About Socialism

They don't quite understand economics.

 

No there aren't. There is only one form (non-profit collectivism). Any model which involves paid services, or the funding of non-participants, is capitalist. It HAS to be capitalist, since only capitalism produces the profit needed to buy those things.

 

Which ones don't require guns to impose?

 

I'm nowhere near understanding economics myself, but even I can see there is a significant lack of knowledge. Since some of these peeps ain't stupid, the assumption is that it's wilful 'ignorance'. Maybe to keep dreams alive?

 

The voluntary ones

 

Economics was my degree. But these folks will twist anything to suit their authoritarian purposes.

 

No ... it IS the system.

 

And it requires guns and truncheons to implement?

 

It may also be residual to Ivory Towerism. Lack of exposure to the inconvenient truths of working collectivism. You can imagine anything you like for Socialism, from up there.

 

The have libido domindandi. Some people just can't not rule their fellow man.

 

I think that's probably true of all of us, in reality.

The trick is in identifying the value of the 'rule' in overall human benefit. When you're driven by ideological impetus to rule, that goal is lost.

 

As I said, you've run out of ideas. These approaches automatically take into account the limits imposed by growth. Unlike the orthodox approach, sustainability is a core feature. The only issue is how that's done. A complexity economics approach, for example, differs from bioeconomics.

 

Lovely inconsistently. Its public ownership that delivers state capitalism and a command economy.

You can refer to specific aspects of public ownership where public choice is necessarily restricted. Take, for example, natural monopolies and public good provision. Public ownership makes sense, particularly given the limitations of regulation. We are then in the territory of minimising any problems associated with economic planning. Here, lessons are learnt from market socialism (highlighting the importance of employee 'voice')

 

Given its philosophy origins (and subsequent developments via political economy), that's strikingly naive. Money has numerous characteristics, such that an economist can understand money demand and money supply. However, it's a side issue as economics go way beyond such comment.

Your focus on accountancy guarantees irrelevant economic comment. We've seen that advertised in this post.

 

Your definition of socialism is pretty sloppy. All governments collect taxes to pool public resources and provide necessary services. It's when government overreaches and starts growing exponentially and taking over private and profitable enterprises that you have socialism.

 

Yes, the employer has to pay for the air conditioning, which makes it a paid benefit of the job. A worker can, given the option, choose working conditions that are less pleasant in exchange for more money or better working conditions and lower pay. Assuming the worker has voluntarily agreed to the deal both options involve being paid the actual value of the job. The employer isn't going to pay more than he has to for the labor he hires and the worker isn't going to take less than he can get for his labor. Where those two requirements intersect is the full value of the labor. What the worker gets in monetary pay is only a fraction of the total cost to the employer. In some cases employers have chosen to hire labor as contract labor, which pays the contracted worker the total cost of his labor. Then the worker has to fund his own insurance, pay his own payroll taxes and potentially provide his own tools, equipment and workspace. In either case, the employer and worker agree voluntarily, to the terms of the deal, insuring there is no unfair or abusive exploitation*.
*There is no "surplus" labor value that the worker is being cheated out of.

Of course, both the worker and employer maximize their return on investment. The worker's investment is his time and effort and he will do whatever he can to maximize the pay he receives for the work he does. The employer's investment is the pay, working conditions, taxes and other overhead costs he has to pay to hire work done and he will do whatever he can to maximize the work he returns per dollar of investment. Is there anyone in the world that doesn't look to his own self interest (often mislabeled "greed" when its the other guy's self interest being considered) in this way?

Of course. The tools and equipment supplied by the employer are what makes a worker more productive and therefore more valuable. Capital equipment is a benefit to the worker as well as the employer because without the equipment purchased and maintained at the employer's expense, the worker would be able to do much less and would therefore be worth much less.

 

fencer gives a beautiful explanation why we need unions.

 

As long as they're completely voluntary, I'm good with unions. Just don't make me join one or pay for them.

 

I understand, fencer, but that is up to the voters and the unions.

 

Great, we're at the mercy of idiots (voters) and thugs (unions and politicians).

 

It;s called democracy

 

AKA Mob Rule (pun intended).

 

Also, not Socialism. Nothing of the sort.

 

It's the other way round.

 

No socialist principles involved.