Germany: The rise and fall of a model socialist city.
45 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44665931]it does fuck people over. privatization only benefits businesses and business owners
[editline]29th April 2014[/editline]
i guess this angsty bad opinion must mean i support mao's cultural revolution[/QUOTE]
um
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44665989]which is why privatization is bad in my opinion, a factory owner only has an obligation to his wallet and the wallets of investors, the state has an obligation to it's people[/QUOTE]
The problem is, that you're aproaching this purely from an obligation standpoint, without taking a ook at the sustainability of either method to an extent.
Very few of these business were sustainable after the fall of communism. They were hemorhagging huge huge amounts of cash, because they were build and set up for a completely different market.
Also due to making sure you had universal employment, many positions that existed in many of thee places existed just for the sake of existing. That's another reason, why the place had so many workers.
The problem is, you're looking at the place from somewhat a purely western perspective. You see the place as a western business owned by the state and making surei t guarantees some sort of good social standing. When in truth none of that really applies.
These places were built for a completely different market, overemployed hundreds of people to guarantee employment. Were in a lot of ways completely unnatural to the previous market experiences, were constructed far off from any sensible infrastructure and usually centered around a single plant.
They're in essence the modern equivalent of miner towns. And we know what happened to those.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;44666204]The problem is, that you're aproaching this purely from an obligation standpoint, without taking a ook at the sustainability of either method to an extent.
Very few of these business were sustainable after the fall of communism. They were hemorhagging huge huge amounts of cash, because they were build and set up for a completely different market.
Also due to making sure you had universal employment, many positions that existed in many of thee places existed just for the sake of existing. That's another reason, why the place had so many workers.
The problem is, you're looking at the place from somewhat a purely western perspective. You see the place as a western business owned by the state and making surei t guarantees some sort of good social standing. When in truth none of that really applies.
These places were built for a completely different market, overemployed hundreds of people to guarantee employment. Were in a lot of ways completely unnatural to the previous market experiences, were constructed far off from any sensible infrastructure and usually centered around a single plant.
They're in essence the modern equivalent of miner towns. And we know what happened to those.[/QUOTE]
So, how would you solve unemployment issues ? Just leave people starve to death, emigration... teach us. You know there isn't an infinite number of McDonalds in the world to employ everyone.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;44666272]So, how would you solve unemployment issues ? Just leave people starve to death, emigration... teach us. You know there isn't an infinite number of McDonalds in the world to employ everyone.[/QUOTE]
Notice that the countries are actually attempting to solve unemployment. But consider this view.
a) The country doesn't privatise these bleeding industries and spends more money on propping them up than it can make from these, downsized indsutries.
As a result, it costs these governments more money to actually run these industries than it would spend on social security
b) The country starts privatising some of these non-critical industries, you get a social crash in a lot of areas but at the same time a semi influx of cash for the government which can go into social programs, better economic mobility and similar.
Notice that there's a difference between privatising some non-critical industries and abandoning a countries citizens.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44666015]except it doesn't go to workers or circle around when the factory owners decide to lay off half their staff for a few extra bucks. also i really don't think russia is a fair example to use
[editline]29th April 2014[/editline]
privatization isn't about politics it's about economics. you're the ones accusing me of being a communist i didn't bring up politics[/QUOTE]
well how would you solve a problem?
let's say that the country in question has a lot of old state-owned steel and coal industries. they are unprofitable and it is cheaper to import steel and coal from elsewhere. people are no longer buying the steel or coal you are making. the pollution created is massive, and none of the factories are making money
how do you solve this?
[QUOTE=Kentz;44665939]yeah well shit you could say that governmental owned institutions only benefits the government with the same amount of credibility[/QUOTE]
government works for people, government benefits = people benefits?
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;44669802]government works for people, government benefits = people benefits?[/QUOTE]
Again, the issue here is not who directly benefits; It's about the sustainability of the model.
[QUOTE]The country starts privatising some of these non-critical industries, you get a social crash in a lot of areas but at the same time a semi influx of cash for the government which can go into social programs, better economic mobility and similar.[/QUOTE]
This, basically. Plus, humans aren't static entities. When job opportunities dry in one place, people usually move out and seek opportunities in other areas (given the nation they live in allows them freedom of movement, something the Eastern Germany did not allow). This freedom of movement eventually helps dilute economic anomalies such as a single steel factory with TWELVE-THOUSAND employees.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;44669802]government works for people, government benefits = people benefits?[/QUOTE]
That is how it's supposed to work. But thanks to corruption, mismanagement and disagreement over what actually benefits the people, that's not always what happens.
[QUOTE=Kentz;44665805]wow a borderline angsty and toxic opinion about privitization, here on facepunch? who could have seen that coming?
collectivisation and welfare models too have a tendency to "fuck people over".[/QUOTE]
The truth is though that privatization and nationalizing is honestly a case-by-case basis. It really depends on the situation.
You can argue, for example, that Zimbabwe is the perfect example of what happens when a country nationalizes from private control.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44670803]You can argue, for example, that Zimbabwe is the perfect example of what happens when a country nationalizes from private control.[/QUOTE]
no you can't argue that. zimbabwe is a terrible example of how a country does anything it's a dictatorship run by a maniac
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44670861]no you can't argue that. zimbabwe is a terrible example of how a country does anything it's a dictatorship run by a maniac[/QUOTE]
Nationalization of agriculture or cropland is pretty much universally bad.
alright maybe that's true i don't really know or care about agriculture enough to know if what you're saying is true, but that doesn't change the fact that using zimbabwe as a perfect example of anything other than what happens when a lunatic violently takes over a country is ridiculous
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44671014]alright maybe that's true i don't really know or care about agriculture enough to know if what you're saying is true, but that doesn't change the fact that using zimbabwe as a perfect example of anything other than what happens when a lunatic violently takes over a country is ridiculous[/QUOTE]
It must be equally as ridiculous to choose the worst excesses of privatisation in ones argument too right?
are you really trying to say that 'worst excesses' of privatization by western companies within western countries is comparable to the worst excesses of nationalization by african dictators?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44671085]are you really trying to say that 'worst excesses' of privatization by western companies within western countries is comparable to the worst excesses of nationalization by african dictators?[/QUOTE]
No, you implied that privatization was something incredibly abhorrent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.