I see a hint of logic here, perhaps I can clarify something for you. You claim the following:
" "It seems the first is better, since it doesn't require us to give up anything."
So giving up an independent monetary policy 'doesn't require us to give up anything'.
Amazing, Professor Einstein. And so intelligent. "
Giving up an independent monetary policy requires us to give up an independent monetary policy... we have a saying in Bulgaria that is literally translated "wooden philosopher" to describe someone that brings up trivially useless observations into an argument, when they can clearly understand what the other person is saying.
I was considering only two alternatives, both of which include giving that up. "it doesn't require us to give up anything" means "anything extra". You can deduce this from the setup of the logical problem. Everyone is giving up something at all times, so logically "giving up something" must have the meaning of "giving up something more that you are already giving up".
You wouldn't be bringing this up if you had some idea of the history of the Bulgarian central bank. Giving up the monetary policy in Bulgaria is considered a good thing by economist, because it takes away the power of Bulgarians to print money and had it out to their friends. History has shown that Bulgarians are irresponsible with the nation's money supply.
You can praise Einstein all you want, that isn't going to help you.
What you just wrote has zero value for the human race, it is a waste of computer memory. You seem to have developed some kind of obsession with me which is not healthy.
I said I would leave you but I feel the need to address your recent burst of petty insults to the rest of the people with which I am having a discussion.
You are the annoying child that is interrupting the discussion of the adults.
I have never felt insulted, but I have pointed out when people have tried to insult me. The reason I do that is because I don't care much for that, it breeds an uncivil discussion and I don't like ad hominem attacks.
You are clearly homophobic and I'd suggest for you to leave this forum. We don't need Westerners reading these things thinking we are backwards people.
By the way Faust,
Calling someone gay is not an insult, try again.
I despise your homophobia.
If you choose to have issues with someone else's sexuality do it in the privacy of your own home with your buddies.
You are giving Bulgarians a bad name in the eyes of the civilized world. Try saying something intelligent.
Though, in some states there are laws to protect that child from such force. So I guess this comparison state vs. parents can't really be defined properly.
Needless to say the state has more power than the parents always.
I'm sorry to everyone that has to read this nonsense.
DrFaust has some sand stuck in his vagina from a previous encounter, if we could raise some money for him to see a doctor, that will be great.
"I still see a parent or peer forcing their views on a venerable child, as even worse than your example of life under an Autocracy."
Depends on what "forcing" is used. Surely the disapproval and economic sanctions a parent uses are not comparable to the fear of torture or death a regime uses.
Of course the reasons behind the failure of the soviet system are complex.
But in my opinion what you are alluding to is far from the most important issue, your argument can be used to conclude that any system in Russia would have failed.
I think the system as a concept is founded on inconsistencies and fallacies about history and human nature. To prove this I can point to numerous stupidities of the regime, Lenin outlawed money for a brief period, then very quickly they realized that was stupid.
The communist ideologies mistakes have been documented in thousands of works.
It has nothing to do with the underdevelopment of Russia, look at countries like Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, they were not like Russia, but had experienced huge capitalist growth and met all the conditions Marx put out for the success of communism.
The shortages and lack of variety were not due to anything but the economic system.
I think the main reason that the USSR as a political entity turned capitalist was due to the KGB's effort. They engineered the collapse and profited greatly. Look up the last head of the KGB and his profiteering from the export of Russia's gold.
This thing happened in Bulgaria too under the DC.
The USSR could have kept on repressing the people for much longer.
"There was a moment when on one of the congresses it was declared that the communism was almost achieved, lol. "
This is what the EU does now. One guy says "We have successfully completed the 5-year plan with x% increase and y% decrease", then mindless "Euorpean representatives" applaud themselves.
"It was Lenin who made some revisions and developed the strategy for make it possible."
True, and like anything it has been revised many times and evolved.
It is true, most of these people call themselves "Marxist-Leninist", but I didn't want to say that because people might think I was characterizing them as being totalitarian or sympathetic to the Lenin regime.
"Socialism similar to the Western European model which does not reject capitalism can functions in a democratic system. But it has nothing to do with Marxist’s economic system."
There are two points. The first is the definition of socialism. From my point of view, that is defined by Marx as a transitional state towards communism. The looser definition is more or less a welfare state with redistribution of wealth and a market economy, and that obviously exists.
The other point is that even though this may be the case (with the looser "socialism"), proponents of so called "democratic socialism" ARE calling for a move towards a Marx-like socialism.
I need to make a few corrections...
14th century (obviously)
"The party whose current members"
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan