A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[wufwugy]

I fundamentally disagree with these statements. It is my belief that in a tribal society if you are unable to contribute, you are cast out of that society, as they are unwilling and unable to support you. It is your choice to survive or not to survive, to work to improve your condition or not to. The 'right' you mention to provide your basic needs of shelter, clothing and food is a choice, you choose to provide them or you choose not to.

Let me try to explain it a bit differently. Without providing some value to the society, even in tribal societies, you are a burden to that society, not a contributing member. Thus you don't get to have any power or any 'value' to the society. The only members of tribal society that I have learned of that do not work are usually the shamans. They provide value by contributing the knowledge and 'mysticism' that the society feels it needs. If they stop providing that value, they are forced to either work or are cast out.

Another way to look at it, if this was a right, why are there still starving peoples in third world areas of this planet of ours?

Yeah dude you misunderstood me. I'm not talking at all about this. I'm talking about the system itself. You're referring more to a response to that system.

In a tribalism, the system itself is predicated upon the ability for every member to provide for themselves. There are some outliers and examples of this not being the case, but in general, the capacity to provide exists

In modernism, however, this is not the case for many people. We have designed this artificial construct called an economy that virtually replaces many foundational aspects of the kind of society humans evolved for. Our current rendition of this artificial construct systemically denies the capacity to provide for many, many people. The overwhelming majority of the poor and starving in our world are so not because they choose not to provide for themselves, but because they can't. The system will not let them.

Providing for oneself in modernism is predicated upon the existence of adequate employment. When that employment is not adequate, the people are systemically denied the ability to provide for themselves. The ability to provide for oneself is a basic human right that has only achieved some level of actualization in a small number of nations. US is maybe about halfway there.



Besides all that, a society that designates the right to employment is a much, much better one to live in. Production, health, happiness and a whole bunch of good stuff increases dramatically when the least fortunate of a society receiving a helping hand. Instead of dragging it down and going for things like crime, they become productive members. Don't let some arbitrary political philosophy hinder actual good policy

[Monty3038]

Our current rendition of this artificial construct systemically denies the capacity to provide for many, many people. The overwhelming majority of the poor and starving in our world are so not because they choose not to provide for themselves, but because they can't. The system will not let them.

I'm not sure I can buy into this statement as well... let me explain after your next paragraph...

Providing for oneself in modernism is predicated upon the existence of adequate employment. When that employment is not adequate, the people are systemically denied the ability to provide for themselves.

Hmm... so if there is unemployment, one cannot provide for themselves? I see where you feel that I cannot provide for my family if I cannot find work, but if that work is inadequate to provide for my family, then just having employment is not sufficient. You have to have a 'livable income' or work for the state, and let the state provide you what is determined to be your basic subsistence. This is the basis of a 'minimum wage' which, while we all know is not enough to support a family, is a start down this road... of which I also disagree with.

The ability to provide for oneself is a basic human right that has only achieved some level of actualization in a small number of nations. US is maybe about halfway there.

The ability to provide for oneself is a skill, not a right. When you are born you cannot provide for yourself, you learn to as you are raised... and if you are not taught how to provide for yourself, you become a ward of the state and thus the cycle continues... I really don't like this type of thinking as it proliferates the need for welfare and state run subsistence of people, which I think leads directly down the road to socialism/communism, which is where I think a lot of your thinking is heading. If the state/country/government/tribal leaders determine that this is the minimum you must have to survive, and they will provide it for you.. and you will work this job to obtain it... I think we can all see where that leads... to doing the bare minimum to obtain the bare minimum for survival...

Besides all that, a society that designates the right to employment is a much, much better one to live in. Production, health, happiness and a whole bunch of good stuff increases dramatically when the least fortunate of a society receiving a helping hand. Instead of dragging it down and going for things like crime, they become productive members. Don't let some arbitrary political philosophy hinder actual good policy

I don't think this is arbitrary political policy. A society that designates the right to OPPORTUNITY is a much better one to live in. I don't want one where everyone is guaranteed a job... not everyone wants a job, not everyone deserves a job. I also don't want minimum wages, you earn what you are worth. If an employer feels you are worth more, you make more. If an employer cannot afford to pay you what you feel you are worth, they will not hire you.

I agree it is noble to lend a helping hand. That is what a limited unemployment program of 13 weeks is for. That is what limited welfare with restrictions including no further payments for further family size increases, and limited terms on benefits for able bodied adults is for... the relentless never ending welfare cycle we currently live in, in the US, is a self-defeating prophecy that keeps people down as they have no incentive to change.

Ok... soap box over... I'm sure our views don't coincide, and I'm not sure we would find a middle ground, but that is the point of a democratic society...

[boost]

And what wuf seems to be saying is that in times like these, where relatively large chunks of able bodied people who want to work cannot find work, the gov't should step in and provide work. This would stimulate the economy and as the economy recovered better jobs would become available and the people employed in right-to-work jobs would migrate to these new better jobs.

Monty, you seem to be responding to this with an anti-welfare attitude, yet this wouldn't be welfare... people would be working... it would actually take a lot of strain off of the welfare safety nets we have in place.

[Monty3038]

Boost, you are correct... and here is where the problem IMO lies with that. The government creates jobs, such as Roosevelt did (I think it was Roosevelt) with the creation of Dams, Tennessee Valley Authority, other work programs that put people to work... they work. Then they do jump start the economy... but when those jobs dry up, what do they do?

Right now, Obama has created those types of jobs, with the Putting Americans to Work programs, which you have seen on your highways, infrastructure building, etc... but it hasn't jump started the economy? I can name at least 10 projects in my area that have been created by this program, which is pumping millions into people's pockets... but it still hasn't jump started the local economy...

Why?

[boost]

I think we would need to do a comparative study of the current programs and the depression era programs. The dam took three years to build. These small infrastructure projects take weeks or months at the most. I wonder if there is consistent employment at all? Or does one group have work for a few weeks, then another..

Even if the desired effect of insta-jump starting the economy isn't achieved, the long term effects will be positive. Investing in infrastructure is a vital part of supporting a strong economy; something we seem to have forgotten over the last several decades.

p.s. I explained what happens after the work "dries up." Ideally the economy is in a better place and better jobs are available, so the right-to-workers can take those jobs.

[wufwugy]

The ability to provide for oneself is a skill, not a right. When you are born you cannot provide for yourself, you learn to as you are raised...

Kinda like how we learn how to speak, how to congregate, or how to marry? Human rights are social constructs for the purpose of social benefit. Origin or naturalism is no bearing

and if you are not taught how to provide for yourself, you become a ward of the state and thus the cycle continues... I really don't like this type of thinking as it proliferates the need for welfare and state run subsistence of people, which I think leads directly down the road to socialism/communism, which is where I think a lot of your thinking is heading. If the state/country/government/tribal leaders determine that this is the minimum you must have to survive, and they will provide it for you.. and you will work this job to obtain it... I think we can all see where that leads... to doing the bare minimum to obtain the bare minimum for survival...

Sorry dude but you don't know what socialism is. We have some very strong socialistic principles in our society that nobody other than a handful of the incredibly rich would wish to delete, and only a small number of people actually understand are socialism.

Virtually everybody you know is a closet socialist. The disconnect is that most people have silly ideas of some kind of nanny state gulag mill servitude poor fantasy about socialism. Socialism is merely a socioeconomic construct for the purpose of the society, the populace. Civil rights, individual freedoms, virtually every form of egalitarianism is socialism on some level.

I always find it interesting when I discuss policy with uber right-wingers without designating politics. They always have incredibly liberal and socialistic ideals, yet the moment they realize the political designation, they oppose.

I don't think this is arbitrary political policy. A society that designates the right to OPPORTUNITY is a much better one to live in.

I completely agree. The difference is that in order to actually live in that kind of society, you need heaps of socialism. My beef with conservatism and libertarianism ultimately boils down to them saying one thing yet promoting policy that does a different thing. Conservative and libertarian ideals are very good things, but they are clueless as to how to actually achieve those ideals.

I don't want one where everyone is guaranteed a job... not everyone wants a job, not everyone deserves a job. I also don't want minimum wages, you earn what you are worth. If an employer feels you are worth more, you make more. If an employer cannot afford to pay you what you feel you are worth, they will not hire you.

That sounds good on paper, but isn't how it works in reality. If you were right, worker compensation would be incredibly high right now since individual production has dramatically increased over the decades

I agree it is noble to lend a helping hand. That is what a limited unemployment program of 13 weeks is for. That is what limited welfare with restrictions including no further payments for further family size increases, and limited terms on benefits for able bodied adults is for... the relentless never ending welfare cycle we currently live in, in the US, is a self-defeating prophecy that keeps people down as they have no incentive to change.

This argument is popular due to propaganda, not data. When it started it was called the Welfare Cadillac Queen, now it's a more subtle "entitlement lazy drag blah blah blah". It exists because it gets votes

[wufwugy]

Boost, you are correct... and here is where the problem IMO lies with that. The government creates jobs, such as Roosevelt did (I think it was Roosevelt) with the creation of Dams, Tennessee Valley Authority, other work programs that put people to work... they work. Then they do jump start the economy... but when those jobs dry up, what do they do?

Right now, Obama has created those types of jobs, with the Putting Americans to Work programs, which you have seen on your highways, infrastructure building, etc... but it hasn't jump started the economy? I can name at least 10 projects in my area that have been created by this program, which is pumping millions into people's pockets... but it still hasn't jump started the local economy...

Why?

You're inadvertently equivocating. Existence of spending != quantity/quality of spending.

I'm glad you mentioned FDR. New Deal policies have had incalculably positive effects even to this day. Things like national parks and forest rangers exist mainly because of that old school stimulus. Policy of that era is a great example of how right-wingers oppose it when they can, but gobble up the benefits when they can, then claim the positives were their ideas all along

Obama's stimulus has a few problems, but also a few excellent things.

It was not even remotely capable of fixing the economy due to improper size, type of stimuli, and policy changes. It's not even close, too. The next time you hear somebody made the simplistic comment that the stimulus didn't work or whatever, please stop listening to them because they have no clue what they're talking about. Like seriously, they either don't even understand the first thing about economics or they're lying

A big chunk of the stimulus are deleterious tax cuts, and they actually have a negative drag on the economy. Barry No Balls is somehow incapable of fighting for what is right so he needed to put all those confirmed awful tax cuts in there in order to get a couple necessary votes. Not to mention this new "stimulus" of tax cuts is beyond a joke. It's more a product of the establishment believing their own shit, and a tool that allowed Barry No Balls to convince the Democratic Party-liners that he's not one of the most conservative presidents in US history by getting passage of a few incredibly popular and standard bills.

Some of the stimulus package, however, is R&D type of stuff and infrastructure that will pay off quite a lot over decades. It's not nearly as good as the New Deal was, but we got what our stupid voters deserve, I guess

[Monty3038]

I think we would need to do a comparative study of the current programs and the depression era programs. The dam took three years to build. These small infrastructure projects take weeks or months at the most. I wonder if there is consistent employment at all? Or does one group have work for a few weeks, then another..

Even if the desired effect of insta-jump starting the economy isn't achieved, the long term effects will be positive. Investing in infrastructure is a vital part of supporting a strong economy; something we seem to have forgotten over the last several decades.

p.s. I explained what happens after the work "dries up." Ideally the economy is in a better place and better jobs are available, so the right-to-workers can take those jobs.

What I was driving at, was to get the better jobs, you have to encourage investment in businesses that can provide those jobs...

And how do you do that? You can jump start the economy, but without long term resolutions that promote business staying in the US, rather than leaving, it will all unravel.

[Lukie]

A highly sought job should be a privilege, but the right to any job should absolutely be a right. We live in a society with all sorts of interdependencies, and we have virtually no choice in the matter. The backbone of this society is the ability to work to provide for oneself.

There is nothing fundamentally different between a social right to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and the social right to speak or congregate or practice religion. As long as I'm a mandatory citizen of my society, I should have the right to adequately function in that society. Not providing the right to employment in this society is like not providing the right to chop trees or hunt animals on whatever land you currently occupy in tribal societies

The right to employment is just as basic as any of our other established rights. The difference is it's not been established in this society.

what about people that just suck at everything they do? either due to inability or lack of caring, possibly because they know they are always guaranteed a job

[Monty3038]

Sorry dude but you don't know what socialism is.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. For some reason though, your clarification sounds more like an attack, but that is probably me internalizing your comment.

We have some very strong socialistic principles in our society that nobody other than a handful of the incredibly rich would wish to delete, and only a small number of people actually understand are socialism.

Apparently, since I don't understand socialism, I don't understand your comments. Please explain in a better way that someone with a public school education can understand.

Virtually everybody you know is a closet socialist. The disconnect is that most people have silly ideas of some kind of nanny state gulag mill servitude poor fantasy about socialism. Socialism is merely a socioeconomic construct for the purpose of the society, the populace. Civil rights, individual freedoms, virtually every form of egalitarianism is socialism on some level.

Again, my understanding of socialism is in opposition to what you are stating. I will have to do more research on socialism to understand how you come to the conclusion that civil rights and indvidual freedoms are part of a socialistic society.

I always find it interesting when I discuss policy with uber right-wingers without designating politics. They always have incredibly liberal and socialistic ideals, yet the moment they realize the political designation, they oppose.

I guess I don't see your point. Are you trying to call me an uber right winger who has conflicting ideals or are you stating an opinion on people you normally discuss with?

I completely agree. The difference is that in order to actually live in that kind of society, you need heaps of socialism. My beef with conservatism and libertarianism ultimately boils down to them saying one thing yet promoting policy that does a different thing. Conservative and libertarian ideals are very good things, but they are clueless as to how to actually achieve those ideals.

All political systems are compromise. So I don't know whether you are calling the system the problem or you are saying that politicians who represent conservative ideals are failing. So far, I've seen very few conservatives who actually are conservatives.

That sounds good on paper, but isn't how it works in reality. If you were right, worker compensation would be incredibly high right now since individual production has dramatically increased over the decades

Sure, individual production has dramatically increased, so has inflation, cost of living, etc... everything expands, so now I can produce more than someone 50 years ago... but if my skill set is still average among others in the workforce... I still earn approximately the same standard of living. The thing a lot of people don't seem to get is if you increase one thing, you increase another... raising the minimum wage, raises prices as companies compensate for it to maintain profits, which in turn lowers the standard of living again, which means minimum wage has to be raised... etc.. etc. etc.

Now, what I was referring to, is a person who can push a button and watch an assembly line has one value to a business owner, while a product design engineer has another. If you have a society where ability and value are not properly rewarded, there is no encouragement to achieve more.

It isn't how it works in reality because no one can truly achieve a market driven society without damaging a large number of people in the process... and because that violates popular opinion, it gets voted down, also it leaves a number of people out in the cold... but if a true market driven society could be founded, I think this would work.

This argument is popular due to propaganda, not data. When it started it was called the Welfare Cadillac Queen, now it's a more subtle "entitlement lazy drag blah blah blah". It exists because it gets votes

I'm not sure if you mean the argument gets votes or the welfare state gets votes?


---

I am not an economist, I have little formal economic training, I have a public school education and two college degrees. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable and able to understand concepts. I am hoping to gain something from this conversation and discussion, as well as am trying to keep my opinions and mind open. If you want to keep it going, I'm glad to, I'm actually enjoying it. I don't get to have these discussions often as they normally devolve into name calling by either myself or the other side and anger on both parts. So I'm trying to do my best to keep it civil and open-minded. Bear with me.

[Monty3038]

Policy of that era is a great example of how right-wingers oppose it when they can, but gobble up the benefits when they can, then claim the positives were their ideas all along

I guess I'm confused by this as I don't hear any conservatives claiming the new deal was their idea.

Obama's stimulus has a few problems, but also a few excellent things.

It was not even remotely capable of fixing the economy due to improper size, type of stimuli, and policy changes. It's not even close, too. The next time you hear somebody made the simplistic comment that the stimulus didn't work or whatever, please stop listening to them because they have no clue what they're talking about. Like seriously, they either don't even understand the first thing about economics or they're lying

So what was the point of Obama's stimulus package that is rebuilding approximately 30 bridges in my area, running High speed internet throughout rural areas, etc... all of which are multi-year projects... as well as many short term projects. If it wasn't the point of putting people to work and jump starting the economy, what was the point of it?

A big chunk of the stimulus are deleterious tax cuts, and they actually have a negative drag on the economy. Barry No Balls is somehow incapable of fighting for what is right so he needed to put all those confirmed awful tax cuts in there in order to get a couple necessary votes. Not to mention this new "stimulus" of tax cuts is beyond a joke. It's more a product of the establishment believing their own shit, and a tool that allowed Barry No Balls to convince the Democratic Party-liners that he's not one of the most conservative presidents in US history by getting passage of a few incredibly popular and standard bills.

Some of the stimulus package, however, is R&D type of stuff and infrastructure that will pay off quite a lot over decades. It's not nearly as good as the New Deal was, but we got what our stupid voters deserve, I guess

Ok, I had to look deleterious up to be sure it was what I thought it was. I don't know who Barry No Balls is, so let me try to find that out. I don't know what awful tax cuts you are talking about, so I don't know how to take your discussion here. Wait, are you talking about Obama? Ok, it appears to be what you mean. Obama doesn't seem to be too concerned with conservative values, as government continues to expand and spend, spend, spend. Bush wasn't a conservative either, as he expanded and expanded government.

In regards to the R&D stuff, I hope some of it pays off over decades, I hope something some of these guys do actually pays off. I would rather government get out of the way in most things, but sometimes they do something right.

[wufwugy]

what about people that just suck at everything they do? either due to inability or lack of caring, possibly because they know they are always guaranteed a job

They exist, but they're a small segment of society, and also largely representative of poor social constructs anyways. They also get way too much flak given actual welfare numbers. Wall Street has received more government aid in just a couple years than every poor person in US history. Why are the people who claim to hate welfare not smashing down the doors of Goldman Sachs? Those are the real welfare dogs. The effects are exponentially expanded when you factor in that there is a huge economic multiplier for a good welfare system for the poor while the secret welfare systems we have for the wealthy actually have negative multipliers on the economy


I'm not saying everybody should be guaranteed an easy, well paying job. Not at all. There are millions of American men who would dig ditches in a blizzard in order to feed their families. But they can't because nobody will pay them to do that or anything else in such a crummy economy. Fortunately we have some safety nets like unemployment insurance, but there are much, much better ways to go about doing it than UI despite the fact that the positive multipliers of UI are among the best things possible for the economy

What Monty says about freedom for opportunity is exactly what I've been driving at. The right to employment or to education would not be welfare for schmucks, but Opportunity 101. In fact, my ideas on the matter would completely eliminate so many social subsidies that many people say they don't like. A big reason we have those subsidies in the first place is simply the lack of actual opportunity. Just look at the current economy. Executive profits have been skyrocketing for a while. The richie rich economy is doing better than fucking ever, but because we have shit labor laws, the average worker gets dumped into joblessness and onto government subsidies but then he goes and votes for the politicians who are in the pockets of his former employers who canned his ass for profit incentives. Our economy is very quickly molding into full form corporatocracy, and those provide very little opportunity

[wufwugy]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. For some reason though, your clarification sounds more like an attack, but that is probably me internalizing your comment.

Oh I'm not attacking. I'm just blunt. The moment I feel a discussion turns into attacks, I leave it

Apparently, since I don't understand socialism, I don't understand your comments. Please explain in a better way that someone with a public school education can understand.

Public education you say? Hmmm

That's some pretty nice socialism there. Granted, it is more socialism via proxy, but it is still socialism. There is a whole lot of confusion in some of the social sciences over vernacular because they're changing so rapidly and so unexhaustive. The strict definition of economic socialism is along the lines of collective management. So a company where every employee is partial employer is socialism. The system has been shown to be incredibly effective. Its overall effects are of much improved wealth distribution and economic health. Our current system is more a feudal hybrid than anything that reflects sustainability and egalitarianism

Things like public education are not strictly socialistic based on a myopic view, yet they are philosophically and effectively socialistic. Voting, for example, is one of the most socialistic things any society has. Seriously, our democratic process is complete socialism. Collective influence over proceedings = socialism


Also, do research on socialism by watching some of this guy's lectures or reading stuff

Professor Richard D. Wolff | Economics Professor

Again, my understanding of socialism is in opposition to what you are stating. I will have to do more research on socialism to understand how you come to the conclusion that civil rights and indvidual freedoms are part of a socialistic society.

Look at the words dude. Socialism, society, communism, community. Governing systems that are made up for the people, by the people, are socialism. The words have simply been demonized. We say that communism failed, yet it never actually failed. Not only was the Soviet Union not a communist country, but they failed due to being beaten up by the US. They failed due to lack of resources, not lack of a specific governing philosophy. Not to mention, it was more crony-ism than commune-ism. Blame their geography and the fact that their industry was decimated in WWII

I guess I don't see your point. Are you trying to call me an uber right winger who has conflicting ideals or are you stating an opinion on people you normally discuss with?

Referring to others

All political systems are compromise. So I don't know whether you are calling the system the problem or you are saying that politicians who represent conservative ideals are failing. So far, I've seen very few conservatives who actually are conservatives.

I'm saying that the policy doesn't reflect reality. Also, neocon are more fuckbags than conservatives. Actually, they're corporatists exclusively.

Sure, individual production has dramatically increased, so has inflation, cost of living, etc... everything expands, so now I can produce more than someone 50 years ago... but if my skill set is still average among others in the workforce... I still earn approximately the same standard of living. The thing a lot of people don't seem to get is if you increase one thing, you increase another... raising the minimum wage, raises prices as companies compensate for it to maintain profits, which in turn lowers the standard of living again, which means minimum wage has to be raised... etc.. etc. etc.

Now, what I was referring to, is a person who can push a button and watch an assembly line has one value to a business owner, while a product design engineer has another. If you have a society where ability and value are not properly rewarded, there is no encouragement to achieve more.

You're absolutely right. That's all I want, things to be properly rewarded. Many people (mainly rich corporation owners) don't want this though because it means the society needs to be more egalitarian, they end up with more competition, they don't get to rob the masses via labor abuses and such

Correctly rewarding means correctly rewarding. Remember that. You wanna start correctly rewarding people, and you have to do whole heaps of socialistic things in order to achieve egalitarianism so as to actually promote opportunity which allows people to be able to achieve in the first place. If you don't do this then the rewards are simply going to the special few who are in the right place at the right time

It isn't how it works in reality because no one can truly achieve a market driven society without damaging a large number of people in the process... and because that violates popular opinion, it gets voted down, also it leaves a number of people out in the cold... but if a true market driven society could be founded, I think this would work.

I sorta disagree. While "market driven society" is a silly designation, an actual free market is way way way way better than our monopoly market. We have nothing close to a free market. We only say we do because the propaganda wants control. Or we say that if we do such n such we will get a free market when reality is that's also propaganda by the same people.

You want a free market? Great, so do I. In order to get that free market we need some serious socialistic regulations in order to make and keep it free. We've seen what letting the corporations run the show does, it creates unfree monopolies, devastating middle classes, and crumbling economies.

I'm not sure if you mean the argument gets votes or the welfare state gets votes?

The argument gets votes. Republicans 101. It began with the Southern Strategy, but flows into all sorts of vilifications.

---

I am not an economist, I have little formal economic training, I have a public school education and two college degrees. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable and able to understand concepts. I am hoping to gain something from this conversation and discussion, as well as am trying to keep my opinions and mind open. If you want to keep it going, I'm glad to, I'm actually enjoying it. I don't get to have these discussions often as they normally devolve into name calling by either myself or the other side and anger on both parts. So I'm trying to do my best to keep it civil and open-minded. Bear with me.

Totally cool.

I guess I'm confused by this as I don't hear any conservatives claiming the new deal was their idea.

They do. However, unwittingly and via proxy. An example is how conservatives love the good ol real America great middle class Eisenhower days etc etc. That was some liberal socialism that got that shit done. The right-wing was opposed the entire time, but now that they've forgotten history they think they were on the side all along. This is how it is with nearly everything. Socialists and liberals are on the right side, conservatives on the wrong side, then the conservatives flip flop after they forgot what happened. The Founding Fathers were the biggest liberals in history at the time, the North were the liberals of the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement of the 60s was a very basic liberal movement with the opposition coming from the cranky right-wing that wants nothing more but to conserve the old ways and conserve the special interests.

Look over historical policy issues, and look at who was on which side. You'll see every freaking time that it's either poor public vs powerful private or progressive liberalism vs fuckheads that dont wanna give up their ways and their slaves

Just look at the health care stuff that happened a while back. "Get your gubmint hands off my medicare!" Oh you mean the government subsidy that you receive and your side rallied against 40 years ago?

So what was the point of Obama's stimulus package that is rebuilding approximately 30 bridges in my area, running High speed internet throughout rural areas, etc... all of which are multi-year projects... as well as many short term projects. If it wasn't the point of putting people to work and jump starting the economy, what was the point of it?

The point was to help the economy, which it has. There is a big difference between helping and fixing though.

Our problems run sooooooo deep that the specific bill couldn't do what people hoped it would. What the bill actually did, though, is a bit better than projected by the people in charge of correctly determining what the bill would do.

Ok, I had to look deleterious up to be sure it was what I thought it was. I don't know who Barry No Balls is, so let me try to find that out. I don't know what awful tax cuts you are talking about, so I don't know how to take your discussion here. Wait, are you talking about Obama? Ok, it appears to be what you mean. Obama doesn't seem to be too concerned with conservative values, as government continues to expand and spend, spend, spend. Bush wasn't a conservative either, as he expanded and expanded government.

In regards to the R&D stuff, I hope some of it pays off over decades, I hope something some of these guys do actually pays off. I would rather government get out of the way in most things, but sometimes they do something right.

Well it's good that think Bush wasn't conservative because it shows you're not a neocon, but I already figured that. On our political spectrum, though, Obama is actually more right-wing than Bush was. It's pretty ridiculous.

The awful tax cuts were the extension of the Bush ones as well as some addons. I'm pressed for time so I can't explain the awful right now, but if you wanna hear it I'll do so later

Also, if you're going to deride the government, be sure to be consistent. There is some stuff they do wrong, but let's not kid ourselves and imagine that all the stuff they do well doesn't exist. Not to mention that a Democratic government is meant to be by the people and for the people. Governing under that paradigm demonstrates excellent results. The times that government sucks is when 1) people simply just don't know what they're talking about and repeat corporate propaganda, or 2) the government loses its public base and begins to operate under corruption and private interests. Our government is sort of half and half. But the solution to fix the havoc of special interests isn't to completely destroy the competition for those special interests. Which is sadly the goal of the propaganda and the endgame of philosophies like conservatism and libertarianism

While conservatives and libertarians have some excellent ideals, the policy they think actually achieves their ideals simply doesn't work. I mean liberals and libertarians are basically the exact same idealistically. It's just the policy to get there that's different. The former cares more about what actual data says, the other is stuck in some fantasy Ayn land. My ideals haven't changed one bit since leaving libertarianism, only my understanding of how to achieve those ideals

[DropTheBanana]

Wuf is like the young, internet embodiment of Noam Chomsky

[spoonitnow]

mehduhcur*

[Monty3038]

mehduhcur*

Ok... do not get... will have to look up this one...

[Monty3038]

So, I'm reading some definitions of a socialist economic structure and I see that this collective ownership type structure is based upon prodcution to meet goals, not to make profits. While I see the point of this, isn't this a bit hard to judge, as you would have a harder time adjusting I would think to forces beyond your control... examples like weather, wars, etc. come to mind...

I also see that the goals appear to be production of only what is necessary, eliminating overproduction and 'luxuries', which while effective at keeping a society alive, how would that affect the morale of the general workers, as well as those who have the means to design/improve production...

Another question, is there a society that you feel comes closest to this socialistic economic model?

And one more, in a socialistic economy, how do you motivate the workers? How do you encourage production and growth? The exploration of new ideas, etc.?

[boost]

Don't you feel that its a bit cynical to imply that the only way to motivate people to be better is by appealing to their greediness?

[Roid_Rage]

It's one of the better motivators out there.

By better, I mean easier to tap into with the least amount of effort.

[Monty3038]

Don't you feel that its a bit cynical to imply that the only way to motivate people to be better is by appealing to their greediness?

I'm assuming you are referring to me, which sure... that is a bit cynical. But just like profiling, you go with what works.

Let's assume that there are other motivations, and greed is the primary motivator for 20% of the people. Let's say the other 80% believe in some sort of nationalism (probably the wrong word) and want to work for their country...

How do you get that 20% working? Or do you just let them be idle? And then, do they get the same benefits as the 80% working?

What other motivators are there out there? Sure I'll shovel my neighbors walk to help out and be a good neighbor... but when it comes to feeding my family, and wanting my family to have a good life... how do you define that in a way that everyone feels they have what they want out of life and then can use other motivation?

I'm having a hard time explaining it, but once your basic needs are met by the 'collective', what motivates you to do more, to improve the 'collective'?

[wufwugy]

So, I'm reading some definitions of a socialist economic structure and I see that this collective ownership type structure is based upon prodcution to meet goals, not to make profits. While I see the point of this, isn't this a bit hard to judge, as you would have a harder time adjusting I would think to forces beyond your control... examples like weather, wars, etc. come to mind...

Keep in mind that these are archaic and strict definitions. Compared to many other things, socialism has been so unpopular, and this has effected into poorly developed theory and such.

Central planning is but one small, yet also somewhat unnecessary attribute of socialism. Also, US has some forms of central planning anyways.

I also see that the goals appear to be production of only what is necessary, eliminating overproduction and 'luxuries', which while effective at keeping a society alive, how would that affect the morale of the general workers, as well as those who have the means to design/improve production...

Yeah this is incredibly archaic. Any society that does that in the name of anything is doing it wrong

Another question, is there a society that you feel comes closest to this socialistic economic model?

Not exactly sure. The best so far would probably be places like Sweden, Norway, or Finland. They have been the most consistently well run economies for the last 50ish years. I wouldn't use any nation as a good socialistic example, partly because it's so poorly understood.

And one more, in a socialistic economy, how do you motivate the workers? How do you encourage production and growth? The exploration of new ideas, etc.?

See that's the thing, socialistic philosophy says nothing that discourages this. Socialism has been so vilified that even many of the academic definitions miss the point.

For example, you can have socialism in private enterprise easy peasy. Instead of incredibly top heavy corporations, more egalitarian corporations can be considered socialist. Some excellent examples of this are found in small business.

Here's socialism: instead of a small number of owners who reap all the profits and make all the decisions while the workers are merely variations of servants for hire, a socialistic enterprise will have some level of collective ownership and decision making processes, and they ALL have very strong profit and managerial incentives. Essentially, people who work for a corporation have ownership stake in that corporation. Instead of as many of the profits going to the guys on the very top like they're feudal lords, profits are more evenly distributed. This reflects deservedness much better too. Our current megacorp paradigm rewards executives for being helped by luck, while the people who make the products are really just mildly expensive slaves.


A very important point, though, is that research shows that profit incentives promoting production is probably a lie. Studies have been done on examining how production changes based on stock options, and they haven't found improvements. I saw those studies a long time ago so I don't remember exactly, but I think that some of the results were that corporations with higher profit incentives actually functioned more poorly than some with lower incentives.

Humans are not capitalists. Just because there are a few greedy cumstain sociopaths at the top who fuck over the competition doesn't mean that the rest of us are like that. Most humans care much more about being friendly and having a good community than doing what it takes to stand on top of a pyramid made of his kinfolk


If I were to make an socioeconomic system it would probably be something I call Capital Moralism. Resource acquisition is important, but it's not the only thing. We make the mistake of thinking it is the only thing, and that effects into major moral indiscretions which are destructive to health, happiness, and living standards.

Let's assume that there are other motivations, and greed is the primary motivator for 20% of the people. Let's say the other 80% believe in some sort of nationalism (probably the wrong word) and want to work for their country...

How do you get that 20% working? Or do you just let them be idle? And then, do they get the same benefits as the 80% working?

What other motivators are there out there? Sure I'll shovel my neighbors walk to help out and be a good neighbor... but when it comes to feeding my family, and wanting my family to have a good life... how do you define that in a way that everyone feels they have what they want out of life and then can use other motivation?

I'm having a hard time explaining it, but once your basic needs are met by the 'collective', what motivates you to do more, to improve the 'collective'?

I partially answered this earlier in the post, but I'll add that humans are much different than pure profit incentives suggest. You could say that 99.9% of who we are biologically has nothing to do with individual pursuit of wealth. We're far more community oriented, compassionate, happiness comes from things mostly removed from profits, and just so many other things.

Also, in your hypothetical society, people wouldn't work less or more by much than they do now. We're not robots who care only about profits. People who work hard in a profit society will probably do the same in a non-profit society. Same with people who are lazy. We just put waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credence on profit incentives. It's all just fucking propaganda pumped into us by the few people who are actually like that anyways.

Capital has only been around for about 1% of the existence of the human species anyways. I say we don't deny who we really are in pursuit of this new artificial construct especially since it has shown us to actually drive some pretty horrible inhumanities

[wufwugy]

It's one of the better motivators out there.

By better, I mean easier to tap into with the least amount of effort.

I disagree. Even if you're expanding "greed" to its largest interpretation.

As far as greed for profits exclusively, the data of society strongly suggests that it's actually not that strong of an incentive at all. The dialogue just happens to be driven by those very few extremely powerful and greedy people.

The vast, vast majority of us just get by, and we care about other things so much more than our greed that we continue to just get by even though it hurts us

[boost]

It could also be argued that greed as an incentive actually robs our society of countless people who could provide great benefits to society if they didn't get funneled into careers of financial wizardry by greed incentives. Most of the financial magicians probably get a great amount of satisfaction out of simply solving (creating?) these complex problems. But would they be creating loopholes for banks to swindle the populace without the greed incentive?

[wufwugy]

It could also be argued that greed as an incentive actually robs our society of countless people who could provide great benefits to society if they didn't get funneled into careers of financial wizardry by greed incentives. Most of the financial magicians probably get a great amount of satisfaction out of simply solving (creating?) these complex problems. But would they be creating loopholes for banks to swindle the populace without the greed incentive?

For sure. The only time profit incentives are some great boon to society is when the propagandists say so. Just looking over societies and history is all the case anybody needs to denounce profit incentives as a strong and good motive for social good.

For example, the greatest artists and writers who ever lived were almost all incredibly poor. On the contrary, some of the most terrible artists and writers are really rich. The chick who wrote Twilight makes more money in a month than John Steinbeck made in his entire life

Another example, virtually every scientific advancement came not only without profit incentives, but despite profit incentives. When Galileo became the father of science, it wasn't because the profit was there. The profit was in other things, particularly in being a Catholic like the people who put him in jail for his blasphemy

I could go on and on forever about all the goodness, both big things and small things, that have nothing to do with profit incentives. I could also go on forever about all the great evils that come out of profit incentives. War, for example, is primarily a resource issue. Which ties incredibly closely to profits. In fact, one of the best arguments possible for why we have all our economic problems is profit incentives. The megacorps don't enact slave labor and reap incredible profits because they're trying to be good people

[Lukie]

They exist, but they're a small segment of society, and also largely representative of poor social constructs anyways. They also get way too much flak given actual welfare numbers. Wall Street has received more government aid in just a couple years than every poor person in US history. Why are the people who claim to hate welfare not smashing down the doors of Goldman Sachs? Those are the real welfare dogs. The effects are exponentially expanded when you factor in that there is a huge economic multiplier for a good welfare system for the poor while the secret welfare systems we have for the wealthy actually have negative multipliers on the economy

this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?

[wufwugy]

this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?

For the most part, yes. But not entirely. Keep in mind that this is part of the argument that is used to justify abuse.

Economics is about aggregate effects, not isolated and myopic effects. Something that makes sense on a small economic scale doesn't necessarily on a large scale. It is very important to make sure that the large scale is addressed correctly because if it is not then the small scale suffers.

So basically, I want a balance between your rights as a business employer and other peoples rights as business employees as well as the rights of other competing business owners etc etc. Egalitarianism like that is truly the only way we know how to avoid totalitarianism



Here's an example of why we need macro regulations despite how things appear on the micro. If you fire your lowest value employee you're probably making a good move and the economy isn't hurt and maybe it's even a wee bit better, but when every business fires their lowest value employee the entire economy suffers a ton as well as nearly every other employee of any business in the entire economy suffers. We are currently seeing this happen in our economy. So many people have gotten fired that the glut of supply has allowed owners to suppress wages and pocket the profits.

It's basic Tragedy of the Commons. When some people do things for their benefit, it benefits, but when everybody does that something, the entire system teeters

The answer to your question is both yes and no. Societies are made up of a whole lot of interdependencies and they must all be addressed. A narrow view does not do that

[boost]

This is OT, but kinda related...

imagine if work was not a tyranny of clock in/out nazis, but instead you were expected to handle a certain work load. It seems to me that so many professions needlessly subscribe to the 9-5 model, yet do so at a loss. Do you think the average office worker spends even 20 of his 40 hours/week doing actual work? In our current office model it seems that most people are actually pushed to do less work, else they be given a bigger work load.

I'm not really sure if there is a solution.. for example if we started doing 20 hour work weeks, we might just end up with people only doing 10 hours of work/week. But it just seems that the average jerk in a cubicle is working to pass the time, not working to be productive.

[wufwugy]

This is OT, but kinda related...

imagine if work was not a tyranny of clock in/out nazis, but instead you were expected to handle a certain work load. It seems to me that so many professions needlessly subscribe to the 9-5 model, yet do so at a loss. Do you think the average office worker spends even 20 of his 40 hours/week doing actual work? In our current office model it seems that most people are actually pushed to do less work, else they be given a bigger work load.

I'm not really sure if there is a solution.. for example if we started doing 20 hour work weeks, we might just end up with people only doing 10 hours of work/week. But it just seems that the average jerk in a cubicle is working to pass the time, not working to be productive.

Some jobs make very good use of their time, but they're also usually small business. Like small construction businesses make excellent use of their time and it's purely about getting the job done.

The current megacorp business model is much different than this because it's too layered and frankly too big. They hire specifically educated people to crunch numbers and show a profit every quarter. From a short term cost/benefit analysis, it's much easier to have financial personnel run the numbers and manage work based on numbers exclusively. This cascades into so many problems that it's why movies like Office Space even exist.

[Monty3038]

Keep in mind that these are archaic and strict definitions. Compared to many other things, socialism has been so unpopular, and this has effected into poorly developed theory and such.

Central planning is but one small, yet also somewhat unnecessary attribute of socialism. Also, US has some forms of central planning anyways.



Yeah this is incredibly archaic. Any society that does that in the name of anything is doing it wrong



Not exactly sure. The best so far would probably be places like Sweden, Norway, or Finland. They have been the most consistently well run economies for the last 50ish years. I wouldn't use any nation as a good socialistic example, partly because it's so poorly understood.

Ok, so if no one has been able to build a truly socialistic society, how do we know anything about whether it will work or not? I realize we are talking theory here, but if this is prevelant and such a good idea, why has it been so hard to implement?

Here's socialism: instead of a small number of owners who reap all the profits and make all the decisions while the workers are merely variations of servants for hire, a socialistic enterprise will have some level of collective ownership and decision making processes, and they ALL have very strong profit and managerial incentives. Essentially, people who work for a corporation have ownership stake in that corporation. Instead of as many of the profits going to the guys on the very top like they're feudal lords, profits are more evenly distributed. This reflects deservedness much better too. Our current megacorp paradigm rewards executives for being helped by luck, while the people who make the products are really just mildly expensive slaves.

Ok, so people who risk the most by starting the business don't get the biggest rewards? And the fact that the company doing well, increases the salaries and amount of employees that can be hired... profits are divided among not only corporate ownership, but stockholders, employees, etc... How is creating a business where you sell a product that people want is luck? How is serving a business need luck?

I don't look at business anything like you do. If I mow a yard and get paid for it, how is that luck? If I increase my business to form a landscaping company that makes lots of money and has lots of employees, how is that luck?

A very important point, though, is that research shows that profit incentives promoting production is probably a lie. Studies have been done on examining how production changes based on stock options, and they haven't found improvements. I saw those studies a long time ago so I don't remember exactly, but I think that some of the results were that corporations with higher profit incentives actually functioned more poorly than some with lower incentives.

So, I work my butt off and get a raise... the raise is the motivation. Profit incentive is not the only motivator, I like some recognition, I like some job security, but I expect to be rewarded for better effort. Call me a greedy bastard but I don't work for free. I expect to work hard and be rewarded for the value I bring to the table.

Humans are not capitalists. Just because there are a few greedy cumstain sociopaths at the top who fuck over the competition doesn't mean that the rest of us are like that. Most humans care much more about being friendly and having a good community than doing what it takes to stand on top of a pyramid made of his kinfolk

I don't even understand this. We were having a nice discussion and you basically called capitalists cumstain sociopaths. Why? I mean seriously, wtf. I am a human and you are basically saying I'm less of a human because I want to improve my position in life while living a rewarding career and life as well. Guess I'm a cumstain on the pyramid of my kinfolk. I may have had a few beers but I can tell when the conversation goes downhill and just gets insulting.

Guess I'm just a greedy bastard who expects to work and have his work rewarded... in one way or another.



As towards the rest of your statements. I don't know how to take that, but I'll look at it tomorrow, I'm going to read through the rest of the comments.

[Monty3038]

I disagree. Even if you're expanding "greed" to its largest interpretation.

As far as greed for profits exclusively, the data of society strongly suggests that it's actually not that strong of an incentive at all. The dialogue just happens to be driven by those very few extremely powerful and greedy people.

The vast, vast majority of us just get by, and we care about other things so much more than our greed that we continue to just get by even though it hurts us

I find this hard to believe coming from someone who plays a game for profit to make a living. That is, if you are a professional poker player.

[Monty3038]

For sure. The only time profit incentives are some great boon to society is when the propagandists say so. Just looking over societies and history is all the case anybody needs to denounce profit incentives as a strong and good motive for social good.

For example, the greatest artists and writers who ever lived were almost all incredibly poor. On the contrary, some of the most terrible artists and writers are really rich. The chick who wrote Twilight makes more money in a month than John Steinbeck made in his entire life

Another example, virtually every scientific advancement came not only without profit incentives, but despite profit incentives. When Galileo became the father of science, it wasn't because the profit was there. The profit was in other things, particularly in being a Catholic like the people who put him in jail for his blasphemy

I could go on and on forever about all the goodness, both big things and small things, that have nothing to do with profit incentives. I could also go on forever about all the great evils that come out of profit incentives. War, for example, is primarily a resource issue. Which ties incredibly closely to profits. In fact, one of the best arguments possible for why we have all our economic problems is profit incentives. The megacorps don't enact slave labor and reap incredible profits because they're trying to be good people

Hmm... and it can be argued that only people with money can think this way.

True, scientific and artistic exploration and advances can be addressed to poorer persons on many counts, but can you really say that they did it out of 'goodness' or to make money? Did these artists die broke? Did they try to sell their work? Did the scientists die broke? Were they trying to make an advancement to accomplish a goal or sell what they made that accomplished that goal?

[Monty3038]

this isn't really the route i was trying to take it.

say i'm a business owner, i should be able to (based on performance and at my discretion) hire, fire, promote, or demote people as i see fit. do you agree with that?

Absolutely. It is your business. I also agree you should be able to run it however you want... and I also believe that your customers can decide to do as they see fit, buy from you if they WANT to.

For example, would I buy my water from the company dumping the filtered sludge into the great lakes? No... I'd pay the extra $.02 a bottle and buy from someone more aware of the consequences...

But would everyone? No... and that is where activism has its place, to educate those who don't know and encourage them to follow your ideals... but that is kind of what this whole thing has been about.

[Monty3038]

This is OT, but kinda related...

imagine if work was not a tyranny of clock in/out nazis, but instead you were expected to handle a certain work load. It seems to me that so many professions needlessly subscribe to the 9-5 model, yet do so at a loss. Do you think the average office worker spends even 20 of his 40 hours/week doing actual work? In our current office model it seems that most people are actually pushed to do less work, else they be given a bigger work load.

I'm not really sure if there is a solution.. for example if we started doing 20 hour work weeks, we might just end up with people only doing 10 hours of work/week. But it just seems that the average jerk in a cubicle is working to pass the time, not working to be productive.

Hmm... While I understand your point, there will always be workers who do the bare minimum. This is why a collective doesn't work well. Some will do their best, most will do something in between and some will do the bare minimum. You have to hope that averages out to everyone doing the average needed to sustain production. Otherwise, Employee A, who has worked hard and exceeded expectations sees Employee F slacking off all of the time and thinks 'Hmm... why do me and employee F work the same hours, get paid the same thing, get the same benefits from our society, yet I bust my ass so much more than he does... I'm going to work like employee F from now on" and the production suffers.

Also, the average jerk who works just to pass the time needs to be fired. The fact that management has no idea he is only doing that, and doesn't correct it, is a failure of management and supervision. But... then again, in a cooperative, collectively managed corporation, you can't fire them, you just have to suffer through their incomepetence.

Sorry, my spelling sucks because I have had a few beers after bowling.

[boost]

Absolutely. It is your business. I also agree you should be able to run it however you want... and I also believe that your customers can decide to do as they see fit, buy from you if they WANT to.

For example, would I buy my water from the company dumping the filtered sludge into the great lakes? No... I'd pay the extra $.02 a bottle and buy from someone more aware of the consequences...

But would everyone? No... and that is where activism has its place, to educate those who don't know and encourage them to follow your ideals... but that is kind of what this whole thing has been about.

So can I sell bottle water laced with arsenic? There clearly is a place for regulation in society.

[wufwugy]

I find this hard to believe coming from someone who plays a game for profit to make a living. That is, if you are a professional poker player.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Also, while I do poker for a living, I hate it, and I'm dirt poor because I only do just enough to get by, probably because I hate it. Actually, that's more likely just a product of my stupid existential crisis crap I've been having, but that's a diff thing

I'm actually an excellent case for my point. I'm in a very tough spot in life because I have such difficulty being motivated by profits, yet that's such an important part of having a successful career

Hmm... and it can be argued that only people with money can think this way.

I don't have that much money. In fact, expanding my understanding of these things has provoked the difficulty I have in pursuing money in the first place. That really is a whole different issue though, and it's really just a fallacy anyways

True, scientific and artistic exploration and advances can be addressed to poorer persons on many counts, but can you really say that they did it out of 'goodness' or to make money? Did these artists die broke? Did they try to sell their work? Did the scientists die broke? Were they trying to make an advancement to accomplish a goal or sell what they made that accomplished that goal?

All of the above. You're making the mistake of thinking that pursuing money on some level = money is the root motivator.

Absolutely. It is your business. I also agree you should be able to run it however you want...

So as a business owner, you get to reap most of the profits of hiring employees yet few of the costs of firing them. Layoffs are enormously expensive to the society and economy as a whole. In a myopic world I guess business owners should have incredible autonomy, but in the real world the very system in which that business exists is very interdependent, and not devising policy to reflect that is a mistake

This is why a collective doesn't work well. Some will do their best, most will do something in between and some will do the bare minimum.

Actually, that's the opposite of what happens in a collective responsibility and opportunity paradigm. Curiously, you described what actually happens in our monopoly corporate market to a T

[Lukie]

This is OT, but kinda related...

imagine if work was not a tyranny of clock in/out nazis, but instead you were expected to handle a certain work load. It seems to me that so many professions needlessly subscribe to the 9-5 model, yet do so at a loss. Do you think the average office worker spends even 20 of his 40 hours/week doing actual work? In our current office model it seems that most people are actually pushed to do less work, else they be given a bigger work load.

I'm not really sure if there is a solution.. for example if we started doing 20 hour work weeks, we might just end up with people only doing 10 hours of work/week. But it just seems that the average jerk in a cubicle is working to pass the time, not working to be productive.

There's actually a decent book out there that deals with this to a good degree, The 4-Hour Workweek by Timothy Ferriss.

My advice would be something like, don't get a 9-5 type office job in the first place unless you run/own the company. There are a million ways to make money out there (I'm sure I'll be flamed mercilessly for suggesting that). Poker happens to be one of the easier ones, though.

[Monty3038]

So can I sell bottle water laced with arsenic? There clearly is a place for regulation in society.

Ok... and once you start selling it, how long do you think you will be in business?

Again, it is a self correcting problem. Sure, there is a place for government, certain things are necessary... but some are not. In business, if you sell a product that sucks, you are going out of business. Plain and simple. Selling a product that is outright harmful is a method for getting the public to burn down your house... with you in it.

[Monty3038]

I'm in a very tough spot in life because I have such difficulty being motivated by profits, yet that's such an important part of having a successful career

So wait... define successful career for me then. Not one in poker, since you don't want to go that route obviously based upon the last few weeks discussions...

I don't have that much money. In fact, expanding my understanding of these things has provoked the difficulty I have in pursuing money in the first place. That really is a whole different issue though, and it's really just a fallacy anyways

I disagree. Coming from nothing and building yourself into a success leads to the time it takes to study and discover these things. What I'm driving at is more that it comes from being successful and having things in life and the desire to do charitable things that I think leads to this kind of discussion, as if you are struggling to get your next meal for your kids, you don't have the time to worry about the 'collective'.

All of the above. You're making the mistake of thinking that pursuing money on some level = money is the root motivator.

True... to a point. But... money is the method to get to all of the other motivators. Say I want to help my family move out of our one bedroom apartment where the 12 of us are living... how do I accomplish that? Money... Say I want my kids to be educated, to have more opportunities in life to understand the collective better than I do... how do I accomplish that? Money...

Also, the black market in a collective based society... what affect would it have?

So as a business owner, you get to reap most of the profits of hiring employees yet few of the costs of firing them. Layoffs are enormously expensive to the society and economy as a whole. In a myopic world I guess business owners should have incredible autonomy, but in the real world the very system in which that business exists is very interdependent, and not devising policy to reflect that is a mistake



Actually, that's the opposite of what happens in a collective responsibility and opportunity paradigm. Curiously, you described what actually happens in our monopoly corporate market to a T

Yes. I should reap the benefits of hiring people. They also reap the benefits of being employeed, of getting that paycheck, of the feeling of worth of contributing to something better than they were on their own, of providing for themselves and their family, of improving their lives by being able to afford a little luxury here and there... and if they suck at their job, or if business changes, I should reap the benefits of changing my business as necessary. What you seem to miss out on, is in a capitalistic society, there is more than profit motivating the business owner. The business owner wants to perform their business.

Let's go take my father in law for example. He is a self made man. He left an abusive poor back woods home at 15. He went out into the world, with little education, and built himself a life, a business and now depending on workload employs 7-10 people on average. He hires only those motivated to work. If you aren't motivated, aren't interested in learning and working, you are fired. He reaps all of the benefits of his knowledge, skills and ability to run a business and make money. He is not insanely profitable, but has been able to buy and now own his own home. He put food on the table and kept his kids motivated to go through school and become successful on their own. Does he do his job strictly for profits? No. But that is a primary goal. He also takes care of his workers, those that are willing to work and able to do the job. He pays them well, and in turn he reaps the value of their labor. They learn from him, either moving on and starting their own businesses in turn or staying with him and helping him expand his. His business supports at least three other types of business, in at least two areas of the country.

Now, is he rich? No, he makes about $50,000 per year. That is lower middle class in one of the areas he works, and middle class in the other. He makes enough to work as a snowbird, moving from the northern part of the country during the summer to Florida in the winter, so he can continue working year round. He is 58 years old and has helped at least 5 families move into the US. He cares about this employees, helping them find homes, fix their cars, throws cookouts and parties for them during the summer, and even purchased a temporary home for his crew that follows him south during the winter. They stay rent free so they can send money back north to their families while they work for the winter.

So... yes, that is one example only. But if he was not able to layoff those who don't work, or who can't do the work effectively, he would work slower, less efficiently, have fewer jobs and eventually go out of business. In a collective style society on the other hand, he would do the job he was told to do, let's say he is lucky and gets to do this job. He would not be able to use superior materials of his choosing. he would have to work with whatever crew he was given. He would not reap the profits of good word of mouth for his extended efforts, he would not own his business and not have the ability to grow that business, his motivator would be (hopefully) to do his job well, but once he tired of not advancing because of doing his job well, even though benefitting the people he did it for, he would lapse into just doing his job well enough to keep his job. At that point, the job loses value because of lack of motivation, etc... and it spirals down from there, to the point where his morale is horrible and his motivation is gone.

Anyway, I think I strayed quite a bit off your point, but let me try to get back there...

The way you describe a collectively responsible society is wonderful wuf, if EVERYONE IN IT is 'responsible'.

How do you propose you keep people 'responsible' and keep them from being motivated by their own interests above the society?

[CoccoBill]

Ok... and once you start selling [bottles of water laced with arsenic], how long do you think you will be in business?

How long will it take for people to notice it has arsenic if it's not tested, the people getting sick or dying from it are not receiving public health care and public news media is not covering the issue? Then when they do get caught and lose business, they just need to change their brand name and continue on. Obviously lacing water with arsenic is a bit dumb, rather use nicotine or opiates or something, much more effective. In a world without regulation and health standards, please explain how the tasteless and odorless nicotine in a bottle of water gets noticed.

[wufwugy]

Yes. I should reap the benefits of hiring people. They also reap the benefits of being employeed, of getting that paycheck, of the feeling of worth of contributing to something better than they were on their own, of providing for themselves and their family, of improving their lives by being able to afford a little luxury here and there... and if they suck at their job, or if business changes, I should reap the benefits of changing my business as necessary. What you seem to miss out on, is in a capitalistic society, there is more than profit motivating the business owner. The business owner wants to perform their business.

Let's go take my father in law for example. He is a self made man. He left an abusive poor back woods home at 15. He went out into the world, with little education, and built himself a life, a business and now depending on workload employs 7-10 people on average. He hires only those motivated to work. If you aren't motivated, aren't interested in learning and working, you are fired. He reaps all of the benefits of his knowledge, skills and ability to run a business and make money. He is not insanely profitable, but has been able to buy and now own his own home. He put food on the table and kept his kids motivated to go through school and become successful on their own. Does he do his job strictly for profits? No. But that is a primary goal. He also takes care of his workers, those that are willing to work and able to do the job. He pays them well, and in turn he reaps the value of their labor. They learn from him, either moving on and starting their own businesses in turn or staying with him and helping him expand his. His business supports at least three other types of business, in at least two areas of the country.

Now, is he rich? No, he makes about $50,000 per year. That is lower middle class in one of the areas he works, and middle class in the other. He makes enough to work as a snowbird, moving from the northern part of the country during the summer to Florida in the winter, so he can continue working year round. He is 58 years old and has helped at least 5 families move into the US. He cares about this employees, helping them find homes, fix their cars, throws cookouts and parties for them during the summer, and even purchased a temporary home for his crew that follows him south during the winter. They stay rent free so they can send money back north to their families while they work for the winter.

So... yes, that is one example only. But if he was not able to layoff those who don't work, or who can't do the work effectively, he would work slower, less efficiently, have fewer jobs and eventually go out of business. In a collective style society on the other hand, he would do the job he was told to do, let's say he is lucky and gets to do this job. He would not be able to use superior materials of his choosing. he would have to work with whatever crew he was given. He would not reap the profits of good word of mouth for his extended efforts, he would not own his business and not have the ability to grow that business, his motivator would be (hopefully) to do his job well, but once he tired of not advancing because of doing his job well, even though benefitting the people he did it for, he would lapse into just doing his job well enough to keep his job. At that point, the job loses value because of lack of motivation, etc... and it spirals down from there, to the point where his morale is horrible and his motivation is gone.

I'd say this discussion is probably over. This is a straw man and a red herring, and doesn't address the point I made. Your view is correct, but only in myopia. When you scale your view to meet the economy as a whole, your idea breaks down. I already explained two ways this happens and is currently happening.


I have made this point so many times, but it is virtually never understood by those who need to understand it. Libertaria is a megacorp special interest wet dream. The free marketeer branch of the right-wing has no idea what they're arguing for. They're arguing for policy that turns governing powers into the hands of the very few with the gold and the power. Libertaria is no different than a plutocracy with a handful of uber wealthy, a depressed poor/middle class, and a whole shitload of slaves. There is virtually no difference between the arguments for totalitarianism and right-wing economics

[boost]

Ok... and once you start selling it, how long do you think you will be in business?

Again, it is a self correcting problem. Sure, there is a place for government, certain things are necessary... but some are not. In business, if you sell a product that sucks, you are going out of business. Plain and simple. Selling a product that is outright harmful is a method for getting the public to burn down your house... with you in it.

Clearly you are not familiar with the times before regulation where traveling sales men would sell all sorts of unproven and often times dangerous elixirs.

Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.

Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?

[wufwugy]

Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.

The crazy thing is that we already know this. The data is overwhelming for all the benefits of intelligent public sector regulations. I am seriously baffled that right-wing economic idealists don't realize they're pushing for legalized fraud

Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?

I don't even wanna go there. "Self-correcting markets" is one of the biggest lies in history. I'm not going to lend credence to the idea by giving it in the remotest gravitas. It's also retarded since "self-correcting" is ambiguous enough to apply to anything

People need to do some research on slavery, and realize that there is zero difference between right-wing economics and slavery. And this is OBVIOUS, it's just so insanely baffling.


I just have absolutely no clue how people can argue against centralized power then argue FOR centralized power

[wufwugy]

People need to do some research on slavery, and realize that there is zero difference between right-wing economics and slavery. And this is OBVIOUS, it's just so insanely baffling.

I should probably add that it may largely boil down to people simply not understanding things like slavery.

If you ask people, most will probably think the cause of slavery is some kind of moralism or racism, but it's not. It's an effect. The cause of slavery in virtually every form its taken in history is economics and theory that has zero difference from our current right-wing taken to its logical course

Private sector being somehow isolated from government is an illusion. All forms of totalitarianism are based in business monopolies. Capitalism and private enterprise are not revolutionary. They're the backbone of our history's totalitarianism. Socialism and liberalism OTOH, are revolutionary inasmuch as they're a partial return to the way things were before power started becoming so centralized

[wufwugy]

I think I need to add that it's not about philosophical extremism, but relativism

Here's what I mean: most conservatives and libertarians would look at the things I say and call me a nanny-stater, yet that couldn't be further from the truth. I support things that work best, and that's that.

Here's an example, I want complete and utter deregulation of gambling and software industries. Those industries work better when there is absolutely zero intervention. On the flip side, I want enormous regulations on food and banking industries. Those industries have enormous impacts that gambling and software can't even scrape, and in such a way that not regulating them correctly is a mistake

Here's why: when you buy a bad video game you're out 50$, but when you buy bad milk you die. When one casino has bad service you're out a good time, but when the banks have bad lending practices the entire economy starts suppressing wages and laying people off

There is clearly a need for understanding how things work instead of just broad brushing ideologies

[Monty3038]

How long will it take for people to notice it has arsenic if it's not tested, the people getting sick or dying from it are not receiving public health care and public news media is not covering the issue? Then when they do get caught and lose business, they just need to change their brand name and continue on. Obviously lacing water with arsenic is a bit dumb, rather use nicotine or opiates or something, much more effective. In a world without regulation and health standards, please explain how the tasteless and odorless nicotine in a bottle of water gets noticed.

Obviously arsenic is a ridiculous idea, as is the fact that you would just lose business. But both extremes averaged out kind of make the middle ground.

[Monty3038]

Clearly you are not familiar with the times before regulation where traveling sales men would sell all sorts of unproven and often times dangerous elixirs.

Here's another example for you. Without regulation, there would be no restaurant inspections. Although I, being on the side of the restaurant, normally view inspections as an annoyance, they are necessary. Without them a place can serve unsafe food and put peoples lives on the line. Yes the business will be shuttered eventually, but others who don't have high standards will continue to open unsafe restaurants. Inspection (and therefore regulation) can actually be seen as a benefit for businesses; we could easily imagine a consumer base that is fearful of trying out the new restaurant on the block since it hasn't been proven to be safe.

Even if we accept the idea of self correcting markets for truth, we have to figure out on what sort of time frame they self correct. Is the "freedom" gained worth the damage suffered before the market corrects itself?

Ok, I see your point about the travelling salesmen, but somehow society survived those as well. Ok, yes, some regulation is necessary. In some industries I will give you some of that. But let's not get it out of control either... obviously governing is a compromise, between extremes of total control and no control.

I'll bow out, as it appears that we won't get to a point where we agree, as I have views that I'm pretty well stuck with, even though I try to be open minded and learn as much as possible, it seems more like preaching than teaching though, and I'm not getting the time to put into the conversation and the fact remains that we will just disagree.

Thank you for discussing it and trying to educate me a little as well.

[Monty3038]

There is clearly a need for understanding how things work instead of just broad brushing ideologies

+1

But to say this, you have to say it about both sides.

[wufwugy]

Obviously arsenic is a ridiculous idea, as is the fact that you would just lose business. But both extremes averaged out kind of make the middle ground.

Actually, arsenic is a very normal example. Egregious production practices causing enormous havoc and not costing the businesses much is very common.

Look at milk pasteurization for example. Raw milk was killing a lot of people, but everybody still wanted it, and it was only until the taxpayer funded government hired some scientists and regulators to fix the problem. Not only did the consumers not punish the businesses for poor dairy production practices, but even today, many consumers are trying to return to that era of lethal milk

Consumers are not some kind of logical equalizer. We already know for a fact that businesses get away with so many forms of extreme levels of destruction when unhindered by governing bodies represented by and for the public

[wufwugy]

+1

But to say this, you have to say it about both sides.

How are there two sides when one is right and one is wrong? There isn't the scientific method then its equal partner the unscientific method. This both sides rhetoric is a fallacy of equivalence and a popular tool of propagandists



Thanks for keeping a cool head. I guess what I'll leave you with is: look to what the data says, not arbitrary ideologies.

[boost]

On raw milk: I think it should be legal, but it should be treated like how some countries treat cigarettes; with large (taking up most of the packaging) labeling that explicitly warns about the dangers of consuming raw milk.

Also I think that it should be noted that its possible that industrialization of farming is the cause of many health hazards related to dairy, meat, and produce. I mean, the people who want to be able to buy raw milk are not wanting to buy it from Deans, they want to buy it from a small farm that is able to minimize much of the dangers presented by raw milk because they are not an overgrown unmanageable bastardization of an industry.

Another interesting fact: In the US, all eggs must be bleached; egg shells are porous and for this very reason, in France, it is illegal to sell eggs that have been bleached.

[wufwugy]

There are many ways to go about milk. One is the way you mentioned, another is to make sure the raw milk production is correct, another is to school people on why raw milk isn't special.

And yeah, the industrialization is the primary culprit. Cutting costs means more manure gets into the milk

[boost]

There are many ways to go about milk. One is the way you mentioned, another is to make sure the raw milk production is correct, another is to school people on why raw milk isn't special.

And yeah, the industrialization is the primary culprit. Cutting costs means more manure gets into the milk

it isn't special? Have you done a taste test? There is a world of difference.

[wufwugy]

it isn't special? Have you done a taste test? There is a world of difference.

Oh I wasn't referring to taste, but nutrition.

Also, I've heard tell that taste is mostly, probably entirely, a product of the cow, not the rawness. I haven't done it myself though

[boost]

Oh I wasn't referring to taste, but nutrition.

Also, I've heard tell that taste is mostly, probably entirely, a product of the cow, not the rawness. I haven't done it myself though

Well raw milk does have the probiotics that pasteurized milk lacks. And as for taste, I think that's incorrect. I could be wrong, but it would seem pretty weird that all raw milk has a similar taste, while all pasteurized milk has a similar (lack of) taste.

[wufwugy]

The probiotics thing is really small and doesn't make up for the drastically increased risks of consuming raw milk. Supplementing or some yogurts are simply better if you're looking for any health advantage.

Are you sure you're not referring to homogenization? I would expect that to change taste a bit

[boost]

The probiotics thing is really small and doesn't make up for the drastically increased risks of consuming raw milk. Supplementing or some yogurts are simply better if you're looking for any health advantage.

Are you sure you're not referring to homogenization? I would expect that to change taste a bit

uh, no. Homogenization should have no effect on flavor, only texture. Applying heat to a food on the other hand...

[wufwugy]

You're right. As you should be

[CoccoBill]

Obviously arsenic is a ridiculous idea, as is the fact that you would just lose business. But both extremes averaged out kind of make the middle ground.

NRDC: Arsenic in Drinking Water

[Lukie]

cliffs notes: the government should and does (to an extent) protect us from dangerous contaminants and pollutants and such.

this isn't particularly groundbreaking stuff here.

[CoccoBill]

Groundbreaking? No, at least not to those of us from the middle and lower classes not indoctrinated to fight for the rights of the wealthy.