The problem of Capitalism

We don't need to 'win the battle of ideas', democracy does it for us. You will never see your Grand Ideas come to fruition, because 50%+ will never vote for it. Democracy. Choice.

All you have left is the people, and the freedom the people have to be the change we can't order up via Govt fiat. Which begs the question - why do you degrade your message by not even trying to be the change you demand of others?

 

My bold.

Apparently landowners aren't people. Your arguments are literally bizarre.

 

No. JG buffer pool jobs are not regular public service jobs; the former numbers change inversely (more or less immediately) to private sector demand for workers, whereas the latter as you know are more or less fixed, depending on government policy Local councils would simply shift people on and off JG jobs as required.
IOW, JG jobs are a different category to normal public sector jobs.

Note: there would be a massive decrease in correctional services, court cases, drug abuse, health and hospital costs etc, as poverty is eradicated.

Note, if the private sector would always employ all available labour (ie zero un+underemployment), then everything would be fine. But mainstream neoliberal economics actually assumes a certain level of unemployment (eg, erroneously measured in NAIRU, and the Philips curve...both of them fallacious fictions). That's because the 'invisible hand' competitive market (private) sector is driven by profit seeking alone, and cannot achieve continuous sustainable utilisation of all available resources including labour.

See above; the regular public service is different to the 'employment buffer pool.

As I said, it's a matter of aligning the local communities unmet needs with particular individuals' abilities, bearing in mind the job may not be permanent. Creativity and co-operation will guide the type of JG jobs
a local community will create.

"Most of us" already have a job (!), which will be paying more than the JG job. There's the incentive.

Private enterprise is grappling with this more and more already, and this is where that issue must be solved.

Addressed above (involves community co-operation re the JG jobs on offer, to deal with local unemployment and local needs

Feed back from people receiving the service - and support from a council worker managing the scheme locally - will address that issue.

An above poverty job is a powerful incentive......

 

Simplicity itself......pity so many don't avail themselves of this 'will'.

I suspect any psychologist would laugh you out of court, given the reality of unconscious motivation.
However, students at primary school level ought be given some pointers re "will". That people still drink themselves to death - and abuse drugs - is a failure of education, or lack of knowledge, among other things.

Hallelujah you're a collectivist....but note what I said about all-encompassing education for ALL, and our collective responsibility to ensure no-one is left behind when systemic failure is evident eg in trade disputes, and private sector recessions.

Btw, I don't think purveyors of American exceptionalism like Bannon and Bolton will be on board.....

Isolationism Bolton style (exceptionalism)? Or Libertarian style (I'm alright Jack, don't bother me)?

Responsibility for our own?

Yes, provided we are ALL on board... I see a continuing circular argument here, given present macro systemic failures mentioned above, which you refuse to acknowledge. .

 

1) And who is funding these jobs? If the funding is already available, why isn't it done now? Is human nature getting in the way, perhaps? And democracy? And what do you mean by 'creativity and cooperation'? What does that mean in purely practical terms, please? Spell it out, because none of what you've said explains the mechanics of it. THAT'S what I want .. the mechanics. The practical process, the economics, etc.

2) Private enterprise is 'grappling' with people being unwilling to work the jobs that are avaible, you say? Welcome to my argument. Now explain how your idea will magically transform people from unwilling to willing.

3) And what happens when a community has no jobs that people want? Please spell out exactly how that will work.

4) Feedback and counselling will turn lazy people into industrious workers prepared to do whatever work needs doing? Are you actually serious right now?

5) It's no incentive at all for huge swathes of First Worlders, since so many are content with poverty level wages (choosing as they do, to avoid the work necessary to move ahead). More importantly .. how can you possibly justify redirecting sorely needed community funds to the least motivated? You hurt not only those who are motivated, and just miss your magical threshold, but more importantly you condemn those you think you're helping to even more dissolution. Hand things to people for long enough and you may as well cut their legs off.

 

1) Yes, we have a responsibility that our own are not left behind. Obviously. The failure to do so is an abdication of our responsibilities. That is a failure which impacts the broader community horribly, because they are then compelled to pick up our slack .. as well as carry their own. IOW it's an ****** move.

2) We are never going to be ALL on board. Because we have free will, and live in First World democracies. We know some poor sucker will pay his taxes every year to cover the costs of the family we've abandoned, so that's exactly what we do - abandon our own. That, and refuse to work even when jobs are presented to us on silver platters. The upshot - if this stuff genuinely matters to you then you'll do all any of us can do .. and be the change.

 

When all imperatives to survival mode living are removed, and all impediments to free choice are removed via democracy, and our education is free and accessible to all - there no other masters of our journey but our will (and its product, determination). Further, the idea that we can cater to the individual 'journey', is one of the most outrageously, grotesquely, greedy and resource hogging things I've ever heard. Are you even remotely aware that there are people still starving to death outside of your fools' paradise?

Sure, sure. A Real Psychologist would laugh me out of court. Gotcha

 

I've supplied the links to MMT and deficit financing by fiat issuing governments many times.
You need to read the material.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2019/03/05/mmt-sense-or-nonsense/#5d1d5c8c5852

Certainly the human condition* is responsible for much dysfunction. *see prof. Jeremy Griffith's site

The 'blind leading the blind'? It's obviously in danger of imploding, all around the world.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe". Wells is correct, requiring universal examination of the various philosophies of utilitarianism, classical liberalism, free will, macro-economics, religion etc starting at primary school, at an elementary level sufficient to avoid the continuing ignorant partisanship characterising our present blind leading the blind democracies.

An educated, non-ideological community could agree on enough of the basics to elect capable governments across the globe. That is, we need democratic, representative, 'no-party' government, as opposed to the one-party government in China, and the multi party train-wrecks elsewhere.
Meantime the divided US has wrecked international diplomacy and cooperation, with it's recent reversal and unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal.

Understand the economics of a MMT JG, and then the rest falls into place, as already explained (temporary job matching via local councils).

Many companies are already reaching agreement with their employees; as the nature of work and society (eg, gender roles) is rapidly changing.

Most times the community would like services that unemployed people are happy to do. eg, gutter cleaning. Good temporary outdoor work; or socially engaging with residents in desperately short-staffed nursing homes, good indoor work.

That's how it works in the private sector - the carrot being the above poverty wage.

The existence of involuntary underemployment alone disproves that assertion. Plus many people take two or more jobs at poverty level to make ends meet. Systemic injustice.

Access to above poverty level wages is a postulated universal right. If your much vaunted neoliberalism cant achieve this, it's time for change.

Hint: you referred to "community funds", but you should be referring to community resources.

Read the linked article above, to understand the difference.

[Hope this helps...…...regardless of 'the human condition'....]

 

Mostly ideological assertion; and ideology-resisting, truth-promoting education is certainly not available to all, eg private religious schools.

I'm the one pointing out that the resources exist in the world to eradicate poverty. Are you becoming confused?

Anyone who denies the existence of unconscious motivation will be laughed out of court, quite apart from prof. Griffiths explanation of the human condition - based on the inner psychic conflict between instinct and self-conscious/aware behaviour in individuals that variously affects all of us.

 

1) Waffle.

2) No, you are the one saying every lazy First World asshat is precious, and deserves more resources. You are saying that First World resources - already hogged grotesquely - aren't hogged enough until we waste them on stopping to consider the specific journey of each individual lazy asshat, lest we fail to consider their myriad reasons (excuses) for being a lazy asshat.

3) At no point have I denied 'unconscious motivation' exists. I'm saying we CHOOSE whether we will overcome those motivations. Plenty of people do. Plenty don't. Choices.

 

1) Which is precisely why we need democracy, to allow for that variation in human nature. Blindness would result from anything else.

2) You're painfully naive (or just a good-hearted dreamer with a disneyesque bent) if you think the lazy of any given community are suddenly going to want the specific jobs on offer .. just 'cause. And no, the above poverty wages won't make a jot of difference. Such people are not motivated by money - which they've ably demonstrated via their failure to retain any.

3) Those people take multiple minimum wage jobs because they're living way above their means, not because they're ambitious or want to get ahead. A family can escape poverty on just welfare alone if they're sufficiently determined. Upshot - zero injustice, but plenty of poor choices.

 

More right wing claptrap! Why do you think there is greater social mobility in liberal and social democracies compared to Anglo Saxon Capitalism? Why do you think there is higher working poverty in countries which adopt 'free market' labour policies? Why can't supply side economics offer any explanation?

 

It's an abiding delight to know that The Great Riever .. Economics Guru to PF .. thinks 'everyone pulls their weight' isn't communist/socialist. Just thought I'd let you know how much I appreciate you, Reivs

Meantime, there is 'greater social mobility' in 'social democracies' .. because they had universal agreement to put that idea into practice. And why do you think they were able to achieve that agreement? Viking magic? The Old Gods intervening? They may have helped, but far more likely that until recently, they had single, highly cohesive cultures ... with almost no variation at all. When you have a small population of equally motivated people, coupled with First World wealth, it's easy to do well. But no mention of Scandinavia's 20thC successes can be made without also mentioning that their models are now failing as a result of the loss of that cohesive culture, and the influx of non-productive peoples.

 

They are people who own other people's rights to liberty. That's not equal rights for all. It's some owning others' rights.. Which part of that are you having so much trouble understanding?

No, I just identify indisputable facts and their inescapable logical implications.

 

All the ones that were obtained without any commensurate contribution to production. Literally billions of them.

 

OK, so you advocate feudalism. We already know how that turns out. When Roman state administration of possession and use of land disappeared from Western Europe in the 5th century, each landowner owned and administered their own small piece of land, exactly in the manner you advocate. Over the next century, the population declined by 1/3. It wasn't because of contraception.

So you think every country in history with a functioning government has been communist???

Exactly how stupid and/or dishonest would you say someone would have to be to claim that Hong Kong has been communist for over 160 years?

 

You obviously don't know what chartalism is.

Then you object to civilization, and a global economy that can support more than a few million people, and anyone living above the level of nomadic herders.

No. Without government there can be no rich, because everyone is poor. That is the Lesson of Feudalism: even kings are poor because all surplus must be devoted to defense.

But history just proves that false. South Korea was a military dictatorship, and peacefully transitioned to democracy. Most of the most equal countries in the world were monarchies less than 150 years ago.

No, that's just infantile "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" nonsense. There are lots of ways to have a bad diet, and only a few ways to have a good diet. But a diet has to be very bad indeed to be worse than starvation. Same with government: it has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no government.

 

Capitalism rewards greed. Nobody needs a billion dollars.

 

And greed rewards capitalism. Ask any "portfolio manager" at a New York bank.

Nothing will change until we see/understand and actually act to stop Exaggerated Capital Accumulation by ... taxing Upper Income at the pre-1964 level (see here) when JFK started the trek downward in upper-income taxation levels! (Before he died because it was Johnson who signed the law as PotUS.)

As a gift to "daddy" (methinks) who helped him to get elected by means of financial support. And that bit is yet another story that you may not like also! See Business Insider article here, if tempted.)

And, since then, one might wonder if American politics has changed so much: It is still "All about da munny, munny, munny" (which has become a mental-illness in the US* ...)

*We think Russians are the creepy-crawlies of national ethics. They may be worse than the US, but guess from whom they adopted the habit. (What was Biden's son doing in the Ukraine. How did he get that job?)

 

The part about all of us having the LIBERTY to own land ..... because you forgot that crucial piece of information.

IOW, a landowner cannot "take" your liberty. You choose to give it to him/her.

 

So don't make a billion dollars. BE the change you expect of others.

 

No, you do.

The 'king' (aka, govt) administering all the peasant lands.

 

So no thing that was actually taken by one person from its legal owner. Got it.

 

No. I don't advocate for the state owning all the land and granting fiefdoms. I'm not sure you've actually heard anything I've said.

 

Waffle? Here it is again:

"ideology-resisting, truth-promoting education is certainly not available to all, eg private religious schools"

eg your ideology that individuals choose to be homeless (incredibly simplistic). and
eg, belief that Jesus will return to save the world,
and
eg, that the "invisible hand", competitive, individual-profit-seeking, private sector alone can produce maximum sustainable utilisation of resources with full employment - which is self-evidently nonsense"; because resource use will also in part need to be planned (by government) if we wish to have full employment.

*the nonsense that individuals all have perfect knowledge of markets and can all make rational choices re market participation, as postulated in classical economics.

Now, access to education including civics, philosophy, the nature of reality, ability to discern scams (as in most advertising) as well as the '3 R's' is definitely not equally available to all at present (which you claim, though obviously untrue).

No, I'm the saying the lazy are very few, and they would be quickly weeded out with a JG - as proposed in Article 25 of the UNUDHR.

Everyone who takes a job (whether making cars or assisting the elderly) deserves at a minimum good basic housing (public), food, and transport (public).

Certainly, Bezos (a retailer) and others, should obviously not be entitled to his absurdly grotesque claim on resources...

Whereas public transport, and public housing for JG workers and others would reduce the claim on resources (by achieving greater efficiencies in resource allocation).

We don't have 100% capacity to choose, BECAUSE individual motivation, manifesting differently for every individual, is influenced by the unconscious mind. Do you understand the meaning of the word unconscious….?