About Socialism

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Qohelet, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No, we don't. That's why we'd rather have public roads.

    Why do you keep talking about accounting? The point I raised has nothing to do with that.
     
  2. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No. For limits to growth (BTW, it's not limited by growth, which also makes no sense at all), it refers to increasing amounts of energy and material resources needed for lower production increases. What causes that are gravity and physical limitations, and can be seen in oil production, copper extraction, etc.
     
  3. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Socialist systems have non-market forms, and can involve several types of ownership, regulations, etc. Those involve governments.

    Again, diminishing returns in this case does not refer to economics but increasing amounts of energy needed to extract resources. For example, in the past, for the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil one could extract a hundred barrels. Decades later, it's down to three. That's because of gravity and physical limitations in oil resources.

    For the same reason, oil discoveries worldwide are at 70-year low.
     
  4. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your lack of understanding isn't indicative of the sense of the scenario. I didn't say a worker would go to his boss and say "pay for an air conditioner and I'll let you cut my pay". When seeking employment, when given the choice between 10 dollars and hour in an air conditioned office or 15 dollars in an un-airconditioned office. Some will opt for the air conditioning and others for the higher pay. If the pay is 10 dollars at both jobs, ceteris paribus, nobody will choose the un-airconditioned option.

    I didn't say anything about cutting wages. An employer that is offering better working conditions can hire workers for less than an employer that offers worse working conditions. If an employer puts in air conditioning he may merely defer raises for his existing workers and pay new hires less than he would have had to prior to the environmental upgrade.

    Of course. Everyone looks to their own self interest.

    They can be but that doesn't guarantee they'll work.

    Of course there is a total cost of employing a worker. It includes the cost to the employer of salary, taxes, any kind of insurance that is required or offered (workers comp, unemployment insurance, health insurance, etc.), marginal plant maintenance, marginal compliance costs, and a host of other costs incurred when an additional person is hired.

    Exactly. There is no such thing as surplus labor value.

    Not at all. Investment can be in any number of forms. The worker is selling the service of his labor. If he was starting a business he might be doing the exact same job for no money but for the benefit to the business. He would be investing his time and effort in the business. If you build a house for a contractor your return on the investment of your time and effort is your wages and other benefits. If you build a house for yourself your return on investment is the house. Investment isn't merely a monetary function, its a value function.

    Of course, building cars requires a huge investment in capital equipment but there are lots of businesses you can get into that requires little or no capital equipment. Setting up an online retail store and drop shipping products requires a computer, which can be accessed at no cost in most public libraries. There are people making 6 figure incomes drop shipping that started with less cash than the cost of dinner and a movie.
     
  5. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The strongest argument I can think of to counter your post is the fact that in 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan administration, about 20% of the nation's wealthiest families owned & controlled about 80% of the national wealth. Reagan started the current powerful trend toward more pure capitalism & more tax cuts for the wealthy in the name of creating more jobs. Now, forty+ years later, we find ourselves in a situation where 2% of our nation's wealthiest families own & control 98% of the national wealth. The disparity between the ultra-rich & the rest of us has only gotten more extreme over the years since Reagan. The reason for that is the constant conservative concentration on giving more & more & more tax breaks to the rich, while ignoring the ever increasing needs of the working classes. Our economic system was more responsive to the middle classes (workers) during the 1950s - 1970s, than now. The working classes faired better then than now. Today, for the worker classes, life is a constant struggle for survival. Living paycheck to paycheck never allows them to get enough ahead to invest in stocks or a business of their own. And, 98%+ of all business profits are now funneled back to the richest 2% of our people. Meanwhile, most benefits available thru employers in the 1950s - 1970s, have been gradually discontinued, and are no longer given to workers at many companies. Employers have switched to hiring part-time workers rather than full time, just to avoid the costs of providing benefits to their workers. The whole system has been gerrymandered to reward those with the most, at the expense of those with the least. This is not a pretty example of capitalism. Theoretically, capitalism is supposed to be the best economic system for providing opportunity for all, but American capitalism has been corrupted by the wealthiest among us, along with all those sycophants who serve them without question. No nation or society can long endure with this kind of unjustified economic disparity. Honestly, it makes sense to recognize the problem & rectify it now rather than wait until the nation's workers wake up & resort to violence as an outlet for their anger. This nation has already endured two civil wars in its history. We don't want another.
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    May I report to you that when I was a Democrat up to 1980, you are talking as I talked. And that was prior to Ronald Reagan. I know that playbook. It is amazing the way the Democrats toss abut statements with zero proof.

    A poster cited the 20/80 rule to you with a short video explaining how this actually works. Some of the rich end up broke. Some of the poor, and I shall give you an example, end up rich.

    Bill Gates is super rich. Bill was once living in a modest home trying to remain in college. He started at Harvard. So he is a case of the poor getting super rich.

    It looks good for my grandson. His parents are why he soon will graduate. The home of the parents is very modest. He worked last summer for Facebook at a healthy income. When he graduates in June back to them he goes. At an annual salary of $110,000 per year. But wait, last fall they told him to come work again at Facebook. To help him, they handed him $32,500 and naturally his final college year was comfortable, and now they will hand him again $32,500 plus $40,000 stocks. So he is going to be middle class instantly. He seems to me to be on his way to being wealthy at only 20 years of age.

    Point being you cited remarkable figures as though they apply to everybody and some will tell me I also did. We know that Facebook did not only hire my grandson, they hire workers all day long. So they appear to me to pay very well when you have a degree.

    When Reagan was president I did some research to test what you said and located government proof that it is not like that.

    The ideology of the Democrats has not changed one bit since I was one of them. However we think, you say people got poorer. I say the poor of 1980 by this time has had a lot of opportunity to rise well up into the wealth groups and studies show how they did. So the poor were getting richer and so was the Middle class. What gives us poor today is schools cranking out high school graduates. But they can get rich if they truly want to get rich.

    OKay, since I understand how much you care, and you are intelligent, and you understand how to set goals and make plans, and you will spend time educating yourself on ways to get a lot of wealth, let me kick start you with this video.
    It is possible the video is past the start. If so, click the red line on the bottom all the way to the left. Then enjoy learning the path to wealth. (yes it starts in the 10 minute range. I had set it all the way to start but it still starts at 10 minutes approx. So just kick it far left on the red line.)

     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  7. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I'm familiar with the capitalist dogma, and I know it works. But in America right now, and for the past several decades, it has been working FOR THE WEALTHY CLASS ONLY. The working classes have lived more than three decades without a living wage increase, while the wealthy class has enjoyed very large increases of income. Capitalism CAN work for everyone, but it has been hijacked by the wealthy class to work for them. We need to change that.
     
  8. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is myth easily dispelled by this video...



    People like young adults enter the work force poor, but are able to work and increase their wealth. As they do, more young people and immigrants enter the work force.

    It's a never ending cycle. I did this, and now I am watching my daughters so this as well.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  9. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The more time I spend contemplating our current economic disparity, the more concerned I become of the eventual impact it will have on the psyche of average Americans, and how they will eventually respond. Whether the cause is capitalism, socialism or communism becomes less important than the fact that the disparity is there; it's real; & it must be dealt with by those afflicted by it. I want a peaceful resolution for it, but I'm only one person. Millions of Americans are being impacted by it & eventually they're going to wake up & recognize it. Then, it will become an emergency, and peaceful solutions might get thrown out the window. I'm not against capitalism, but I'm very much against the current disparity of economic resources caused by our form of capitalism. Wealthy Americans have enjoyed income increases of hundreds of percent over the past several decades, while the working classes have had to survive on a static income with ever decreasing real value in the living world. It is imperative that we find solutions for this disparity.
     
  10. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As the video correctly indicates, the poor as a class are getting richer even as the rich are getting richer. That is inevitable unless you implement some kind of draconian limitation on the upper earners. If everybody gets 5 percent return on their investment, the rich guy's 5 percent will be a lot bigger than the poor guys. Additionally the rich guy, having more disposable income can invest more money in more things, potentially increasing his return. The only way to "change" this income inequality is to take the rich guy's money or prohibit him from investing. And you still won't overcome Pareto because there is a real inherent difference in high performers and low performers that can't be legislated away.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. You haven't understood socialism. You haven't understood public goods. You haven't understood diminishing returns.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Repetition of error. The idea of nationalisation delivering socialism has been rejected since the socialist calculation debate.

    I'll carry on referring to diminishing returns correctly. You will continue with non-economic twaddle.
     
  13. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The more time I spend contemplating our current economic disparity, the more concerned I become of the eventual impact it will have on the psyche of average Americans, and how they will eventually respond. Whether the cause is capitalism, socialism or communism becomes less important than the fact that the disparity is there; it's real; & it must be dealt with by those afflicted by it. I want a peaceful resolution for it, but I'm only one person. Millions of Americans are being impacted by it & eventually they're going to wake up & recognize it. Then, it will become an emergency, and peaceful solutions might get thrown out the window. I'm not against capitalism, but I'm very much against the current disparity of economic resources caused by our form of capitalism. Wealthy Americans have enjoyed income increases of hundreds of percent over the past several decades, while the working classes have had to survive on a static income with ever decreasing real value in the living world. It is imperative that we find solutions for this disparity.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If its just about disparity, look to social democracy. Socialism goes further. It necessarily links efficiency and equity.
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because capitalism is not rooted in force or violence

    The premise of private ownership is human rights.

    When government protects them it is reacting to threats it is not initiating violence as is absolutely essential to any collectivist system

    Facts sting but they do ruin your argument which lacks any form of logic
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  16. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Disparity afflicts no one and is harmless

    Americans have been fine with disparity for over two centuries and it does not affect the psyche in any measurable way
     
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simple is the idea that you can fix human nature with money. Your economic theories are math, not anthropology.

    Further, in social democracies like those you and I reside in, there is no 'underclass'. We all have the same access to free education and free healthcare. We all have access to solid welfare in emergencies. There has been no genuine underclass for at least a generation.

    As for 'attacks on welfare', that can only be a good thing when applied judiciously. Currently, many millions are wasted on the wilfully unproductive. Basically stealing .. from those who actually need it.
     
  18. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect the truth of the situation lies somewhere in between your post & mine. There are always examples to support any point of view in any issue. What I get from your response to my post is that regardless of how many solutions we find & instill, there are always problems left hanging. I guess that's life. :)
     
  19. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is not correct at all. Socialism is a specific economic model, based on the collective. Nothing to do with govt.
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it doesn't. SOME capitalists spend their profits on 'social' things, but that says nothing at all about their capitalism.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guff! Its a shame you can't be more honest and admit that your commie routine lacked substance. There's right wingers to cuddle mind you!

    Well golly! Imagine that an underclass, where there is no social mobility, is observed in countries which have adopted supply side economics? Its as if that was my comment...

    When are you going to pretend to be a 'commie'? I get more art with Punch and Judy
     
  22. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Do you understand that 'social programs' are a luxury item, purchased via the profits of capitalism? They are paid services? Do you understand that what any given group or individual does with their profits, changes nothing about how they acquired those profits?
     
  23. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do so mockingly. They are UNsocialists.
     
  24. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't matter WHO does the spending, if you (govt, group, or individual) are buying luxuries with the profits of capitalism, you are a capitalist.
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does not! Collectivism is a non-profit or modest-profit model. It's self-sustaining, and is not working towards surplus or paid services.
     

Share This Page