Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Could you elaborate?
I think the worst it got back then was when you were dealing with union workers. In general, people understood how democracy and capitalism went hand in hand because the alternative was a totalitarian means of production that was supposedly for all the people.
Now, people don't remember that anymore.
There's also a cultural aspect in how people seem much more addicted to consuming just to wear things out in order to achieve social status, and that goes along with the abundance of personal debt people accumulate like crazy.
It's no wonder then that people clamor for government regulation so much. They don't want to take care of themselves and really get to know the people around them. Everyone's all about being cool by living in the moment or doing what's popular.
When it came to "made in China/Japan" people understood the value of consumer sovereignty.
Well like I said, people had the Soviet Union to look upon as an anti-free market country.
Now, people don't have that immediate example. When you're dealing with dialectic/a posteriori/experimental/concrete feelers, you really need that example to explain "this or else"...
...but yea, gas prices were cheaper.
Well, I grew up after the Cold War ended, but you don't really need to explain to the vast majority of people that a command economy simply doesn't work.
Well, I grew up after the Cold War ended, but you don't really need to explain to the vast majority of people that a command economy simply doesn't work.
The Soviet economy didn't work for a variety of reasons...
...none of them being that planned economies are inherently unsustainable.
Planned economies are unsustainable when they are directed by a bureaucracy detached from the population as a whole. They only work when there is a unity of supply and demand, i.e. socialism. The Soviet economy - and all derived from it - ultimately failed because of this and because they were directed for political goals by a bureaucracy resembling a headless chicken. One can't deny its success in developing the means of production in a quarter of the time of that of British capitalism, though.
"Secondary economies" are also a feature of planned economies and are brought about in part by the production of consumer goods marked by poor quality and lack of choice. In such cases consumers often resort to moonlighting, corruption, and the black market to satisfy their demands. Secondary economies provide the necessary mechanism to satisfy excess demand while frustrating the goals of central planning by diverting needed assets to so called "nonproductive" uses. A black market for nylon hosiery, to use the previous example, will work to mollify consumer demand but shift scarce resources away from parachute production as demanded by the government. Secondary economies also come about because planning authorities determine supply on the basis of the government's own needs and imperatives, Demand, manifested in offering prices, has no bearing on the supply quotas established by the government."
Linkage.
We had more individual freedom with the Cold War.No I don't.
And you know what? There isn't *that* much difference between the Cold War era and the War on Terror era. The only difference is that during the Cold War you knew who the enemy was and that they had nukes to annihilate you with, while during the War on Terror you don't know where the enemy is coming from and where in the country they'll hit.
Either way, during both eras the government sought to gain power over the citizenry by making them afraid.
This sounds like a description of any of America's ghettoes.
I thought they were Korean markets. :2razz:Black markets exist in ghettos...
What's the point of all these dumb posts your making RM?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?