Socialism

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Reiver, Nov 17, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am glad because I never made the statements you quoted. You lie because you cant address MY points so you make up points you think you can address. Becoming Oh so typical for you.

    Yes it does. Basic econ 101 stuff.


    No one has claimed otherwise. Geez, the allure of the strawmen is just too much for you to resist.
     
  2. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I only find criticism.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You effectively have said "not supply and demand, its supply and demand". As shown by this post, you're still doing it too!

    You've confused yourself so much that you don't even see the inconsistency in what you type. I have stated that right wingers are typically clueless over the labour market. You're taking it a step further.
     
  4. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many good managers are promoted to that position, because they understand what is required to do the job.

    If a worker owned company votes on their management, are you going to get the best manager, or the best politician?

    Are employees going to vote for a manager that pushes "too" hard, or, someone that is easier to work for? What if "easier" doesn't generate enough production to keep the company afloat?

    A company requires all sections do their job, any one can cause the company to fail. If accounting doens't pay the bills, or collect from customers, shipping and receiving ships late, sales decides the golf course is more fun that customers offices, etc.

    How much time do the employees allocate to managing at the voting booth?
     
  5. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, I said

     
  6. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said it "encompass" the Austrian shool of thought. Completely surrounds it, contains it within. Which of course is absurd.
     
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect you would get the one willing to pay the workers the most.
     
  8. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds like the would elect the best politician.
     
  9. Bored Dead

    Bored Dead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That cannot explain why 24 of 28 previous socialist nations left socialism, and that the partially capitalist China is the only strong socialist economy. Unless your brand of socialism has something special in it I can't see it being good. However why don't you explain more about socialism? All I know about it is that many countries left it and that it is a command economy from my old economics class.
     
  10. Bored Dead

    Bored Dead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is strange how he won't answer my question, I'm just trying to learn more about his brand of economics.
     
  11. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only reason is that he had too much self-respect to spend four years working part-time and living like a 15-year-old while going to college, where he would have learned little related to the specific company he would have been hired to manage. In 1953, according to The Organization Man, one third of CEOs were not college graduates! The American Way used to be that you started at the bottom, earning while learning, and worked your way up, all the time living a lifestyle natural and satisfactory for your age and class.

    This class-biased indentured-servitude education is not only bad for the economy, it's also bad for the individual, who becomes bitter and greedy trying to make up for his lost youth. The sacrifice isn't worth it. It's like a situation where, by living on only bread and water for four years, you could eat free at gourmet restaurants for the next forty years. The indigestion caused by such self-destructive sacrifice would spoil the reward.
     
  12. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He might have to defend those answers if he did. Not strange, Oh so typical for him.

     
  13. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're strawmanning it. If the workers owned the company, they wouldn't pay $24K any more than the stockholders who own it under capitalism would. This is typical of criticism that paranoiacally jumps to wild conclusions about the new arrangement.

    Also like the Board of Directors, they'd choose a manager they could trust to make most of the decisions. But unlike the outside ownership we are stuck with today, a Board composed of employees would have more knowledge about which decisions to veto.
     
  14. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are not allowed to judge an idea based on the class of people who think it up. If we were brought up to think freely, without ad hominem restrictions, we would recognize that the inevitable opportunism is caused by the fact that socialism originate in sheltered upper-class minds. These spoiled and isolated people, who were also dreamy because they were brought up getting everything they wanted, never developed a cynical and suspicious protective attitude that people who deal with a lot of other people develop. So these gullible heirheads are susceptible to being used. It is their class-based wishful thinking to believe that all their supporters are sincere. This even happened in the 1910-1930 revolutions in Mexico. Their leader, Madero, was an ignorant aristocrat and that explains the whole ball of wax about the uselessness of any ideas that come from the upper class. Abolish birth privileges first and these heirheads will never lead anything.
     
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats nosense. Poll all the employess of a large corporation, asking if they should cut the CEOs $5 million a year salary they likely would likely say yes. Polling the stockholders you would likely get a different answer.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And it does. The criticisms over market socialism have been eliminated (ensuring that the social calculation debate, apparently won by the likes of Hayek, actually strengthened socialist comment). Socialism of course goes further. It has an understanding of the firm and the labour market (both aspects which you have nothing to offer)
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You made an error, but keep on repeating it by all means. Monopsony is still supply/demand analysis (unless you want to get Marxist or post-Keynesian on me and utilise the dual economy and the consequences for driving a wedge between wages and productivity)
     
  18. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First block the unearned wealth of the heirheads by abolishing inheritance. Transfer all stock that had been owned by the deceased (not owned any longer; he's dead) to the employees. This includes private businesses totally owned by the deceased while he was alive. If we have to get ahead on our own, so do the children of the rich. Of course, selling everything and giving the money to his spoiled brats will result in confiscation, just like any other illegally obtained income.
     
  19. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again you fail to see that the profit motive doesn't change, only the people who get the profits. Why should the employees let the company earn less when they own it? Under democratic capitalism, they will become more motivated to work hard and get rich, just like the present stockholders are motivated to get rich by not working at all.

    Second, such faulty analysis fails to change both sides of the equation. You look at the present lazy workers and think if they take over, the company will sink. But the reason they are lazy is that they have no stake in the company's prosperity, so they only work enough to keep it barely afloat, only enough so they can keep their jobs. Any extra effort they put out now only profits the owners.
     
  20. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Suspicion denied. Does the present Board of Directors hire the CEO who is willing to pay the most for their attendance at Board meetings?
     
  21. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not changing both sides of the equation. You are illogically using their present attitudes, which are based on not having a stake in increasing the profits of the business.
     
  22. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the same reason voters elect politicians that promise them lower taxes or larger entitlements, and don't elect politicians that increase taxes and reduce entitlements. Short sightedness - the same thing that is costing public companies that are focused only on this quarters numbers instread of long term profitability.

    It is easier for employees to understand a larger paychecks today, than the impact of long term investment in R&D, advertising, equipment upgrades, etc. If they over invest (as some in silicon valley do), they have lots of wonderful science experiments, but few products. If they underinvest, the have nothing for tomorrow.

    As I said above, one division, even one person, can impact a companies profitability. Stockholders can sell off stock in companies doing stupid things. The owner / worker can't.

    But, the owner / worker can vote to fix the problem - if they know what (who) it is. It only take one person, good at shifting blame to others, to get several effective people voted out, while staying employed.

    Have I indicated the problem is the lazy employee? Dead wood can be identified and voted out. I am concerned about the politically savvy schemers.
     
  23. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why wouldn't the board, everything else being equal?
     
  24. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abolishing inheritance?? So when you die, all your property goes to the state? Kind of kills any insentive to accumulate wealth. I would suspect within several years people would stop dieing with any significant wealth still owned by them.
    Sounds like you are more concerned with knocking the rich down, as opposed to bringing up the workers. I guess poverty is a little more tolerable when everyone is experiencing it with you.
     
  25. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one claimed otherwise einstein so where is the error? Beginning to realize that rational discussion isnt possible with you. You seem to do everything you can to avoid it
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page