About Socialism

So, the same economic choices that First Worlders have now. Since education is free, and unemployment is already compensated.

Let's be honest .. you're talking about beer money.

 

But it's not a BLEND. It's pure capitalism!

Social programs are a high cost luxury that can only be afforded by the most profligate capitalism. You need to own that, and accept that socialism is a very different animal than the one you think it is. There are no 'social programs', just for starters - you don't work, you don't eat.

 

The difference between the two is substantial. Offer real choice and that disappears. Any difference will be minor noise (e.g. desired may actually be lower because of a failing business)

 

Acquiring a PhD is not beer money. And education is not free (e.g. you have to factor in opportunity costs associated with foregone earnings).

 

If you incorporate 'socialist ideas', you will be condemning every one of us to a 6 day week doing whatever the collective decides they need to do. No exceptions. And the pay is terrible. And you don't get to choose where you live or who you live with. Is that what you want?

Or are you saying you'd like more capitalist profits to buy more cushiness? So First Worlders can live in their big expensive coastal city of choice, work or not work as they see fit, and secure the latest phones?

 

Oh yeah .. cause SOOOO many of us dream of doing PhDs. Let's talk about the real world, eh?

As regards education .. sure it's exey. I have two of my three currently studying insanely expensive STEM degrees (the third soon to follow). We're not paying for those three degrees, because we can't afford to. Naturally, since they do have to pay for their own education, they've all been very careful to choose high paying fields in sectors with plenty of jobs. They're not brain dead, or relying on the hubris of brain dead parents - who think that because they could survive on a part time waitressing job in 1985, it's still possible.

 

No it won't. Money is not the factor which separates the go-getters from the standing-stillers.

 

The PhD cost is used as the mechanism to determine the size of the one off payment. Your responses continue to be low brow.

Ramble of no interest.

 

We already know how, for example, social democracy reduces the distinction between desired and actual. We're going much further than that, given social democracy relies purely on a safety net.

 

I disagree. First, there are many successful Democratic Socialist countries around the world that have no problem at all of "affording" social programs for their citizens. The U.S. is supposedly the richest country in the world, so to imply we can't afford them, is to be completely disingenuous with reality. Second, if your post that "if you don't work you don't eat," ever actually becomes reality, then we'll have a huge rise in starving families in America, for they would be starving every time they become unemployed, & unemployment (I can tell you from personal experience) isn't always by choice, or for inferior work. I also find your statement unsettlingly harsh & heartless. I don't want my America to care so little for others, & I know capitalism is basically heartless.

 

No, I'm not advocating your Orwellian vision. I don't know why when someone posts a moderate vision of social betterment, others have to impose their extremist views over it & ridicule it instead of judging it for its assets. Doing that makes one part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

 

haha .... I heart your sneery responses verily, Reivs!

 

The safety net is self-built (either directly, or via immediate small scale cooperation).

 

Really truly, have you not stopped to think at all about this? There are NO 'democratic socialist' nations. There are capitalist democracies, and that's it as far as the democracies go. And those which can afford social programs are the most successfully CAPITALIST.

I have no idea how you extrapolated 'unemployment' from a no work/no eat scenario. It's not possible to be unemployed in that model, since works is effectively COMPULSORY.

Meanwhile, there is nothing caring/sharing about wanting to fund the richest 'poor' people on earth to more desirable digs and new phones - via the fat of industry (capitalism!).

 

Because your 'vision' is NOT socialist, that's why. You are referring to the luxuries of capitalism. I'm spelling out the realities of a socialist society .. which does indeed make work compulsory and denies individual agency (where you live, who you live with, what work you do, etc).

Remember, I'm the one actually advocating for socialism - I have no delusions about what's really involved. In contrast, you have difficulties accepting the reality of Capitalism. You seem resistant to the truth that it's the ONLY model which can fund the non-productive. If you really want to fund such people, you need to embrace capitalism hard. Protect it with your very life.

 

Again, you go to the most extreme examples to support your argument. Why can't we discuss the middle ground where most people live their lives instead of the extremes that serve no one? America needs to find that middle ground & make compromises for the benefit of our country. This constant polarization does not work.

 

You're too tied up in semantics. Let's find ideas that bridge the differences in viewpoints. Personally, I don't care whether you call a successful system capitalist or socialist or whatever. I just want something that addresses the lives & needs of all Americans--especially the dying middle class.

 

In which case, you need to support capitalism. It's the only system which will fund those who won't fund themselves.

And I would add, if your primary concern is the First World middle class, I suspect we're unlikely to come to any sort of agreement.

 

Socialism IS extreme. If you want to continue on in the great privilege and luxury you have, you need to support the far less extreme Capitalism which got you there.

 

Who says I don’t believe in people receiving the value of their labor? I don’t care how much knowledge you want to refer to generically but can’t debate specifically if you are going to claim protection of property rights is redistribution of my property.

Why would you assume rent seeking in my case? I’m self employed. In the rare cases I hire labor it’s compensated above what I earn in a comparative time period. As you are self employed with employees how do you ensure you are not stealing labor and protecting the property rights of your employees? Is there some formula we can use to efficiently determine what an employee is worth?

Long winded way of saying you can’t answer my question. And yes, in the past I’ve shown you where pay productivity gaps still exist in economies you say they shouldn’t. But even assuming you are correct and all these things exist because of some force that denies economic choice, you have nothing to prove your remedy would be effective. If efficiency is important shouldn’t we have some idea of the efficiency of handing out cash to teenagers? Sounds more like common sense or even wisdom than tabloidism.

Quite the contrary. I’ve sneered at nothing. I’ve asked you to enlighten us on the efficiency of giving money to 18 year olds using the Austrian approach to knowledge. That’s hardly sneering.

Yes it’s quite obvious to me that kids who borrow knowing they will have to pay it back make stupid choices in pursuit of worthless degrees. How much more of this if the money was no strings attached. You would hope such things were considered and researched if they are the supposed remedy to the problems you see. But I guess not. Perhaps I’m expecting too much...

I’m interested in practical application of your ideas. I’ve never attacked individual choice. I’m quite happy to have it so I certainly wouldn’t wish to deny it to anyone else. If you don’t have any interest in practical application of your ideas why should anyone else? If your school of economics has no answers for or interest in practical application why go on so about it?

I’m asking you questions. There is no content because you can’t seem to be able to give an actual answer to any of them. If you were designing a safety net, what criteria would you use in the means testing? How would you determine benefit levels and duration?

Building an economy on your posts would be analogous to planning a manned flight to mars without any discussion of trajectories, fuel burn rates, oxygen supply, or management of CO2 levels.

 

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about your brand of socialism appeals to me more than the others....

 

Socialism appeals to the worst qualities of human nature. "I want everything you have....but I don't want to work for it."

 

The clue is you arguing against the elimination of underpayment. I appreciate that you may not realise that, given you completely ignore the consequences of capitalist labour markets. However, limiting your understanding of capitalism provides no defence of capitalism.

Redistribution is needed in both paradigms. In capitalism, however, that reflects its tendency towards economic crisis. Rent seeking behaviour does not just generate inefficient inequality. It threatens economic growth through market concentration. And of course, the physical efficiency of the reserve army has to be maintained.

In socialism? It's no longer focused on a defensive mechanism to maintain rent seeking (and, by definition, theft of labour value). Its about promoting economic choice. We are back to an unfortunate reality: you're anti-choice.

An employee's worth is determined by their productivity, assuming of course you're a fan of supply and demand. I adopt profit related pay. The difficulties is in temporary employment of consultants. However, they determine the rate (reflecting their bargaining power).

If you support capitalism, you support rent seeking. Happy of course for you to reject rent seeking! Think through the consequences of that rejection...

A lack of honest discourse here. First, I've answered your questions. Indeed, I've even gone as far to detail why those questions were inane. Rather than refer to any critique, you use bureaucratic detail to hide from the hypocrisy of seeing economic choice as a positive outcome. Second, the lack of detail over the pay productivity gap is revealing. There are numerous causes of underpayment: e.g. discrimination (and divide & conquer); internal labour markets (and worker compliance); job search (and the reservation wage). For a pertinent critique which supports your disregard of individualism, you'd have to refer to an underpayment linked to economic choice. The best you have is worker preference modelling of monopsony. You could misrepresent it and suggest underpayment is voluntarily chosen as part of utility maximization. In reality, that analysis is really just about the source of wage making power. Choice is limited to allow for rent seeking (e.g. the parent forced to accept a low wage because transportation costs effectively mimic 'company town' conditions).

Basic error here! Sounds like you don't know your Welfare Theorems! A lump sum redistribution, according to modern economics, has no efficiency cost. In terms of the economics, it suggests that any Pareto Efficiency outcome is achievable. We just need a market. Market Socialism? The clue is in the name.

We are back to your contempt for economic choice, nothing more. You believe you know better. Dreadfully authoritarian really!

You are asking for repetition. I've already demonstrated that your attempted use of efficiency is bobbins. I've also already gone through the Austrian application. Knowledge is both distributed and tacit. The former details the need to avoid the socialist planner. It therefore describes the importance of maintaining a private sector (and avoiding a command economy). The latter highlights the importance of the individual. That is maintained throughout: from the lump sum payment to the investment bank. It's the individual that drives progress. We have gone further here mind you. Democracy within the workplace will also foster creativity (see it as the elimination of a form of alienation)

I expect your reliance on cliche. Take the reference to worthless degrees. Who are you to determine worth? You can't even refer to rate of return analysis as capitalism distorts human capital markets. A degree, for example, is given an additional role: certification. This reflects education being embedded within hierarchy. It's used to justify status.

We are still in a crass position where you believe you have superior decision making skills. The realm of authoritarianism.

Practical understanding comes from critique of feasibility. You're not doing that. You have one argument: a disregard of individualism. You just don't have the will to acknowledge that, given the dissonance of hypocrisy.

This is a great example of you hiding from your hypocrisy. The level of a safety net is irrelevant to the feasibility of socialism, given a safety net is required in the current economic paradigm. Can we learn lessons from the folly of capitalism? Of course. We know, for example, of the importance of avoiding complexities over tax and benefit systems. Friedman himself illustrated that with his negative income tax, ultimately designed to avoid 'corner solutions' (which generate work disincentive effects). We also know, via social democracy, that welfare generosity should go beyond physical efficiency criteria. It also encourages risk taking.

But this isn't about feasibility of socialism. It's just you failing to work out any relevant critique.

An inane effort! As if a politics forum is about building an economy. Try something like Burczak for details. We are left with that one sad outcome: you have spat on the importance of individualism but you haven't got the means to admit it.

 

ANY economy where <2% of the population owns >98% of the national wealth, is EXTREME, regardless of its label.

 

You seem to be confused by the difference between the token you use to represent value and the amount you actually value the thing you're attempting to purchase with that token.

The only reason you feel forced to buy something is the high amount you value that thing. Shouldn't that thing you value a lot cost a bunch of those things that represent value? Conversely if you don't value the thing who the heck forces you to buy it?