Socialism

[JenAltArmy]

Jen I find you confusing. For a minute there I actually thought you might be understanding. Then you are back again to Socialism is bad, welfare abuse, etc.

You are not sharing your pie, you're sharing the communal pie. The more work you do the more of the pie you are entitled to.

The concept of welfare as we know it actually comes from the Keynesian model of economics which was a capitalism variation the last time I checked.

in our society, its a great capitalist idea to share costs of services (spread those costs out to the masses) for schools (k-12), police, fire, this and that.

as this doesn't place the burden on one group. do I want more of a communal pie? no!

not until our society changes, and those that live on entitlements (under 65 say) have to work for that check. we must end the how parts of our society belive that welfare is a career. America must be fixed, in that living off government is a shameful act

 

[off2bed]

In Socialism, you can be a ditch digger or a CEO and you end up earning the same salary. That's why the incentive to work (i.e. excel, take chances, think outside the box) vanishes. That's what happens when you artificially inflate the value of manual labor, while simultaneously bashing CEOs (at least the ones who don't contribute to your party). That's the end result of taxing the rich and EITCing the poor - when the CEO and the ditch digger end up with the same after-tax salary, the libs will be happy.

 

[HB1965]

that's why my favorite quote is - "in theory, everything works"

I don't think Socialism works as a theory. It makes a number of assumptions about the human psyche such as the idea that we will all use fair means in our dealings with other people.

in theory, if we were a hunting and farming society then socialism works.

how can you justify socialism in a modern society?

I can't and I never said that I did.

 

[JenAltArmy]

In Socialism, you can be a ditch digger or a CEO and you end up earning the same salary. That's why the incentive to work (i.e. excel, take chances, think outside the box) vanishes. That's what happens when you artificially inflate the value of manual labor, while simultaneously bashing CEOs (at least the ones who don't contribute to your party). That's the end result of taxing the rich and EITCing the poor - when the CEO and the ditch digger end up with the same after-tax salary, the libs will be happy.

that is the problem, those that want or belive in socialism want to end what has made our country the best country in history.

no way, a CEO and a ditch digger should earn the salary.

this is the biggest failure in socialism

 

[JenAltArmy]

I don't think Socialism works as a theory. It makes a number of assumptions about the human psyche such as the idea that we will all use fair means in our dealings with other people.



I can't and I never said that I did.

again, Socialism works in theory in a hunting and farming community. not in a modern world

 

[off2bed]

again, Socialism works in theory in a hunting and farming community. not in a modern world

How does it even work in a hunting and farming community? The Pilgrims starved under Socialism. When they let capitalism and freedom kick in, they thrived.

 

[Peregrinator]

Well, isn't that ironic.






How did he manage to get the post office to stop delivering his mail?

I need to know his secrets to success and libertarianism.

He says he lives at an undeliverable place, which is possible. If I didn't have a PO Box, my mail would pile up and get sent back until people stopped sending it. And now that I think of it, the guy who does our taxes, a good friend of mine, doesn't get mail delivered at home any more either, because of some form he needs to sign or something. I had to drive the envelope over to him.

But you ask an interesting question. Eyer must have some money or some sort of income, because he has internet service and unless he farms and hunts for all his food, he has something to eat. I wonder.

 

[Peregrinator]

In Socialism, you can be a ditch digger or a CEO and you end up earning the same salary. That's why the incentive to work (i.e. excel, take chances, think outside the box) vanishes. That's what happens when you artificially inflate the value of manual labor, while simultaneously bashing CEOs (at least the ones who don't contribute to your party). That's the end result of taxing the rich and EITCing the poor - when the CEO and the ditch digger end up with the same after-tax salary, the libs will be happy.

More evidence that I'm neither a socialist nor a "lib," then.

 

[HB1965]

in our society, its a great capitalist idea to share costs of services (spread those costs out to the masses) for schools (k-12), police, fire, this and that.

as this doesn't place the burden on one group. do I want more of a communal pie? no!

not until our society changes, and those that live on entitlements (under 65 say) have to work for that check. we must end the how parts of our society belive that welfare is a career. America must be fixed, in that living off government is a shameful act

I agree I think the welfare system is a joke. I have no problem with there being programs to help people get through a hard time but I have serious issues with people just contiuing to receive support and be able to scam the system

In Socialism, you can be a ditch digger or a CEO and you end up earning the same salary.

That's actually communism you're describing. Under Socialism the CEO would probably still make more but there wouldn't be the disparaging of salary.

 

[richard_daily]

He says he lives at an undeliverable place, which is possible. If I didn't have a PO Box, my mail would pile up and get sent back until people stopped sending it. And now that I think of it, the guy who does our taxes, a good friend of mine, doesn't get mail delivered at home any more either, because of some form he needs to sign or something. I had to drive the envelope over to him.

But you ask an interesting question. Eyer must have some money or some sort of income, because he has internet service and unless he farms and hunts for all his food, he has something to eat. I wonder.

Smells like socialism to me...

 

[JenAltArmy]

I agree I think the welfare system is a joke. I have no problem with there being programs to help people get through a hard time but I have serious issues with people just contiuing to receive support and be able to scam the system



That's actually communism you're describing. Under Socialism the CEO would probably still make more but there wouldn't be the disparaging of salary.

I'm with you in the safety net. I support "disparaging" salaries also that people like Steve Jobs ~ and his story. working in their garage to build something. Jobs isn't like Google, as those guys were silver spoon babies

 

[Peregrinator]

Smells like socialism to me...

One wonders.

 

[zipman]

Originally Posted by Peregrinator

Here you go, Frisco, this is you advocating state intervention you like.

If I recall correctly, he got annoyed at you for assuming that he believes in absolutely no state intervention and then challenged you to show where he believes in some state intervention.

If he doesn't believe in absolutely no state intervention and he denies believing in some state intervention, doesn't that only leave complete state intervention?

 

[KingOrfeo]

not until our society changes, and those that live on entitlements (under 65 say) have to work for that check. we must end the how parts of our society belive that welfare is a career. America must be fixed, in that living off government is a shameful act

[shrug] At least you do seem to understand that it is not any kind of existential threat to society. Some measure of public support for the unfortunate, or even for the lazy, is a luxury every modern nation can well afford. And, like Social Security and other retirement benefits, the monies paid stimulate the economy to some degree by being spent immediately, and keeping the money flowing round and round. (Never forget that there is also such thing as demand-side economics and that, whatever you might think of its implications, it is at any rate not preposterous.)

 

[Peregrinator]

If I recall correctly, he got annoyed at you for assuming that he believes in absolutely no state intervention and then challenged you to show where he believes in some state intervention.

If he doesn't believe in absolutely no state intervention and he denies believing in some state intervention, doesn't that only leave complete state intervention?

Yeah, or something. I forgot to post the simple version:

Slug: I am not an anarchist.

Slug: Show me what government intervention I believe in.


Seems to me the choices are "none," but he's already denied that, "some," or "complete." Since "complete" would have to be something like what Winston Smith lives under in 1984, we can assume that Frisco wouldn't approve. As to the details, well, I don't want to be dismissed as "parsing" again...

 

[HB1965]

I'm with you in the safety net. I support "disparaging" salaries also that people like Steve Jobs ~ and his story. working in their garage to build something. Jobs isn't like Google, as those guys were silver spoon babies

The things I've heard about Jobs are only somewhat more flattering than what I've heard about Zuckerman.

 

[JenAltArmy]

The things I've heard about Jobs are only somewhat more flattering than what I've heard about Zuckerman.

okay jumping back to the subject.

we both agree in safety nets. we both agree that people abuse the system.

now, why are you against people being paid what they are worth? what is wrong with the free market in that people should be paid by demand?

 

[HB1965]

okay jumping back to the subject.

we both agree in safety nets. we both agree that people abuse the system.

now, why are you against people being paid what they are worth? what is wrong with the free market in that people should be paid by demand?

I never said that. You assumed I did.

 

[KingOrfeo]

(Never forget that there is also such thing as demand-side economics and that, whatever you might think of its implications, it is at any rate not preposterous.)

Henry Ford understood that very well, BTW. He paid his factory workers so much that his shareholders once sued him, successfully, for operating Ford Motors as an "eleemosynary [charitable] institution" instead of putting profits first. But, in hindsight, Ford's business plan was the better one, based on the kind of perceptions that, again in hindsight, always seem glaringly obvious, yet still needed an exceptional mind to put them together:

1) All producers -- workers -- are also consumers.*

2) All consumers are potential customers, to one sector of industry or another.

3) The more money customers have to spend, the more profit industry can make by selling to them.**

Put another way: Ford's successors seem to have forgotten his principles . . . There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the 1950s or '60s: A Ford executive was showing off a brand-new fully-automated plant to a United Auto Workers official, and, waving at the machines, gloated, "So, how are you going to organize them?" The labor leader responded, "So, how are you going to sell them Fords?"

Demand-side economics in a nutshell. Ignore it at your nation's peril.


*1)a): Because all humans, regardless of whether they do or can perform any function that can be considered economically productive, are consumers. Bums, infants, retirees, disabled persons, all are consumers as all need to eat, etc. You stop consuming only when, and because (though in some cases the causal sequence might be reversed), you die.

**3)a): Note that from the POV of any given industrial sector, it makes no difference where or how the customers get their money. Paycheck, welfare check, Social Security check, bank robbery, it all spends the same.

In the macroeconomic big picture, of course, it might well make a difference. American hippies/counterculturalists who experimented with communes in the 1960s and '70s found there was often a problem with "free riders," who ate, because they could, but did not pitch in with the work, because they did not have to. That can ruin a commune. And you might say any communal/redistributive/welfare programs of any kind presents a free-rider problem on a national scale -- but, remember to look at history: On a national/civilizational scale, free riders are rarely an existential threat. Free-rider aristocrats have destroyed societies; the free-rider poor can ruin a commune but never a country.

 

[JenAltArmy]

I never said that. You assumed I did.

not really, someone else brought it up. I have no issues with a CEO making the big $$ nor do I have an issue with that baseball guy who just signed a 7 year contract for 157 million.

supply and demand. for me baseball is dull and costs too much to attend a game. but good for that guy

 

[patrick1]

<< why are you against people being paid what they are worth? what is wrong with the free market in that people should be paid by demand? >>

The market for labour isn't free. There are a zillion ways in which people lack information, or power, in the way they would need for a market to be 'free'.

So we shouldn't confuse the two meanings of 'worth'. There's no morality in the market, the better-paid don't deserve their money or indeed undeserve it, that's just how things work out.

It's not clear to me why, in simple ethical terms, a ceo should get more than a ditch-digger. In what way do they deserve it? They will live longer, with less chance of physical disability, they probably enjoy their work a lot more, and they were probably born with the gift of more brains. So why it's moral for them to earn more money beats me.



P

 

[JenAltArmy]

again, why must we force the company? let the owners decide how the company should operate. if the market buys their product or service the company lives, if they don't, then the company dies.

simple

why can't you understand that?

Henry Ford understood that very well, BTW. He paid his factory workers so much that his shareholders once sued him, successfully, for operating Ford Motors as an "eleemosynary [charitable] institution" instead of putting profits first. But, in hindsight, Ford's business plan was the better one, based on the kind of perceptions that, again in hindsight, always seem glaringly obvious, yet still needed an exceptional mind to put them together:

1) All producers -- workers -- are also consumers.*

2) All consumers are potential customers, to one sector of industry or another.

3) The more money customers have to spend, the more profit industry can make by selling to them.**

Put another way: Ford's successors seem to have forgotten his principles . . . There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the 1950s or '60s: A Ford executive was showing off a brand-new fully-automated plant to a United Auto Workers official, and, waving at the machines, gloated, "So, how are you going to organize them?" The labor leader responded, "So, how are you going to sell them Fords?"

Demand-side economics in a nutshell. Ignore it at your nation's peril.


*1)a): Because all humans, regardless of whether they do or can perform any function that can be considered economically productive, are consumers. Bums, infants, retirees, disabled persons, all are consumers as all need to eat, etc. You stop consuming only when, and because (though in some cases the causal sequence might be reversed), you die.

**3)a): Note that from the POV of any given industrial sector, it makes no difference where or how the customers get their money. Paycheck, welfare check, Social Security check, bank robbery, it all spends the same.

In the macroeconomic big picture, of course, it might well make a difference. American hippies/counterculturalists who experimented with communes in the 1960s and '70s found there was often a problem with "free riders," who ate, because they could, but did not pitch in with the work, because they did not have to. That can ruin a commune. And you might say any communal/redistributive/welfare programs of any kind presents a free-rider problem on a national scale -- but, remember to look at history: On a national/civilizational scale, free riders are rarely an existential threat. Free-rider aristocrats have destroyed societies; the free-rider poor can ruin a commune but never a country.

 

[JenAltArmy]

not everyone has what it takes to be a CEO. with a good CEO the company will live, make money, and people make money.

ditch digger, just about everyone can do this. not a unique skill.

its not a moral question if they should or should not earn more, it does become a moral question when someone plays god and says you make this, and you make that (in terms of the union, let the market set the price)

<< why are you against people being paid what they are worth? what is wrong with the free market in that people should be paid by demand? >>

The market for labour isn't free. There are a zillion ways in which people lack information, or power, in the way they would need for a market to be 'free'.

So we shouldn't confuse the two meanings of 'worth'. There's no morality in the market, the better-paid don't deserve their money or indeed undeserve it, that's just how things work out.

It's not clear to me why, in simple ethical terms, a ceo should get more than a ditch-digger. In what way do they deserve it? They will live longer, with less chance of physical disability, they probably enjoy their work a lot more, and they were probably born with the gift of more brains. So why it's moral for them to earn more money beats me.



P

 

[JenAltArmy]

I have to agree with what Jen said in that many people are hypocrites when it comes to pay. They blast a CEO for pulling in 2 million a year or more, yet celebrate and idolize athletes for their outrageous salaries.

I say, what ever you can earn go for it.

now, I will never support Socialism or communism (aka ALF-CIO)

<< why are you against people being paid what they are worth? what is wrong with the free market in that people should be paid by demand? >>

The market for labour isn't free. There are a zillion ways in which people lack information, or power, in the way they would need for a market to be 'free'.

So we shouldn't confuse the two meanings of 'worth'. There's no morality in the market, the better-paid don't deserve their money or indeed undeserve it, that's just how things work out.

It's not clear to me why, in simple ethical terms, a ceo should get more than a ditch-digger. In what way do they deserve it? They will live longer, with less chance of physical disability, they probably enjoy their work a lot more, and they were probably born with the gift of more brains. So why it's moral for them to earn more money beats me.



P

 

[HB1965]

its not a moral question if they should or should not earn more, it does become a moral question when someone plays god and says you make this, and you make that (in terms of the union, let the market set the price)

That's exactly what's done in capitalism. We have a class of people who make more. Under socialism you will actual make more if you do more.