I'm a PC SJW

[Conager]

I think that people have a right to dignified work at a living wage, so I've covered that.

One doesn't get forced to have a right, dude.

Loving the Margaret Thatcher quotes btw.

How does your utopian fantasy work if everyone has the "right" to have everything provided and they aren't actually required to work in productive ways for it?

What if the work that they feel dognified doing is painting, and they suck at it. Should they still just paint in the state provide them with food and housing?

How about if they find preaching the one true gospel, whatever that is for them, the thing that makes them feel dignified in life. You cool with that?

 

[underguy1]

They do a fine job of indoctrination, don't they?

Now for reality. Crony capitalism and corporatism have nothing to do with capitalism other than the fact that there's money involved.

It's a corruption problem not a capitalism problem.

Drivel. Capitalists always blame the failures inherent in the internal contradictions of capitalism on others.

That's where fascism comes in. And libertarianism.

Scapegoating.

 

[Conager]

Drivel. Communists always blame the failures inherent in the internal contradictions of communism on others.

That's where force comes in. And reeducation camps.

Scapegoating.

:nods:

 

[underguy1]

How does your utopian fantasy work ?

I don't have a utopian fantasy.

You do,

This "free market" thingy you believe in is a hoax.

It is an irrational, quasi-religious belief.

Markets are social institutions and human beings are social animals.

You're all arguing against nature and history.

 

[underguy1]

You cool with that?

I'm cool with full employment.

It isn't a utopian ideal, like your free market fantasy.

 

[Conager]

I'm cool with full employment.

It isn't a utopian ideal, like your free market fantasy.

So if you have been advising Stalin you would have told him that as long as everybody is working it doesn't matter at all if they're producing anything that feeds, clothes, or shelters the people.

It's shame he didn't have you as his "economist."

You still haven't really explained know what you do with the labourer who doesn't wish to labour. A peaceble guy that would just prefer to say- sit home and get high.

 

[underguy1]

So if you have been advising Stalin you would have told him that as long as everybody is working it doesn't matter at all if they're producing anything that feeds, clothes, or shelters the people.

It's shame he didn't have you as his "economist."

You still haven't really explained know what you do with the labourer who doesn't wish to labour. A peaceble guy that would just prefer to say- sit home and get high.

Bringing Stalin into it just exposes you as the semi-literate ad hominem merchant that you are.

 

[alea_]

Fascism evolves from Socialist/Communist SJW, if we are to use that term, philosophy, the philosophy of the classes and the equitable distribution of the wealth of a nation and thus it ends in absurdities like the idea that you may own the means of production, but we dictate how you will employ your Capital.

We have taken the name "Socialist" because Socialism has evolved to mean educated and elevated as we retreat from meritocracy where the "Liberal" intellectual does not have the standing he desires; that lofty perch is best achieved with an aristocracy, even if not one of birthright.

^^^^^^ This.
But I also believe that people have different things in mind when they use the word socialism.

Posters like you are often referring to the distorted version more in line with communism by another name, which leads to all the absurdities and despotic measures counterproductive to the well-being of their own people, and which only serve the interests of the 0.01%
- Even Obamacare : asking the middle class to pay for the poor, instead of asking Corporations and insurance companies to lower their fees

Whereas other posters refer to the healthier part of 'socialism'.
- The one which allows for universal healthcare in UK, Canada or NZ and partly Australia,
as opposed to leaving poor people with no help for their serious illnesses (the way the Health Insurance system was before Obamacare).
If I understood correctly.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm cool with full employment.

It isn't a utopian ideal, like your free market fantasy.

Define it.

I don't think you can...

 

[underguy1]

Define it.

I don't think you can...

We define it as less than 2% unemployment (to account for churn) and zero underemployment i.e nobody working part time that wants a full time job.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

^^^^^^ This.
But I also believe that people have different things in mind when they use the word socialism.

Posters like you are often referring to the distorted version more in line with communism by another name, which leads to all the absurdities and despotic measures counterproductive to the well-being of their own people, and which only serve the interests of the 0.01%
- Even Obamacare : asking the middle class to pay for the poor, instead of asking Corporations and insurance companies to lower their fees

Whereas other posters refer to the healthier part of 'socialism'.
- The one which allows for universal healthcare in UK, Canada or NZ and partly Australia,
as opposed to leaving poor people with no help for their serious illnesses (the way the Health Insurance system was before Obamacare).
If I understood correctly.

I disagree in this. You are right, there are two differing viewpoints. The optimist points to the promise, the ideal, the compassion, the cynic looks at unintended consequences and the actual outcomes of whatever actually transpires when the idealistic notion of Socialism is embraced but soon becomes a road to serfdom under the guidance of nothing more than the best of intentions.

Every good intention and noble desire eventually needs a correction (because intention and desire do not abrogate human nature) and with each correction the government assumes a little more control, a little more power and a new set of problems. Eventually you have a small elite of political survivors being handled by the intellectual class terrified of addressing the mounting problems that stem from centralized planning, so they avoid making decisions; a decision could lead to a purge, then you have to try and survive as one of the masses. Eventually you have a government paralyzed by fear of decision and a strong man decides to take control, to the grateful relief of the elites.

All that comes of and from Socialism. It is in Socialism's failure that we see Socialists rush to the defense. Socialism did not create this, Fascism created it, Capitalism created it, corruption created it, Democracy created it, ergo the only cure for this state is true Socialism...

 

[alea_]

1.I disagree in this. You are right, there are two differing viewpoints.
- The optimist points to the promise, the ideal, the compassion,
- the cynic looks at unintended consequences and the actual outcomes of whatever actually transpires when the idealistic notion of Socialism is embraced but soon becomes a road to serfdom under the guidance of nothing more than the best of intentions.

2.Every good intention and noble desire eventually needs a correction (because intention and desire do not abrogate human nature) and with each correction the government assumes a little more control, a little more power and a new set of problems.
- Eventually you have a small elite of political survivors being handled by the intellectual class terrified of addressing the mounting problems that stem from centralized planning, so they avoid making decisions; a decision could lead to a purge, then you have to try and survive as one of the masses.
- Eventually you have a government paralyzed by fear of decision and a strong man decides to take control, to the grateful relief of the elites.


3.All that comes of and from Socialism. It is in Socialism's failure that we see Socialists rush to the defense. Socialism did not create this, Fascism created it, Capitalism created it, corruption created it, Democracy created it, ergo the only cure for this state is true Socialism...
)

Sorry to be an AJ bootlicker again (as SaintPeter often calls me),
but Wow. So nicely put and makes so much sense.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We define it as less than 2% unemployment (to account for churn) and zero underemployment i.e nobody working part time that wants a full time job.

*chuckle*

We know, for an economic fact that 4% is the barrier that is impossible to get and stay below.

In other words, as Conager points out, you are dreaming a false dream of Utopia and have yet as to even outline how you would get to this unicorn of 2%...

Additionally, since you must pay attention to human nature in your calculus, there will never be a scenario where everyone working part-time can simply get a full-time job because you cannot guarantee that ability and desire are going to manage to match to the full-time jobs available. A worker, in a 4% unemployment market would rather sense the opportunity in waiting for the right job, thus defeating your pie-in-the-sky metric.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sorry to be an AJ bootlicker again (as SaintPeter calls me),
but Wow. So nicely put and makes so much sense.

Thank you very much. Very kind.

 

[underguy1]

*chuckle*

We know, for an economic fact that 4% is the barrier that is impossible to get and stay below.

In other words, as Conager points out, you are dreaming a false dream of Utopia and have yet as to even outline how you would get to this unicorn of 2%...

Additionally, since you must pay attention to human nature in your calculus, there will never be a scenario where everyone working part-time can simply get a full-time job because you cannot guarantee that ability and desire are going to manage to match to the full-time jobs available. A worker, in a 4% unemployment market would rather sense the opportunity in waiting for the right job, thus defeating your pie-in-the-sky metric.

The government can most certainly guarantee full employment.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sorry to be an AJ bootlicker again (as SaintPeter often calls me),
but Wow. So nicely put and makes so much sense.

PS - This line of thought follows from sources such as Hayek, Mises, Peikoff and Hoffer.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The government can most certainly guarantee full employment.

That's what North Korea and Cuba claim.

You sound like you actually admire people like Hitler...

:shudder:​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We do note that once again you cannot say how.


But you know my economic reasoning is sound outside of a dictatorship or Fascism.

Are you a Fascist?

 

[underguy1]

We do note that once again you cannot say how.

You haven't asked of course.

The currency issuer can employ ant surplus labour it chooses to.

 

[underguy1]

That's what North Korea and Cuba claim.

You sound like you actually admire people like Hitler...

:shudder:​

What a retard you are. North Korea and Cuba are antifascist regimes.

They oppose you and Hitler.

 

[Conager]

Bringing Stalin into it just exposes you as the semi-literate ad hominem merchant that you are.

Naturally, why discuss what happened when your ideas were as close to being fulfilled as they ever could be in any society.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The United States is, as a statutory matter, committed to full employment (defined as 3% unemployment for persons aged 20 and older, 4% for persons aged 16 and over); the government is empowered to effect this goal.[12] The relevant legislation is the Employment Act (1946), initially the "Full Employment Act," later amended in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (1978). The 1946 act was passed in the aftermath of World War II, when it was feared that demobilization would result in a depression, as it had following World War I in the Depression of 1920–21, while the 1978 act was passed following the 1973–75 recession and in the midst of continuing high inflation.

The law states that full employment is one of four economic goals, in concert with growth in production, price stability, balance of trade, and budget, and that the US shall rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve these goals. Specifically, the Act is committed to an unemployment rate of no more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over (from 1983 onwards), and the Act expressly allows (but does not require) the government to create a "reservoir of public employment" to affect this level of employment. These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay so as to not draw the workforce away from the private sector.

However, since the passage of this Act in 1978, the US has, as of 2012 never achieved this level of employment on the national level, though some states have neared it or met it,[13][14][15] nor has such a reservoir of public employment been created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment#Unemployment_and_Inflation

 

[Conager]

So to sum up underguy's Utopia:

Print money.

Spend money.

Tax (modestly) to extinguish money. This step is stll unexplained.

Print more money.

Create government make-work projects.

Hire the serfs at a "living wage."

Printing money and artificially propping up wages does not cause the actual cost of living to increase. It remains static.

Those employed in these government jobs are not actually going to be compelled to show up or do these jobs because of course nobody can be forced to do anything in his Utopia. Apparently, everyone in his society is a cheerful laborer that just loves to show up to work and be productive. Since everyone has the right to dignified work I don't know what they do about cleaning out sewers and garbage pickup.

They of course retain the right to housing, medical care clothing and sustenance without regard to any effort that they put in.

I don't think I should probably ask him what he's going to do to prevent black markets from being created and what he's going to do to black marketeers when caught.

 

[Conager]

The United States is, as a statutory matter, committed to full employment (defined as 3% unemployment for persons aged 20 and older, 4% for persons aged 16 and over); the government is empowered to effect this goal.[12] The relevant legislation is the Employment Act (1946), initially the "Full Employment Act," later amended in the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (1978). The 1946 act was passed in the aftermath of World War II, when it was feared that demobilization would result in a depression, as it had following World War I in the Depression of 1920–21, while the 1978 act was passed following the 1973–75 recession and in the midst of continuing high inflation.

The law states that full employment is one of four economic goals, in concert with growth in production, price stability, balance of trade, and budget, and that the US shall rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve these goals. Specifically, the Act is committed to an unemployment rate of no more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over (from 1983 onwards), and the Act expressly allows (but does not require) the government to create a "reservoir of public employment" to affect this level of employment. These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay so as to not draw the workforce away from the private sector.

However, since the passage of this Act in 1978, the US has, as of 2012 never achieved this level of employment on the national level, though some states have neared it or met it,[13][14][15] nor has such a reservoir of public employment been created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment#Unemployment_and_Inflation

Well gee ...maybe they better just pass another law. That will fix it.

Maybe if a dog manages to catch its tail it won't have to chase it anymore.

 

[alea_]

What a retard you are. North Korea and Cuba are antifascist regimes.

They oppose you and Hitler.

Didn't Kim-Jong-Un just execute his education minister and another officer over some trivial stuff?
And those 12 orchesra members, while their colleagues were forced to watch and then sent to concentration camps