Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.

Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.

Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.

And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because  there was no other way we could get them.

But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.

		Head banger wrote:
		so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one.  you favor a closed economy vs an open one.  the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother.  would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance

Well, first of all, the word youre looking for is COMECON. That was the economic union, Warsaw pact was a military alliance. But, since fmr. Yugoslavia wasnt a member of either, there isnt much that I can say about them.

Now, a closed vs. open economy... You see, I dont necesarily favour closed economies. I think that it would be better for us at this point to have a closed economy, since we are a small economy, that has a hard time standing up to the big ones. Like I said before, if the paricipants were more or less equal in strenght, than it would be different.

Now, to your question. Yes, you can have all four, at least thats what I think. A capitalist country can, potentialy, close its market, and remain capitalist on the inside. A socialist country can engage in trade with other countries, as COMECON countries did, and as we did, even though on a very small scale.

And thats another thing, too. Its not a black and white issue, open vs. closed, and nothing in between. Like I said, our economy was very closed, with a lot of protectionism. Did it mean that we did not trade with other countries? No. There were still excesses in our economy that were sold, and there were materials and products that we imported. We had to import oil, for example, as well as certain consumer goods (like coffee), simply because  there was no other way we could get them.

But, trade is only a part of the story... The reason why I advocate a closed economy is primarily because of the ownership of businesses. You see, in a socialist economy, no matter how open, businesses are state owned. No one can come from abroad and buy the business, and bag the profits. In an open capitalist economy, that is not a problem.

		Head banger wrote:
		so strat, since we agreed in another thread, perhaps we can in this one.  you favor a closed economy vs an open one.  the warsaw pact was a group of socialist or comunist countries that had open trade with eachother.  would you agree that you can have a closed socialist economy an open socialist economy, a closed capitalist or open capitalist. not which is beter, just their existance

Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.

Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.

Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.

Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.

Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.

As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.

Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.

		Head banger wrote:
		The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one.  Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time.  I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him.  It is a sad situation.   The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning.  The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally.  But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants.  Whose fault is the current situation?  The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in.  Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed.  Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days.  True, but it would have saved a lot for the company.  It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand.  The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality.  Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker.  Both have faults within and outside the company.  Then the current financial crisis hit.  Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.   I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be.  You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor.  If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct.  But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled.  Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies.  Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund.  Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies.  When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.   Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar.  I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will.  I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.   When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements?  If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip.  If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?   Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited.  I need a researcher to help with this stuff.  Perhaps there is a government grant?

The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one.  Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time.  I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him.  It is a sad situation.

The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning.  The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally.  But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants.  Whose fault is the current situation?  The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in.  Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed.  Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days.  True, but it would have saved a lot for the company.  It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand.  The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality.  Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker.  Both have faults within and outside the company.  Then the current financial crisis hit.  Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.

I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be.  You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor.  If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct.  But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled.  Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies.  Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund.  Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies.  When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.

Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar.  I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will.  I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.

When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements?  If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip.  If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?

Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited.  I need a researcher to help with this stuff.  Perhaps there is a government grant?

Ok, so we agree at least on the first part. Thats something, I guess. Basicaly, a crime is a crime, no matter where, and there are courts to handle it.

Now, blame... For better or for worse, the power over the economy is concentrated in the hands of a minority - which are the business onwers (or whoever they appoint to run the business for them) and the politicians of the most economicaly developed countries. The average worker doesnt have any power. The average worker (lets say he is a construction worker) laid bricks 20 years ago in socialism, 10 years ago in the transition and he does it now in capitalism. In your country it is even more monotonous, he laid it in capitalism all the time, with only an occasional shakeup in the economy. The point is, that we (as in the average people doing average jobs) are working and doing things pretty much the same in most any circumstance. We havent changed the way we work, and we havent changed the way our actions affect the economy as a whole. Now, the big guys, the CEOs, the politicians, the large owners of big businesses, they did. In our case, they made the transition from socialism to capitalism, privatised most of the economy, and outright stole most of it through means that are only now being revealed. On your end, I dont know what happened. Something had to, and I bet it wasnt from the bottom, but from the top.

Now, I may have gone on a bit with it, but I think I made my point... Why I think that white collars are to blame.

Now, the socialisation of debts... Yes, it shouldnt be. There shouldnt be any debts in the first place, but there are and we have to deal with them. The thing is that by doing that, those that are socialising the debt are diggin their own graves. They are putting the load on the shoulders of people that are least able to handle it, and sooner or later that will crack. Ok, not a revolution I guess (tho that would be for the best), but... Strikes, public pressure, government will have to do this and that... Civil disobidience, maybe... In any case, it wont go, simply because it cannot. And if those people that are now laying off workers, or cutting their wages, or trying to increase the minimum retirement age think that they will achieve their goal with that, they are dead wrong. Even the welfare wont be enough now. For welfare to function, there must be enough people with enough income to sustain those that cannot get to an income on their own.

Now, as for who gets a wage cut sooner... I dont know about you personaly, so I wont say anything about that. But, if you take 20% from someone who earns between 3000 and 5000 € per month, they will still have more than enough to make it through the month. If you take 20% from someone who earns between 300 and 500€ (which isnt enough as it is)... Well, do I have to go on? Perhaps the issue here is that the people with the highest incomes werent cut enough.

As far as the shrinking of our middle class goes, I dont have any statistical data. Just my observations. Now, we tend to compare a lot between our socialist era and the present times. Now, if I go back to the 1960s... My grandparents, my grandfather a construction worker, my grandmother a factory worker. Yet they built a house, a holiday home, owned a car and raised a family. Nowadays, that would be a utopia. Just buying a piece of land would cost me an arm and a leg. And there are loads of stories like that, thousands of them, all accros the former state. All goes to transition and privatisation. What once belonged to all of us, now belongs to few to do as they will with it.

Now, the last 18 months (and last 6 months specialy) have certainly been a punch... But it all goes in the same direction as it did for the past 20 odd years. Before there was practicaly only the middle class, with a handfull of rich people in the Party, and a small, at times virtualy non-existent lower class. Now the middle class is melting into the lower one.

		Head banger wrote:
		The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one.  Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time.  I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him.  It is a sad situation.   The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning.  The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally.  But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants.  Whose fault is the current situation?  The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in.  Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed.  Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days.  True, but it would have saved a lot for the company.  It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand.  The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality.  Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker.  Both have faults within and outside the company.  Then the current financial crisis hit.  Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.   I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be.  You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor.  If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct.  But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled.  Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies.  Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund.  Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies.  When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.   Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar.  I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will.  I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.   When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements?  If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip.  If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?   Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited.  I need a researcher to help with this stuff.  Perhaps there is a government grant?

The law could say something, but often does not, and in any event if the company did the right thing and fired Mr. Asshole, the union grievance would be a separate issue to the criminal one.  Your right, all that should be with the courts, not the unions, but right now both issues happen, which, is a huge waste of time.  I think that the guy who shoots someone will have bigger things to worry about than the union, but I think if it came down to it; the law requires them to defend him.  It is a sad situation.

The principle is fine, except you can’t spread principle on your toast in the morning.  The white collar workers already got a pay cut, except 20%, who well they did get a pay cut, totally.  But to be fair, some blue collars also got the axe earlier; they had to close some plants.  Whose fault is the current situation?  The blame spreads like ripples in a pond after a rock was tossed in.  Senior management approved car designs that were not what was needed.  Unions fought against flexibility on assembly lines, arguing that it was harder for the workers to have to build different types of cars on different days.  True, but it would have saved a lot for the company.  It might have meant some plant closures, which is probably the real issue for the union, but would have aligned production to market demand.  The unions also fought against more automation, as it costs them jobs, but it would increase quality.  Quality and design are the two things that are hurting Chrysler more than any other automaker.  Both have faults within and outside the company.  Then the current financial crisis hit.  Neither entity caused it, although both had their role to play in it, small though it may be.

I agree with you about socializing the debts, it should not be.  You can’t have it both ways; either you’re a socialist endeavor, or a capitalist endeavor.  If you’re a capitalist you succeed, evolve or become extinct.  But, it seems cold hearted to put a quarter million people out of work, sometimes because of nothing they controlled.  Guess that’s why corporate as well as individual welfare exists in capitalist societies.  Remember though, most of these companies are controlled by shareholders, most of whom are people like us, small time holders, mostly in a pension plan or fund.  Sure some shareholders are bigger, and Chrysler is privately held (by a publicly traded company) but most everyone here is a shareholder in a whole variety of companies.  When one fails, it costs lots of people, in upper, middle and lower classes.

Typically I would say that white collar gets a pay cut before blue collar.  I will not see a raise this year, the blue collar workers in our company will.  I dunno how union negotiations will go (our company has separate agreements everywhere) this year, but those that are in place are not opened up, but the middle class (and the few upper class) white collars get zip for increase.

When you say the middle class is shrinking what time period are you looking at, and what measurements?  If very recent, last say 18 months, I could agree, but I think that’s a blip.  If you define middle class as being within say 20% of the average wage, how does that vary by year?

Damned if I know where to find the data, I am just going by my observations, which are quite limited.  I need a researcher to help with this stuff.  Perhaps there is a government grant?