we became creatures of leisure, socialism became less and less effective. Look at most hand-to-mouth, "uncivilized" societies. MUCH more socialistic than capitalistic.

And that is a massive, MASSIVE oversimplification. Most "hand-to-mouth" societies are homogenous, localized, and relatively small.

And they are, more often than not, controlled by a single dictator.

You know where socialism works best? Places like monasteries, where the people who belong are DEVOTED to a certain way of life, and work for the common good of all involved. And those who cannot or will not adapt are REMOVED from those societies! How do you propose imposing socialism on a society so wildly diverse?

This is where a graph would come in handy. If this were 1789, I would be considered a radical extremist for my views. If this were 1845, I'd be considered a very left leaning radical. If this were 1932, I'd be considered a moderate. Now that it's 2008, I'm considered a moderate conservative.

Go back a few more millennia than you do, and you'd be driven from the tribe.

Go back a few more millennia, and I would have been in charge of the tribe, at least until there was a coup. Then, I would have taken half the tribe with me, started a new tribe, then come and destroyed the remnants of the old tribe.

Socialism on paper is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"; capitalism, when abused, is, "I, Me, Mine" and a hearty "Scr3w you" to the rest, if we want to broad brush either ideology.

So what shifted? Me, or society....?

The answer to that is easy.

Yup. Both models beg the "who watches the watchmen?" question. And both suffer in practice, usually. I'm just demanding equal representation for the slandered ideology.

Except that "slandered" ideology doesn't work.

I don't know why the failed examples of the Soviet Union, China (which is damn near a capitalist nation, economically) Cuba, Argentina, aren't enough proof of that.

You want socialism? No problem. Create a commune, where all members have a common goal, and are willing to dedicate themselves to the good of the community.

Socialism will work....on a microcosmic scale. San Francisco and Berkeley are proof of that.

But the SECOND you try to force it on someone who doesn't want it....it falls apart.

Always.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Are we really talking about Socialism on a Valiant forum?

Yes.

[BloodOfHeroes]

I already told you that capitalism, unfettered, eventually destroys itself.

It was a point already conceded.

So, come on again.

I just pointed out the disparity between your corrupt definition of socialism and your pristine one of capitalism.

I agree: ultimately, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And focus is key.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just wanted a fair "debate".

No, but you felt free to lump me.

I did assign some assumed tendencies, sure. But I thought I recalled a posting where you felt your vote in your state was wasted/futile (NOT a quote, but a "remembering") as your state was, as a tendency, more liberal than you. Your stated opinions seem more conservative than I, hence the "media-assigned red" label.

Power, control. The source of all human misery. The desire to control other people.

Ah. Absolute power. Got it.

Self serving reasons? I stated before: someone doesn't wish to produce according to his abilities, and someone wants more than they need.

Human nature. Check.

And that is a massive, MASSIVE oversimplification.

As was your "price fixing is SOCIALIST."

And they are, more often than not, controlled by a single dictator.

And when that happens, "socialism" has become corrupted. As you know.

You know where socialism works best? Places like monasteries, where the people who belong are DEVOTED to a certain way of life, and work for the common good of all involved. And those who cannot or will not adapt are REMOVED from those societies! How do you propose imposing socialism on a society so wildly diverse?

Agreed. And, funny--I just learned about this study on Wednesday about diversity increasing mistrust. Fascinating stuff.

Go back a few more millennia, and I would have been in charge of the tribe, at least until there was a coup. Then, I would have taken half the tribe with me, started a new tribe, then come and destroyed the remnants of the old tribe.

Heh. Maybe.

Socialism will work....on a microcosmic scale. San Francisco and Berkeley are proof of that.

But the SECOND you try to force it on someone who doesn't want it....it falls apart.

Always.

Again--we don't disagree on much here. I'm not a socialist, primarily BECAUSE human nature mucks it up. I'm not a capitalist for much the same reason. I'd LOVE for a true free market to emerge somewhere. Lemme know when it does.

And what I should have said was, "Let the guy price his books at whatever he wants. If it's too high, no one'll buy 'em, and he'll sit on 'em forever."

And then :thumb:ed and gotten the h3ck out of here. Too much writing for not disagreeing. I'm gonna go throw some goat postings out in General Valiant.

[slym2none]

what I should have said was, "Let the guy price his books at whatever he wants. If it's too high, no one'll buy 'em, and he'll sit on 'em forever."

-slym

[Dr. Solar]

Socialism will work....on a microcosmic scale. San Francisco and Berkeley are proof of that.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[Chiclo]

San Francisco and Berkley are probably the most left-leaning areas in the country, but they are not examples of functioning fiscally socialist governments.

More fiscally restrictive than socially restrictive (even though they are socially restrictive in their own way).