Anything that has a chance of increasing survival rates in t

[Crissa]

1170518191[/unixtime]]While instituting a price floor AND a price ceiling is nice for workers and does allow them to lead a better lifestyle, what about the effects on the cost of goods and services?

Let's look at the good ol US of A.

When these were implemented at the turn of the century, the middle class flourished. The economy boomed. We pulled out of the recession (that time in which all the money was still in the hands of rich people but they had nothing to spend it upon) before the rest of the world and had no need of WWII (unlike the rest of the world).

Now, near the end of that period (1970s), inflation had become pretty severe - but that's also because Capitalism requires markup, and deals poorly with reaching the limits of supply (oil embargoes).

Since then, these limits have slowly been taken apart, most notably the limits on pay, as the highest tax bracket was halved from what it was when the United States experienced its largest GDP growth. It's even less now.

But hey, that's socialism, taking from the rich to keep the poor on the same d20. We wouldn't want that, would we?

-Crissa

[If you want to know what a tax bracket is, that's the amount of your income that is taxable. IE, the portion that a portion can be taken away from. Most people think of this as the tax rate, which it is not. Currently the highest tax bracket is 35% of your income.

...What, you ask, you pay 30% or more in taxes? That's because you work, and are also charged social security and other insurances that the state levies to keep itself from collapsing under the damages that are incurred (but not replaced) by Capitalism.

[fbmf]

We pulled out of the recession (that time in which all the money was still in the hands of rich people but they had nothing to spend it upon) before the rest of the world and had no need of WWII (unlike the rest of the world).

So the part in high school history wherein we talked about how WWII helped the US get out of the Great Depression (which certainly sounded like a recession to me, but what do I know) was all capitalist propoganda?

Game On,
fbmf

[Judging__Eagle]

1170551999[/unixtime]]

We pulled out of the recession (that time in which all the money was still in the hands of rich people but they had nothing to spend it upon) before the rest of the world and had no need of WWII (unlike the rest of the world).

So the part in high school history wherein we talked about how WWII helped the US get out of the Great Depression (which certainly sounded like a recession to me, but what do I know) was all capitalist propoganda?

Game On,
fbmf

Well.... it did help some.

Really the corps that sold war materiel.

They then got a taste for that money and wanted and lobbied to help in Korea; then later in Vietnam.

Now, they're doing it again in Iraq.


Afterall, isn't Rummy one of the guys who has a vested interest in Haliburton (a merc. company)?

He wanted Bush Sr. to enter in Iraq in the 90's and then tried again succesfully with Bush Jr..

[Crissa]

1170551999[/unixtime]]So the part in high school history wherein we talked about how WWII helped the US get out of the Great Depression (which certainly sounded like a recession to me, but what do I know) was all capitalist propoganda?

Well... Yeah.

See, unlike Europe, WWI was all butter for the US of A. While our involvement kept some of our friends from becoming ghettos like Germany and Poland did, it didn't do alot. We were selling to both sides.

WWII we didn't need, it killed off alot of extra people, and once again, our involvement was forced - we didn't get off our asses as we lost outposts in the Pacific to the Japanese, and you have to remember...

...That was Roosevelt's last term, there in the war, too.

There's a reason he was re-elected multiple times - and it wasn't because times got worse under his terms.

WWII is used as a stopping point because there wasn't a hard point as which 'things got better'. Things get better slowly, 'cause you're lifting bricks and finally realize that you're up high in the sky.

The 'Great Depression' was over by 1936. Note: Roosevelt took office in 1933 (elected 1932) and died in April, 1945.

-Crissa

[User3]

1170658609[/unixtime]]The 'Great Depression' was over by 1936

Funny, because if you look at Wikipedia under "Great Depression," they will tell you that there was another downturn in the economy in 1937. The fact that you're even trying to say that the Depression is over using GDP as in indicator doesn't mean squat; the GDP level didn't return to 1929 levels until 1941, which would coincide with when the war was really beginning to pick up. Otherwise, life was far from conditions during the "Roaring 20s".

Please check up on your sources before you post.

[Joy_Division]

Umm all of the sources Crissa posted indicate that the GDP was back to 1929 level by 1936 after which there was a slight downturn. Note that the gdp never falls below the 1929 level after 1936.

Please bother to read the sources you're telling people to read.

[Zherog]

I think that depends which column you're looking at, Joy. If you look at the first column (Real GDP), then you're correct. However, if you look at the last column (Nominal GDP per Capita), Guest is correct.

*shrug*

[Joy_Division]

yeah nominal is the column you ignore because the effects of inflation have not been factored in.

This means that while the GDP was higher in Dollar value in 1929 than in 1936. Things cost less in 1936 so the fact that people weren't quite making as much is irrelevant.

You can look at the nominal gdp coloumn and argue from it all you want but you'll only succeed in showing that you don't know what you're talking about.

[RandomCasualty]

1170364242[/unixtime]]
You're right, that does sound pretty fvcking horrible. Which is why I want worker management of enterprises, and as much input into whatever planning goes on as possible. I am not against people opening hot dog stands, however, it's going to be hard for you to make a profit in a socialist society, seeing as how we can get food at cost. They had better be damn good hot dogs.

Well right, you can't actually get anywhere, mainly because you can't afford to pay anybody to help you, because the minimum wage is so high. Walmart couldn't exist if it didn't have a ton of minimum wage workers. And in capitalism the minimum wage guys get hosed. But that's okay really, cause those guys are a dime a dozen.

In socialism though, the educated professions tend to get hosed. Problem is that the educated professions generally are smart enough to move somewhere else. So you're going to lose a lot of your great minds to capitalism. And that's not ok.

[Crissa]

Who's arguing with GDP? I was just pointing out that it had returned to normal by then. You could also count the end of a recession by the amount of growth, not the level of growth - which is what turned down in 1937.

The number of new houses built this year more than the number of new houses built last year (growth) isn't really a good indicator of health of an economy.

1170718626[/unixtime]]Well right, you can't actually get anywhere, mainly because you can't afford to pay anybody to help you, because the minimum wage is so high. Walmart couldn't exist if it didn't have a ton of minimum wage workers.

This is a good thing somehow helping your argument?

In socialism though, the educated professions tend to get hosed. Problem is that the educated professions generally are smart enough to move somewhere else. So you're going to lose a lot of your great minds to capitalism. And that's not ok.

We do?

Since when?

That's why we have enough emergency doctors and no unemployed aerospace engineers?

Or maybe it's more based upon government investment in sciences?

-Crissa

[OrionAnderson]

RC--

I love how you use the word "hosed" to describe the plight of the capitalist poor and the socialist elite, as though letting the rich go without a second new car is like letting the poor go without good food and healthcare.

[Endovior]

1170323310[/unixtime]]

...as each person wants as many of those resources as possible...

This is easily the stupidest fvcking thing I have ever read. Do you even know any other humans? Are you channeling Ayn Rand?


Anonymous Coward

Firstly, I'm referring to the fact that people, in general, want MORE. If you DON'T want more, and would, say, refuse a billion dollars if it were offered to you on the spot, then you are either lying or some kind of freak.

Secondly, yes, yes I am. I'm very proud of it, too.

1170333894[/unixtime]]"The main problem with Socialism is the lack of a working price system. Under Socialism, the advantages of a free market pricing system are abandoned due to government decree: assuming money is permitted at all, prices and wages are set to arbitrary sums by bureaucrats."

I'm pretty sure that's NOT how European Socialist countries work, for the most part. You might want to look into the EU a little more.

"This cooperation is beneficial for some, but those with which you are cooperating are still competing with others. If you run an auto repair shop, you're competing with the one down the road; if you run Ford, you're competing with Toyota. At any level you may care to examine, you are likely cooperating with a group of individuals; but your group is in competition with other groups."

The thing is that free-market capitalism isn't really about competition in the long run. Eventually someone gets enough money to buy their competitiors, or buy the government, or both. Capitalism is a lousy system for insuring competition, but a good system for allowing the rich to consolidate all the wealth and power.

"Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices."

Well, first off, remember that this was a very crude example.

"All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000."

Not so much-- the unemployed get $50,000 too.

Regarding the EU, they're still by and large a mixed economy; similar to our own, but leaning further to socialism then we are. The further they lean, the worse these problems get.

Regarding free market capitalism, what are you smoking? It's entirely about competition, and buying out your competition is PART of the competition in the literal "big fish eats little fish" sense. Also, it's worth noting that buying your competitors isn't always a good idea; if your competitors are doing a lousy job of it, then it doesn't help you to pick up their mess; just wait for them to fall on their faces, then pick out the choice bits from the bankruptcy sale. As far as the government goes, I've already said that political corruption is an artifact of statism, not capitalism.

So far as your example state, if everyone makes at least $50000, regardless of whether or not they have a job, then who the hell would ever work as a janitor? Why slave around all day when you can get exactly the same reward for staying at home? Same for all the other low-income band jobs; resulting in economic collapse. Not to mention the fact that, since the government's pulling huge amounts of money out of it's ass to pay everyone welfare, the currency's worth shit, which ALSO causes economic collapse.

1170335330[/unixtime]]Hate to double post, but using economic theory to justify capitalism is total bullshit. here's why:

A: These theories don't necessarily correspond to anything real. Some Econopmic theories seem to hold up pretty well when compared to evidenc,e but tohers don't. Most of them are just plain made up, and do stupid shit like assuming everyone is a rational actor.

B: Even standard economic theories don't really justify free market capitalism.

You see, a free market promises ideal distribution fo goods only sometimes. There are many, many things, which economists will agree can interferere with it.

Monopolies and Monopsonies unfairly raise profits, thus causing too little of a product to be bought. But some products, which are efficiently produced in bulk, a re"natural" monopolies.

"Externalities" occur when my actions affect your well-being. If I pollute, it hurts me, but it hurts you too, but since I don't have to pay for that, I end up polluting too much. If, on the other hand, I vaccinate my kids, that makes *your* kids healthier. But since I don't get paid for that, everyone is undervaccinated.

"Free Rider" problems arise when somethgin is basically a public good that can't be owned. Clean air is the obvious one, and town festivals. But there's more. Healthcare, for instance, is basically a public good, because plagues and whatnot ar ein nobody's interest.

Finally, you have goods which simply don't work right under a free makret because the demand is messed up. Liek drinking water. You need it to live, so you should be willing to pay all your wealth for it, but in practice most people don't want that to happen. Health Insurance is another one-- the better we get at predicting illness, the harder getting health insurance becomes for those who actually need it. The healthy people drop out of the program and premiums rise until sickly people aren't getting insurance so much as a financning plan.

Finally, this economic theory keeps score in exactly one way: total profits. People can starve to death, and this theory is completely okay with that. But the fact is, poverty itself is the most toxic form of pollution, and costs the rich huge amounts of money to pay for prisons, police officers, emergency rooms, and more.

So far as using economic theory to justify Capitalism, I'll start by saying that you're stupid, and wrong. If you care to dispute me on this, follow this link and read the book (available for free in PDF format). If you don't want to do that, keep listening, a lot of what I'm saying is based off the ideas in that book.

Who the fvck are you to decide 'ideal' distributions of goods, or 'fair' levels of profits? There is no such thing as 'unfair' profits, only the profits the market will bear. If the suppliers are willing to accept your price for their resources, and the workers are willing to accept your wage for their time, and the customers are willing to accept your price for your goods, then whatever you have left, you've fairly earned, regardless of absolutely anything else. Period. This doesn't change if you're the only one selling your goods; if everyone's willing, then it doesn't matter if you're making 10000% profits, because everyone's satisfied with the transaction.

Your 'externalities' and 'free riders' are irrelevant. You can whine and complain all you want about me being a 'free rider', but if I don't agree to your healthcare proposal, and refuse to fund it, if you try to take my money to fund it, I'll treat you like any other robber. Similarly, if I decide to clearcut and pollute and generally fvck up MY OWN LAND which I bought with MY OWN MONEY, there's not a damned thing you can do about it. It's MY LAND. You aren't even in the picture. You have no right whatsoever to complain unless what I'm doing gets into your property (say, I poison the water, and it gets into your well). When that happens, then you can can sue me. But not before.

So far as water goes... you claim it wouldn't work right under a free market. I say, try it. The only reason nobody cares is because the government regulates it, and then everyone takes it for granted. If such wasn't the case, then there'd be actual competition in the water market, and then people would start thinking about it.

So far as health insurance goes... I see no problem. Healthy people almost never use their health insurance, and might even drop out (although that's unwise, as accidents may still occur); as such, they shouldn't have to pay much for their insurance. Sickly people, on the other hand, with bone cancer or AIDS or some such life-ending thing that bounce in and out of hospitals continually are spending a red streak into whatever insurance they have; the insurance companies know this, so why in hell would they charge them the same low fees as they do the healthy people? Simple, they wouldn't, and don't. Doing so would be a bad investment. Same thing for car insurance, or any type of insurance; it's a risk-based business, so you charge based on risk. Arguing against that is foolish; if you stopped the companies from doing so, they'd go out of business.

So far as people starving to death, you're right. The theory is entirely fine with that. Same with competing theories, like communism. I'd also note that capitalism, in and of itself, does not require the rich to pay for any of that. Again, that's statism.

1170348442[/unixtime]]

1170319406[/unixtime]]
As an afterthought...

1170301377[/unixtime]]Imagine a society in which absolutely everyone made between $50,000 and $100,00. There's plenty of room for competition there-- I mean, you could make TWICE as much money as the next guy.

It would still be much better than our current system, where CEOs make a hundred times a worker's salary and people starve in the streets.

Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices. Price floors create surpluses; so if you insist that absolutely everyone must be paid at least $50000, then guess what? All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000.

(Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor )

Aside from Orion's own reply, there's another flaw here.

Remember that in Orion's simplified system, there's also a ceiling on wages. So, rather than a CEO making $2mil like they do now, they make $100,000. That's a "savings" of $1,900,000. That money could, in theory, be used to increase the salary of the janitor from his current measly $18,000 to the floor of $50,000.

Do note that there are a hell of a lot more janitors then executives; there aren't enough high-paid executives to fund all the low-paid nobodies, not by a long shot. Also, I note that another result of your plan is that all the competent executives go somewhere else, leaving your economy to be run into the ground by incompetent fools.

[Neeek]

1170742870[/unixtime]]


Your 'externalities' and 'free riders' are irrelevant. You can whine and complain all you want about me being a 'free rider', but if I don't agree to your healthcare proposal, and refuse to fund it, if you try to take my money to fund it, I'll treat you like any other robber. Similarly, if I decide to clearcut and pollute and generally fvck up MY OWN LAND which I bought with MY OWN MONEY, there's not a damned thing you can do about it. It's MY LAND. You aren't even in the picture. You have no right whatsoever to complain unless what I'm doing gets into your property (say, I poison the water, and it gets into your well). When that happens, then you can can sue me. But not before.

Guess what? Under a true free market economy, I get to kill you to take your stuff. So don't complain when I shoot you in the head to take what you have. Further, your discourse shows a complete lack of understanding of what "externalities" are. If you pollute the air, that's an externality. If you over-fish the rivers, that's an externality.

See, the thing free market capitalists forget is they want government intervention as much as the next person. They just want it to protect property over people. That's a completely untenable position as far as most people are concerned. That the well-being of people is more important IN ALL CASES than the well-being of property is both obvious, and strongly recognized by both law and equity doctrines. I am legally allow to steal your food if I'm starving. I'm legally allowed to break into your house if I'm freezing. Hospitals are legally required to take care of me in an emergency, whether or not I can pay. The first two are under the necessity doctrine, the third because waiting to find out if the guy who got hit with the car can pay you means the guy who got hit with the car dies.

Anyone who advocates a free market economy is an idiot (and all you have to do is look at history to see why,. Oh, and economists are by and large morons who come up with grand theories that have no basis in reality. Really. You want good economical advice? Talk to a historian, their ideas have actually been tried at some point.), and has no idea what the consequences of their actions are. People say I'm liberal. They are wrong. I'm a pragmatist. I just want to live my life without having the economy crash. Free market economics will insure a crash ever other decade. I love my family, friends, and even total strangers enough to wish that never happen to them.

[Zherog]

1170746475[/unixtime]]
Guess what? Under a true free market economy, I get to kill you to take your stuff. So don't complain when I shoot you in the head to take what you have.

If I can complain after you shoot me in the head, then you're a lousy fucking shot!

[OrionAnderson]

In my last post, when I mentioned "Ideal" quantities to produce, I was using the term in a very specific sense.

If oyu believe in the free market, than you presumeably belive in the "invisible hand," that is, the tendency of market forces to cause the ideal amount of a good to be produced. The typicla argument is that in na unregulated society, a good gets produced only if its benefits to the consumer are greater than it's costs ot the producer.

Most economic theory assumes that there is an idela amount of each good to produce, and that the free market will produce that amount of it. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, which is the part that people forget.

According to my textbook, the free market produces the ideal quantities under the following conditions:

No externalities
Many buyers and sellers
Clearly defined property rights

I feel like I'm forgetting one, but that isn't the point. The point is, if any of those is mising, the so-called "invisible hand" doens't work, at least not perfectly. I hope this is self-explanatory to someone who has studied economics, but I'm happy to explain further if need be.

[RandomCasualty]

1170726084[/unixtime]]RC--

I love how you use the word "hosed" to describe the plight of the capitalist poor and the socialist elite, as though letting the rich go without a second new car is like letting the poor go without good food and healthcare.

It's actually somewhat worse. I mean, it may sound callous, but for the most part we don't need most of the poor. Capitalism has really proven that. We really can just have untalented minimum wage workers who go through life with a crap pay and no real health benefits and nobody cares. I mean yeah, life sucks for them, but they're not really going to be missed if we just replace them with some Mexican immigrant or something.

The talented people on the other hand actually contribute stuff to society that we can't get elsewhere. And I'm not just talking about doctors and lawyers, I'm talking about some of the true visionaries of invention and science. Socialism is incredibly efficient if you want to produce goods. But it royally sucks for producing ideas. Cuba did some awesome things while under blockade, but how many inventions did it put out? How many innovations?

Mainly because the nature of your society rewards mediocrity and treats everyone equally, but geniuses don't want to be treated equally, they want perks. So they'll go somewhere that respects their talent. Meanwhile however, poor workers can't all afford to move somewhere that will pay them fair wages (nor could such a country even afford to take that many poor workers), so capitalists always have a steady flow of cheap labor.

[Cielingcat]

Geniuses want perks? What about people like Nicola Tesla, who actually decided NOT to become a billionairre because he didn't want to deal with the paperwork?

[RandomCasualty]

1170797982[/unixtime]]Geniuses want perks? What about people like Nicola Tesla, who actually decided NOT to become a billionairre because he didn't want to deal with the paperwork?

You can always find exceptions, but that isn't really all that significant, because such exceptions are still the minority.

[Crissa]

Do note that there are a hell of a lot more janitors then executives; there aren't enough high-paid executives to fund all the low-paid nobodies, not by a long shot. Also, I note that another result of your plan is that all the competent executives go somewhere else, leaving your economy to be run into the ground by incompetent fools.

That's so not true.

In 2000, you could hire 525 janitors at union wages for what one guy at the top makes. Note that there's more than one guy at the top making these incredibly unfair wages (usually a dozen per thousand low pay workers), and the site I'm linking to only tracks union shops. Go Google for more if you want.

Cuba did some awesome things while under blockade, but how many inventions did it put out? How many innovations?

Innovation is a direct result of money invested. Capitalism has nothing to do with innovation. It stifles innovation. Innovation has a direct (and you've linked to nothing so far) response to investment. Capitalism makes no investment.

Don't lie to support your argument, please, especially if there's facts available.

-Crissa

[Judging__Eagle]

The thing is.... capitalism won't invest money in pure research.

The sort of reasearch that finds out that Cat and Humans both have a Mutation that actually makes the person or cat with this mutation is nearly immune to HIV (and by result AIDs).

Now, a corp can now exploit this discovery and invest cash into making this work, but it was indepented non-capitalist research that found that out.

[RandomCasualty]

1170801640[/unixtime]]
Innovation is a direct result of money invested. Capitalism has nothing to do with innovation. It stifles innovation. Innovation has a direct (and you've linked to nothing so far) response to investment. Capitalism makes no investment.

Don't lie to support your argument, please, especially if there's facts available.

Innovation is the direct result of talented people doing stuff they do best. You can take a huge bucket of low level janitors or what not and pay them all you want, but they won't produce the theory of relativity or produce a cure for cancer. It seriously doesn't matter how much money you invest in that project, the project is going to fail if you dont' have the latent talent to make it succeed. Of course, because you value all people equally and pay your talented people pretty much the same as you pay your retarded janitor, your talented people have already left to go some place else.

In fact, the only way socialism can work is if the entire world becomes socialist and there is no better offer that talented people can take.

Socialism is like running a football team where you pay the superstar the same amount as the 3rd string backup. All your good players take better offers and you're left with a bunch of crappy players.

[Cielingcat]

However, money does not get talented people to do their job. People who make innovations need enough money to survive themselves and funding for their research. If they wanted to be rich, they wouldn't have gotten into science in the first place, since generally, that's not a field that makes you rich.

[Crissa]

Einstein wrote his best work while doing an entry-level job, RC.

Paying Janitors enough money that they can go to school and do what they want as a hobby - that makes innovation.

All College Football teams have 'paid' the same to all their members. There's once again, no relation to the amount of money paid to members and their output. You don't pay a football star more because the team won - you pay more because he made touchdowns for another team, and you don't want that.

RC, your grasp of Capitalism is slipping.

Also... What countries are known for monetary rewards for research?

-Crissa

[Catharz]

I shook my head. Roghres snorted. Tel put her spoon down. I sampled some of Li's unusual dish while he continued. 'I had the ship take a few cells from a variety of people on Earth. Without their knowledge, of course.' He waved the sword vaguely at the table behind us. 'Most of you over there will be eating either stewed Idi Amin or General Pinochet Chilli Con Carne; here in the center we have a combination of General Stroessner Meat Balls and Richard Nixon Burgers. The rest of you have Ferdinand Marcos Saute and Shah of Iran Kebabs. There are, in addition, scattered bowls of Fricaseed Kim Il Sung, Boiled General Videla, and Ian Smith in Black Bean Sauce ... all done just right by the excellent - if leaderless - chef we have around us. Eat up! Eat up!'

[OrionAnderson]

Plenty of janitors are smart enough to do something better, just lacking the opportunity.

But your argument that only the middle class and above are capable of contributing to society raises some itneresting quesitons. For instance: what counts as contributing to society? Improving the life of the "common(wo)man," or the working class, would seem to be a big one.

Seriously, I cna't imagine what legitimate goal the peosperous would have other than working to extend thier prosperity to others. That's practically the definition of contributing to society, as far as I'm concerned.

In the end though, if you're really, truly okay with anyone starving to death, I doubt we have much to discuss. I suspect that even in that case, self-interest should motivate you to embrace socialism, but we really just don't live in the same universe.