Okay guys it's time to talk about socialism now I know you are already trying to scroll through this or you're probably done arguing about it, but it's time to make it a real economical debate.
I'm no economical expert matter of fact I'm just a normal college student who probably knows nothing about economics, but I love learning more about it.
So I'll give you guys an example of a socialist idea and you guys try to improve or debunk what I'm saying with sources and examples if you could. (I know it's a lot of work and I'm sorry about it but it's time to end this debate)
As a community we need to build a country that can stand on it's feet and can be better than any other country out there, the main way to achieve this is if the community becomes comfortable and suitable for everyone living in it and if everyone in the same community tend to participate in the prosperity of itself.
In capitalism for a long time the building block for the economy was the individual, that if everyone just took care of themselves then we might make a better society.
But in socialism the building block became the community as a whole, that you no longer think about yourself and instead think about the community around you and how to improve it, that instead of the natural behavior of human kind to act greedy and for themselves we try to drop these morals and evolutionize into caring for others.
For an example, as a rich guy I no longer look into members of my society as consumers or unfortunate people that I'm more successful than.
So the idea is to improve their lives by giving them jobs according to their abilities and providing them with payment that is necessary for living (a man with no talent or skills can work something that doesn't require skills but still be able to put food on the table while those who are let's say engineers can get a better job in my business)
Now the point here is that we no longer treat workers as a material that we can buy and get rid of whenever we want
For an example coal miners in coal mines, a worker was hired for lets say $20 per hour, but after a while the mine explodes or a few miners get cancer, no one considered paying for their health or caring about them, the job provider will instantly consider replacing them with other coal miners, sure they agreed for it but surely such risks can be avoided by spending more money into their safety or paying for their health and injuries.
So what I'm saying here, that you don't have to pay them money while they sit at home and do nothing, you can tell them to work and provide for you and so they become members of a family which is your company and that no matter what happens to them you'll help them out, they'll work simple jobs and you'll pay them a wage that is at least capable of feeding them.
Now you might say "ok what if everyone wants tk work at my factory with minimum skills and live off of that, well that won't happen because although it's enough to provide food it's still not enough to provide them with proper rent, or good housing or they won't be able to provide for their whole family, so they tend to work to their best and try and work harder to improve their living standards.
Now another thing is that you consult with these workers from all different skills and jobs, and ask them for ideas to improve the company (e.g a worker on a certain machine will tell you that his machine is working slower than usual and it's better to buy a new model that works faster) now why would they do that? Well because if your company succeeds more and you earn more money then you'll slowly give your workers better wages, and give those with great ideas a small raise, so that the richer you get, the richer they get.
So that if you get $10,000 increase in profit from that guys idea of buying a better machine, then you start paying everyone (let's assume you have 100 workers) 0.5$ extra due to profit and for that specific person you give him $1 raise amd so on, so the guy who contributes the most is the one who gets better raises and so on, eventually you'll have multiple people contributing to your company that you are no longer the only person comanding the company but you have others who help you, and you're just the person who owns the company and the creator of it.
But after a while when the community gets richer you are no longer the guy who owns the entire company because there alot of people who share much of the profit with you and take the heavy losses with you, and eventually those other people who contributed so much can expand your company with their money, you're still the manager but they also use their money to expand your company so they can get rich too.
Take away every personal freedom and rule over them like a king. 0 Tolerance for straying from the bounds set.
Brainwash the population to not want or understand personal freedoms and wishes, so that they give it up freely and set in line.
Having high incomes reduced to be closer to the middle will stunt competition in the job markets and in innovation. Both of these will reduce efficiency.
Also, having low incomes go towards the average income will increase lazy people and generate a culture of dependency on the state to survive (which is working peoples taxes which will further discourage hard workers to not work so hard).
I didn't read your post
Also...I like to choose where my money goes
OP, you're an idiot. You assume people are not greedy but they are. You can't change that.
Well I already explained that, if I get rich the workers of my company get rich, and they can open up other factories for an example and hire more people who also are poor and so on, Also we want poor people, we want working people to run the country, not everyome can be rich, not everyone can be am engineer or a scientist, but everyone who contribute to the society earns his place within it as well, if I want to work hard, then the society will praise me as a hard working person, if I am lazy then I don't advance in the society but I still keep being a viable member in it
>If we share and smile we can all be so happy and rich together! Why suffer anymore it's 2016?
If everyone is rich, nobody is. Rich isn't an objective measure; it's a comparative and subjective one.
Here's the problem with socialism and communism as a whole: I'm better than you. That might not necessarily be true, but if I'm smarter or more talented, why should I be shoehorned into living the same life as you? For instance, if I'm going to be compensated just the same for going to university 8 years, doing residency, and becoming a doctor, one that's on call almost all the time and overburdened by a socialist medical system; why do it? Why do that to myself? Instead, the focus of my talents becomes getting the easiest job I can.
Your best and brightest either flee or try to game the system.
What are you talking about? A doctor would earn more than a mine worker, because of his knowledge and expertise, he is more skilled than most people and therefore deserves a higher pay, also it's easier this way since you can be successful by being smart and going through college or just working really hard doing your job in your company and for your society. So that people who want to contribute are praised and those who are lazy stay in the same place while still benefiting the society as a whole.
Also if you graduate through college and still can't find a job because of competition and low experience then no worries because the society will always find you a place to be at if you really want to work and gain experience of course.
Do we still vote? Can I vote so the one offering to give me a raise for doing less work?
Can I run for office and try to pass bills giving free money to people who don't work?
Can I subvert the system? Because someone will if they can.
Do the basic stuff in the company, like manufacturing and assembly for an example, you're never useless senpai!
But we don't. You must be thinking of Africa or China or something. Raep is a big no no in the O'l US of A.
And your idea sucks, and will be abused as hell by certain groups for money and power and eventually you will have Commie Russia or Venezuela 2.0
Humans are like animals. They want and need thinks to survive and feel content or happy. The only difference is we call it greed when we don't donate it all to random hobos who might just usebit fir crack money.
Git gud at economics, Bernie
Lol no you can't vote on who runs the company, but if you work hard enough you can eventually try and open another factory and run it by yourself which I doubt you'd love to give your hard work to people who don't bother to work at all
No really, I'm VERY bad at everything. I just don't try to pay attention and learn. I'm too busy thinking about dank memes. How many times can I fuck up before you wont let me work here anymore? Today and tomorrow I'm sick too, just feel like I need a day off. I can have a few more too right?
Lol what? I'm basically saying that if you work you'll get paid, and if you don't want to work you gonna die starving as the useless shit you are, because society doesn't owe you a dime if you don't work for it
Now how does that make it bad? Don't you want everyone up and running? Away from being hobos and crack heads and into being active members of society?
Well apparently you don't want to work, so no one will help you get up on your feet besides your power of will and the decision that you want to work.
If not then you'll probably starve to death or live off charity or something
Huh, I like those digits
Where did I day I advocated for people acting like hobos? I was making a metaphor talking about greed, which throws a wrench in this plan of yours.
What you are trying to day is rhat you want capitalism to still exist in a socialist society, but it doesn't work like that.
Someone needs to make the choices of what happens and there is too much room for governmental corruption and abuse of the system by the people, and the amount of power someone would need to micromanage everything just makes it worse.
You want to know what most closely resembles this plan of yours? America. The only difference is that the government has even more power to make sure these controlling of people's businesses and lives happens and more people given the shaft.
We live in a mixed capitalist socialist society, but greatly leaning towards capitalism. Your plan is just more socialism than capitalism and seems ripe and ready to fuck people's shit up.
What the fuck are you going to be paying these people that they'd have the money to open their own factories..
Basically the only way to do something like this is to create a totalitarian state that makes lazy and unproductive individuals accountable, those that don't want to comply will disappear as if they never existed. Then the population will comply out of fear.
Well, are you willing to work for the lazy ones in your society? Are you willing to give your labor to a guy sitting at home watching anime and fapping to hentai while collecting your money? They'll work to live, sure it sounds harsh, but if you want to live in my society you have to at least contribute to it.
>just give the uneducated/low work ethic poorfags simple jobs that'll give them a way to earn food money and gradually improve their status
It doesn't work in normal capitalism because in reality those people are useless and nobody wants to hire them at a loss. That's the very reason why people seek higher education and specialize.
There is a real problem where employers are getting increasingly picky when searching for potential employees and genuinely unsophisticated entry level positions require more and more credentials with every passing generation, but that's not the fault of capitalism and free education will only make it worse.
There's literally nothing stopping even the poorest poorfag from working themselves to death and paying their way through collage so they may graduate with no student debt, at any rate.
That's literally impossible because you can only work at minimal pay since you have no experience, so you're basically dooming it to the already rich, and making it extremely harder for those who want to be successful and contribute to the society.
My idea is, that everyone should get a job instead of welfare.
"everyone pays for" then it's not free
also how? we already have taxes and only about half the country pays those.
also why so fixated on college? people can learn everything online for free. mit and harvard already dumped almost all of their classes online. are you some kind of academia shill?
cut wages and standards of living instead of financing everything at interest
if people don't like that, then import talent willing to compete in the international job market (you are here), and if that doesn't work then protectionism (thank you based trump)
high income jobs are high income because the services are scalable. the difference between managing a $10MM hedge fund and a $1B hedge fund is adding some zeros to the buy/sell orders. the difference between selling a radio and selling a merger is the price of the suit the salesman's wearing. there just isn't a need for a lot of people at the top.
I'm saying that because collage degrees are so plentiful employers now have the privilege of placing unreasonable demands on prospective employees in terms of qualifications. As an employer it's in your interest to spend your valuable limited time to interview/train the more highly educated candidate because even though you don't need them to apply what they learned in collage in order to perform their job, the fact that they spent 6 years getting their degree serves as a litmus test and is indicative of submissiveness and work ethic. There are also those employers that genuinely believe that if you don't have a collage degree you're a lazy retard, which is somewhat true.
Your solution to this problem is to allow an even greater number of people to obtain collage degrees, but instead of pleasing potential employers and helping everyone get a job, doing this will only cause employer to place even harsher requirements because now everyone has a degree which makes it not as exclusive anymore.
Can you simplify that? I'm not that good on economical terms like Protectionism or importing tallents mean
Also how do you cut wages?? Your plan is to make people get less money than they already make?
It doesn't matter because the average voter wouldn't even research these policies. They either hear "Socialism" and that raises a red flag or they automatically think taxes are bad (Even though taxes are some of the best stimulants for the overall economy and will make you richer overall)
Conservatives are just borderline fucking retarded.
>Even though taxes are some of the best stimulants for the overall economy and will make you richer overall
I want to give you the benefit of allowing you follow up this assertion with an explanation true before calling you a retard but I don't think I can hold on that long.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't socialism stand for everyone working for the community and being able to sustain yourself through hard work?
Taxes are just a community thing to provide basic needs but I do believe thay health should be a basic need tho.
The fundamental problem is that jobs have moved offshore because china and india has cheaper and just as good workforce which is why employers end up with this huge supply of unemployed workforce to choose from. Employers are right to be picky, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best you can get, and students are right for being willing to work harder in hard order to compete with each other.
The situation in the west will only get worse and the situation in the "east" will only improve, this is just competition.
the fundamental problem with socialism is that, once a group starts to work together, only the hard workers and smart individuals actually do any work, I have an example
>take econ 101
>Finals coming up
>professor has an announcement
>Since our final chapter is on socialism, we're going to do an experiment
>We're going to take the average of all the grades and that's what you all get
>finals day rolls around
>15 out of 26 people show up
>the other 11 kids were failing out to begin with
>MFW they never made up the test
>MFW we all got 45's
>MFW this is why socialism fails
On a fundamental level it requires everyone to work, if you stay at home then you might as well not be a part of the group, basically the people who work are the ones who are considered members of the society, and since they are students who affect your success rate in the exam then you can choose to kick them and let them fail, your professor was biased and he also didn't understand how to implement it in a class
It requires everyone to work but not work well. In this context signing up for the course could constitute the bare minimum standard of "working" so the drop outs could be considered very bad workers.
In real life, a country kicking out its citizens would immediately get shit on. Which is why Cuba and Venezuela are full of lazy parasites who spend all day doing nothing productive while expecting their government to take care of them. Socialism in action.
What your teacher did is like feudalism, or the more current term fascism. He made a bad decision that would hurt everyone, but knew that it would stir up resentment toward the lower performers rather than for his own action.
Capitalism would be like if there were only a limited number of each grade and they were handed out only to the best performers. This would drive up competition, and probably lead to collusion among the students to make sure certain people got passing grades. Low scorers would be kicked out as they're a drain on the school's budget. If it was completely free market then you would be "free" to just leave the class and take a different one, unless you were required to take that class.
Socialism would be like if the entire class could pass, but if they didn't they could always take the class again without a harsh penalty. Another feature of this system, and in the s regulated capitalist system, would be that if the teacher did totally fuck up then there would be some form of recourse available to the students.
In short, you should have gotten his ass chewed out by the dean for doing something so monumentally retarded
The parasites were there before Venezuela became full on socialist. Over the past decade they've had their economy wrecked by the legacy of deregulation and privatization of public property, and the fact that foreign powers have been trying to enact a regime change through economic warfare (along with downright manufacturing civil unrest).
I don't get chummy with the locals
FEEL THE BERN, but really what needs to be done is for people to put pressure on local congressmen and senators to regulate finance and reform social welfare. My personal belief is that most financial institutions should be nationalized in one way or another, and I'm mad that this wasn't what the bailout did because it was a good opportunity. Right now, despite the hatred of all forms of central planning, bankers are able to plan how the economy grows and they're basically retarded when it comes to growing anything outside of their own bank accounts.
Bernie Sanders has the most promise as a candidate willing to actually fight banks, and the other options are shills for Wall Street (Looking at you Hillary).
Hello I am here to answer any questions.
The free market is the best economic system because it most effectively rewards good decisions and punishes bad decisions.
Socialism in any form punishes intelligent and productive people to minimize the damage to low-value people. In extreme forms of socialism, the economy is barely functional because of the lack of basic mechanisms like price signalling.
>Right now, despite the hatred of all forms of central planning, bankers are able to plan how the economy grows and they're basically retarded when it comes to growing anything outside of their own bank accounts.
1. Bankers want to grow their own bank accounts
2. That means they must invest in profitable enterprises to get a return on their investment
3. Enterprises can only profit if they sell products and services that people demand
4. Therefore, bankers profit when consumers demands are met.
In order to say that banks are investing in the wrong place, you must admit that consumers demands are "wrong" somehow. If you'd like to make that argument, I'll hear it.
A free market is "free" in the sense that you are able to engage in voluntary economic activity "freely" and without restriction.
On scams, it depends on the nature of the scam. Fraud is essentially theft by contract, and should remain illegal as a feature of "enforcing contracts."
Nationalization scares foreign companies, which in turn destroys jobs. You cannot expect for a country to be self sustaining in such a globalized world.
Besides, how does Sanders plan to fight banks?
And what happens when you run out of rich people to rob?
>Nationalization scares foreign companies, which in turn destroys jobs. You cannot expect for a country to be self sustaining in such a globalized world.
Nationalization of BANKS, specifically U.S ones, is what I'm talking about not of industry (although a few industries should be returned to public hands as well). Those banks frequently engage in what amounts to fraud which I would say hurts us more than any drop in foreign investment could.
>In order to say that banks are investing in the wrong place, you must admit that consumers demands are "wrong" somehow. If you'd like to make that argument, I'll hear it.
Okay this is going to hinge on a few arguments and not only involve banking practices, but rather things that are done by
1) Activist Shareholding aka Corporate Raiding: Hedge funds invest in a company and then "streamline" it by removing all components that don't turn an immediate profit then pressure them to use their increased liquidity to take out loans which are either used for stock buybacks or dividend payouts. The things that are cut are usually what is required for sustained growth on the part of the company which leads to it eventually losing money, but by then the activist shareholder has found a buyer for their stock and has jumped ship leaving someone else at a loss.
This should be recognized as fraud, or at least as a failure of the system.
2) Predatory Lending: Banks give out loans to people or institutions that have no way of paying it off. Really this is mostly going to focus on mortgages since they're by far the largest source of private debt. Mortgages that required no down payment or had interest rates that spiked after a few years should be easily recognizable as totally unsustainable. The problem is that they were legitimized by the government which was pressured to create a federally guaranteed market for them. Companies then used the market to pass on their bad investments to suckers, or people who thought that they could find a sucker to pass it off to. This of course resulted in the 2008 financial crisis.
Now of course this might seem like a good example of how the government interfered and the economy suffered for it, but at the same time the real source of this market was the pressure exerted by the people who ultimately engaged in the risky behavior. Regulatory capture leads to bad policy, but the idea that we should have no policy (which to me seems to be what is suggested by free market purists) doesn't seem like a good solution either since it provides no safety from the ones who captured the regulatory agencies in the first place.
No one wants to hear that we need more regulation to protect the regulators, but really the government will likely need to keep expanding its power indefinitely if it's to keep up with hucksters and other parasites on the economy. Hayek or another Austrian school economist would point to this as being as unsustainable as the bad practices of finance institutions, but in reality the ever expanding state is not the bane of free economies that was predicted. Instead it is in many ways the only way to guarantee a market free of fraud.
I'll continue if you want me to elaborate on other practices that I see as harmful, but these two are definitely what I see as things that need to be immediately curtailed.
OP you are missing the point of capitalism.
If an unskilled (read replaceable) worker is paid 10$ per hour and he makes me 200$ per hour and then I invest in machinery that jumps the productivity up to 300$, I will still keep paying him 10$ as long as he is easily replaceable.
A company's MAIN purpose is to make maximal amount of money to its owners (while paying back possible loans to investors etc..).
Now if a worker knows any specialized tricks that might make him more valuable then more companies will bid for his time which will result in better wages for that worker.
>Besides, how does Sanders plan to fight banks?
From what I've read he doesn't have anything all that radical. He proposes increases in taxes on capital gains and on richer people, and has vowed to appoint a committee focused on regulating Wall Street. This along with the fact that he can undo a lot of the regulatory capture is definitely a good start, but it's all stuff that could be undone the second he leaves office.
That wasn't the problem. The problem was that when the people couldn't pay it back the bank should have lost money for making a bad investment, but instead they got bailed out by either a sucker or the government (taxpayers)
Your comment ignores the movement called Strategic Default, where people would just stop making payment because they didn't feel it was "fair" to pay off homes that had dropped in value.
This is a subject I followed closely well before the crash. Aside from some of the things you mentioned, here is how it really worked...
1. A bunch of TV shows showed people flipping homes and making tons of money, telling people they were suckers if they didn't do it.
2. With prices going up, people stopped thinking about living in a home but simply living in it for a year or two then selling higher.
3. People bought the teaser rates not because it was what they could afford, but they figured once the teaser rate was up, they would have already sold the home for a profit.
4. People became enamored by the concept of "trapped equity", so they got all new (or second and third) mortgages and used the money to buy boats, cars, and granite countertops.
5. Then, when the price of homes collapsed... they said "it's not fair", "someone cheated me", and refused to pay them back.
There are two parties in every contract. Both enter into it voluntarily.
And for those who don't remember how crazy people were, do a google search for "Real homes of genius", which was a recurring column on a blog I used to follow.
People didn't look at the price of a home and make a decision based on its actual worth, they looked at it in terms of their ability to sell it in a few years.
For this reason (as you will see in the posts), you had people paying $700k for 800 square foot homes.
Now, if someone doesn't have the sense to not pay 700k for an 800 square foot home, I don't think the problem is with the banker.
In terms of the inflated prices of homes, nearly everyone did.
For example... look at this wonderful home valued at 400k.
And as far as why bankers would make the loans, it has to do with how homes are appraised.
The appraised value of a home is, for the most part, not based on its actual worth, but on what similar homes in the area have recently sold for.
So... as soon as the first home is sold for an inflated price, the 'value' of every other home on the block goes up.
this created the "trapped equity" that people worried about. One overpriced sale created the next and the next until you had out of control housing inflation.
The same thing happened on the way down. The first person who did a short sale when their teaser loan was over and the balloon payment came due caused a paper drop in the 'value' of their neighbors homes; (which, in turn, screwed their loans since they now owed >100% value.
It was a classic boom and bust. But it wouldn't have happened without the participation of all.
(of course there were also the bankers, who made money on each transaction, and the investors, who made money on the CDS's, and the pols, who gained points because the 'value' of homes was going up.
Everyone loves the dance when the music is still playing. It's only when the music stops and someone is standing without a chair that people scream foul.
I meant the people who got greedy and tried flipping homes on their own, but you're right everyone participated in it. However the home buyers didn't have as much of a choice and didn't have the information that the banks had, most only knew that the banks thought they were good for these loans and took them without considering that their might be consequences. The banks used the public's trust to keep playing despite knowing that a bust was coming years in advance. Blaming home buyers for buying homes at massively inflated prices is like blaming car buyers for crashing a car which was manufactured with bad brakes; Yeah they shouldn't have done it, but at the same time the manufacturer shouldn't have been selling cars with bad breaks.
My main problem is that you seem to be railing against the greed of people and then advocating for decreased scrutiny of that same greed at play on the other side of a bad deal.
>I meant the people who got greedy and tried flipping homes on their own
One study on the subject concluded that the flipping of homes was, in large part, responsible for the boom and bust. It goes on to say...
"In 2000, only 20 percent of mortgages were going to multiple mortgage holders and 75 percent of those were for second houses. By 2006, 35 percent of mortgages were multiples and more than 5 percent of all loans were going to people with four or more mortgages. What’s more, the trend was especially pronounced in what we now know to have been the prime bubble states of California, Florida, and Nevada. By 2006, at least 25 percent of mortgages in these states were going to people who already owned one home, and a further 20 percent went to people with at least two."
>buyers didn't have as much of a choice and didn't have the information that the banks had, most only knew that the banks thought they were good for these loans and took them without considering that their might be consequences
But making decisions without thinking of the consequences is the definition of a bad decision.
Consider this... a person goes in for a loan. They are told... your payment will be $600 per month under the teaser loan, but in 3 years the loan will go up to $2000 per month.
The person earning $1500 per month didn't think of their payment after the teaser expired, they just thought of the big home they were getting for $600.
In addition, since the prices of homes ALWAYS went up, they just figured that just before the teaser expired, they would sell it for a profit and move on.
more to follow...
>The banks used the public's trust to keep playing despite knowing that a bust was coming years in advance.
It wasn't just the banks. The people, with the help of their real estate agents also willingly played a part in the farce. It's like the first time you go to vegas and wind up spending more than you were planning.
When someone is buying a home with zero down, they don't have skin in the game so they act like they're playing with the houses money (which, for a while, they were)
Then there's people thinking that they are "missing out" on what everyone else has.
The most notorious example of this is the famous 2006 "Suzanne researched this" ad from Century 21, where a husband is worried about being able to afford the house, but he's nagged into it by his wife and their real estate agent...
>My main problem is that you seem to be railing against the greed of people and then advocating for decreased scrutiny of that same greed at play on the other side of a bad deal.
I'm not, I'm blaming everyone. My problem is when people try to claim that the people buying the homes were innocent victims. They weren't, I lived through these times.
This point covers why systems such as our governing system do not mix well when controlling commodities or necessities.
Humans are innately greedy - we just are. There are millions of people in America alone who would jump to gain a leadership position if they could, because who doesn't want to be a well-respected, well-off leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world? This leads to a situation right offhand where power-grabbing would allow for the undermining of the proposed "everyone equal" system.
"If you elect me, you don't have to work to have a good life, and I'll make everyone's pay the same so those pesky doctors and engineers don't get it all" as a campaign slogan so an otherwise unfavorable candidate can rise to power : The takeaway here being that while a majority of people would be working, the prospect of being able to quit their terrible jobs in exchange for equal pay regardless of whether or not they get another job will eventually be too good, and the working class will dissolve, elect the guy who promised equal pay, and a symbiosis will occur where you get paid regardless of your lack of contribution, and he/she gets to be the leader of the world or whatever.
Caveat to the above: Either industry will collapse and our resources will be extinguished, or the working classes' dissent of the non-working class will reach a head and war will erupt, the government disposed, and we'll go right back to capitalist ideals.
Hope this clears things up
Humans need incentives to become productive, humans want to feel rewarded, imagine looking for a job but everything is all the same, that fucking sucks, you want to be able to compare and say: "YES my job pays more so I will work harder to get more money than to work at that place."
Humans need to know their opportunity costs when making decisions. Meaning what would've been the best other solution. Because a lot orf money is a relative term, for some it might be for others it might not.
We can't implement an ideology into society. Not only has that been proven over and over again in the past. But also humans are mostly unpredictable creatures with their own will and their own creativity.
Yes you can try to implement those ideas but it won't be long until uneven grass starts to show and cut you down instead of you cutting them down.
Sorry I was eating lunch.
The person that bought their stock in the company made a bad decision, then, and they were rightly punished for it. This cannot be rightly viewed as fraud. The financials of publicly traded companies are available for everyone to see. Investors are expected to exercise due diligence before purchasing shares in a company. Caveat emptor and all that.
I would admit that there are peculiarities in the US corporate law that cause failures and inefficiencies, but this isn't a criticism of the financial sector in an abstract sense and certainly isn't cause for nationalization.
Are you saying that total deregulation will allow financial institutions to become rich/powerful enough to... lobby for advantageous regulation/subsidy? I may agree with you there, but it isn't a good argument against free markets in an abstract sense. The fault in this real-life situation is clearly on the government's inability to stay the course on free market policy. This may be an ever-lasting reality in America, yes, but in THEORY I could come up with a constitution that prevented the government from enacting such regulation/subsidy forever.
You may indeed be right about the situation in America, but I'd rather not cripple myself by trying to defend free markets in the context of the American government and constitution. I talk about the economy and government policy without such context. Blank slates, if you will.
But please, I'm not sure if I understood your argument correctly. Elaborate if I missed something or you want to mention something else.
>I'm not, I'm blaming everyone. My problem is when people try to claim that the people buying the homes were innocent victims. They weren't, I lived through these times.
It is a fact that banks were able to push their losses off onto the home buyers though through foreclosures, bailouts, and just being able to pass the buck. I'm not actually sure where you stand on this though. Do you think that banks deserved to be bailed out, and essentially rewarded, for participating in the feedback loop? To me they seem to have come away as definite winners despite playing just as big a part in the disaster.
No, I don't think the banks 'deserved' to be bailed out, but I understand why it is necessary.
When you're in the ocean in a sinking boat, you fix the hole in the boat even though the person who created the hole is onboard with everyone else.
The bank bailout was necessary because without it the world economy would have collapsed, the ATM's would stop issuing cash, and the grocery stores would run out of food.
Was I happy about it? No. But... I don't always have to be happy about things that are necessary.
But again... my problem is not with blaming banks. It's with those who think that banks were the ONLY guilty party, who now want to claim that the people who bought the homes were innocent.
When the banks collapsed, I knew a man who worked for Wachovia. When their stocks tanked, he lost over a million dollars when they were bought out by Wells Fargo because the bank hedged his retirement benefit on their own stocks for over 30 years. While he lost everything he ever worked for, the executives walked away with millions in their pockets. Homeowners and even low level bank workers were victims. This dude isn't even thinking is he?
>Investors are expected to exercise due diligence before purchasing shares in a company
You're expected to exercise due diligence before purchasing anything, nevertheless if I sell you something under deceitful premises this is still fraud, even if otherwise legal. There are many ways to manipulate someone into their loss and your profit without lying or breaking the law, and some of those methods are recognized as fraud by the law, because the spirit of the law is that people shouldn't be able to legally jew each other.
>You may indeed be right about the situation in America, but I'd rather not cripple myself by trying to defend free markets in the context of the American government and constitution. I talk about the economy and government policy without such context. Blank slates, if you will.
Then I pretty much agree with you in that the free market is the ideal economic system. The fact that society is still mired in legacies of what Marx called "primitive accumulation" makes the implementation of a free market impossible though. When I first read your post I assumed that you meant you were a defender of the Neo-Liberal "free market".
The reason that I'm an advocate of a public finance sector is because I'm a follower of the Neo-Keynesian idea that the finance cycle is linked to the exponential growth of debt outpacing the growth of the economy. A public finance sector would be able to forgive or write down debts and keep the economy from tanking by keeping credit moving. I introduced the idea without really explaining my reasoning for it so that might have been a little confusing.
The problem is that you think that the private banks are a vital part of the economy and I don't. The "product" of their work is mostly just a debt burden on consumers rather than disbursement of much needed credit to keep the consumption-production cycle going. The argument at this point is breaking down into a clash of ideology so I'll just stop before getting too bitter.
>The "product" of their work is mostly just a debt burden on consumers rather than disbursement of much needed credit to keep the consumption-production cycle going.
>reading this on /biz/
Reflecting on this post I think I might've overreacted. When you hold strong beliefs it can be hard to accept that someone might disagree with what you see as self evident or common sense without being a retard, but that's because of my inability to imagine and assume radically different point of views. I shouldn't have reacted in such a rude manner because under different circumstances if I had been born and raised differently my views could've been shaped in ways that my present self will find ridiculous but to my alternative self seem perfectly normal and so making fun of you is the same as making fun of my alternative self.
Correct. It's part of the free market at work.
I had a friend that would insist that free markets don't work because "people aren't completely rational." They don't know what's good for them. They buy useless gadgets, overpriced things, etc. Therefore, he thought, we have to protect them for their own good and we have to guide the economy in 'useful' directions.
But that's not an argument against free markets, it's actually an excellent argument in favor of it. I look at it as a redistribution of wealth from stupid people to clever people. From the lazy to the industrious. This is the market allocating resources efficiently.
Thanks for picking up on that one.
My flock of lazy kids I'll make will drain resources as much as we can off your hard work, and we will all vote for the guy who gives us more for less. Until it's all gone.
The only way to stop this is to have more people understand this possible outcome and vote based on what gives them more personal responsibility and thus freedom.
This guy is all over it. Free market is a functional socialism. I, being intelligent, would choose to deal with other higher level people and leave the fuck ups out in the cold to die. My children will grow up understanding that they will have to go out and EARN stupid toys, rather then expect them for minimal effort.
Only those that can function well can live well. It's not nice, but it's fair.
It's nice to get free things, but to the person that paid for it, not fair.
First off, the application of socialism and the theory of socialism clash, just like with communism. Sounds good in theory, is shit in practice. That said, it's still shit in theory.
Let's say you're paying each employee triple what the current minimum wage and you never fire them. Then why would they contribute good ideas? They'd be pretty comfortable and they'd simply rely on other employees to contribute good ideas, since they know that either way they get a good reward (it's just slightly smaller than if they contributed it themselves.) Hence, no one would be contributing many good ideas and no one would be getting raises and boosting profits.
But the thing is that is possible currently and that's not happening. Plenty of people (take software engineers at big companies like Google) COULD create a company, they just don't because they're happy and they don't want the extra stress.
Face it, the capitalist system works. Maybe there are refinements that can be made, but it's the best one so far.
Let me leave you with a quote -- not by Churchill, actually.
“Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on "income distribution," the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned.” --Thomas Sowell
>For an example coal miners in coal mines, a worker was hired for lets say $20 per hour, but after a while the mine explodes or a few miners get cancer, no one considered paying for their health or caring about them, the job provider will instantly consider replacing them with other coal miners, sure they agreed for it but surely such risks can be avoided by spending more money into their safety or paying for their health and injuries.
This is already legally required
>Now another thing is that you consult with these workers from all different skills and jobs, and ask them for ideas to improve the company (e.g a worker on a certain machine will tell you that his machine is working slower than usual and it's better to buy a new model that works faster) now why would they do that? Well because if your company succeeds more and you earn more money then you'll slowly give your workers better wages, and give those with great ideas a small raise, so that the richer you get, the richer they get.
this already happens
The rest is stupid
>Well I already explained that, if I get rich the workers of my company get rich, and they can open up other factories for an example and hire more people who also are poor and so on,
this already happens
First off, claiming that giving a guy the same minimum wage as you get richer and earn more profit from their work is also not how you make people improve and work harder, if I work at a company, and I work hard at something and you got more profit because of my hard work and you'd like to take all that money for yourself and ignore my efforts then that's not fine, if your company gets richer you should make everyone else earn a little bit more, but it's the same vice versa, if you lose a sum of money, you'll share your loss with everyone so you don't take the big hit by yourself.
Right now what we're seeing in the US is that rich guys with huge companies earn milions of dollars while a lot of their workers are just working on the minimum wage, that's not a fair system
What? In socialism we redistribute wealth naturally by rewarding hard workers and making a community that its members always work for the benefit of the entire community and not themselves only, so instead of a fat rich guy who puts his money in banks and milks profit, we have a hard intelligent person who worked real hard to provide for his country and the people of his society
Pardon my rudeness Mr. Anon but what kind of delusional dream are you living in?
Have you heard of a company owner who shared his profit with everyone?
"Hey guys! We made a huge profit this month and therefore you'll all earn a little extra!! Congrats everyone"
No.. instead you see the owner taking the money for himself and not even improving his company sometimes, and that hurts the economy more.
The idea of socialism is to reward people who contribute to the society, and not lazy people at homes.
The idea of socialism is that everyone has the right to work, if I want to work hard, then there shouldn't be something stopping me from wodking hard and providing for my country.
And in this case I'll earn money based on how hard I work.
Now about your 2nd part.
What if you son inherited your company and he wasn't a successful kid and destroyed it eventually? Or that he didn't bother with expanding the business at all, should he earn most of the money? should he be the one who runs your company into an inevitable doom?
You kid inherits the money you own but not your hard work, if you kid wants to inherit your company well he better work hard for it.
Because it's natural that your kids might not be as good as you in running your own business.
Didn't read anything you posted OP, but here is some basic entry level anti soc copypasta.
There are a lot of individuals who talk about redistribution as if it is something good. These individuals act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there. Chess pieces on a board, their desires and whims simply ignored, meant to carry out some grand design. However, if we are to assume that people have their own responses to government policies then we cannot blithely assume that government policies have the effect intended.
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up distributing poverty. The communist nations are of course the classic example but by no means the only good example. The theory goes that confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. Unproductive people who refuse to take agency find this prospect appealing. However, when the Soviet Union started confiscating the wealth of the successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of the starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s holocaust in the 1940s.
But how could this possibly be? It is actually really simple. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth, it has to be created first. Herein lies the problem. Future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that is it going to be confiscated, that they will have little reward for their effort. The problem is human nature. 1/x
The farmers of the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops when they realised that the government was going to take a large part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate their young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.
Just like people, previously depicted as farmers, are not inert objects, industrialists are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike the farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.
For instance, take the Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky. This man could take his expertise and ideas to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.
If confiscatory policies can product counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can move swiftly and suddenly. It can swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But in a democracy there must first be public discussion and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the writing on the wall and act accordingly.
Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive skills that are commonly referred to as human capital. When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either out of their own volition or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.
Another communist example. When Fidel Castro suddenly implemented his confiscatory policies, a lot of the successful Cubans fled to Florida. These people had to leave much of their physical wealth behind to be looted. But the poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty-stricken under Castro. The real wealth that Cuba lost was the human capital that the refugees took with them to Florida.
An old saying goes that giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. What contemporary redistributionist really propose is giving a man a fish and then leaving him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.
Staying with this analogy, if these despicable people were serious about improving the world they would distribute the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of this things that you can distribute to people without reducing the amount held by others.
This would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interest of career politicians who want to exercise power acquired by the votes of people who are dependent on them for handouts.
Redistributionist politicians endlessly proclaim that they want to make things fairer, but what they really are proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries all around the world.
Yet, to many people who lack any cognitive ability, redistribution sounds good.
Free shit, right?
“It’s not fair” is the rallying cry of the complete fucking loser.
Okay you brought a lot to talk about.
One considering communist countries as a viable example when discussing socialism means you're in the wrong thread.
Communism that we know today is way different than the actual principles of socialism, communism was heavily modified under stalin's rule and he basically declared state capitalism as communism, that if you give your profit to the government then the government will implement a fair system, and we all know this is not socialism, the basics of socialism will tell you that instead of an owner who harvests all the profit, the workers should earn a profit based on their hard work.
And this explains poverty and starvation during Stalin's rule, you see the government took the profit from workers and farmers and they didn't bother on spending it to improve the economy and build more farms but instead they used it to provide money for the huge military power that they had, that if you didn't join the military then you might as well die starving.
Regarding Cuba, if you have good knowledge of cuban history you'd realize that cuba was poor even before the communist revolution, Cuba is a poor country and the most reliable source of income they had was salt, claiming that if Cuba turned capitalist right now then that would make it instantly rich and prosperous is a false claim.
And about the fish thingy, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING, Socialism is not redistribution of wealth to the poor, that's not an economic system, this is insanity, socialism is built on the basis of work, that everyone has the right to work, that nothing should prevent me from working if I want to, and if I don't work then the society doesn't owe me anything because I didn't contribute to the society that I live in.
Lol sorry man, too big to fit into one thread.
Here have a trump as an apology gift.
Paying people on the basis of how hard they work is not efficient. It may be "virtuous" in your view, but it is not economically efficient.
Work should be treated as a commodity to be bought and sold. Its price should be based on its scarcity so that resources are allocated efficiently.
For example. Currently, retail and fast-food work pays very little. This is a price signal that tells us that there is quite enough retail and fast-food workers. It doesn't matter how hard you work - we have enough of these kinds of workers.
Likewise, petroleum engineers are paid quite a lot. This is a price signal telling us that we don't have enough of them. It could be the laziest job in the world, but we need more of this kind of work so the salary is high-paying.
>What if you son inherited your company and he wasn't a successful kid and destroyed it eventually? Or that he didn't bother with expanding the business at all, should he earn most of the money? should he be the one who runs your company into an inevitable doom?
Then you made a bad choice in giving your company to your son. The winning strategy would be to sell your company to someone intelligent, and then set up a trust for your dumbass son so he doesn't blow your family fortune.
>"B-but communism wasn't TRUE socialism!"
>le One True Scotsman fallacy
>Socialism is not redistribution of wealth to the poor, that's not an economic system, this is insanity, socialism is built on the basis of work, that everyone has the right to work, that nothing should prevent me from working if I want to, and if I don't work then the society doesn't owe me anything because I didn't contribute to the society that I live in."
Your definitions are way off. That's not what socialism is. The entire premise of socialism is that profits and costs are shared by everyone in a group. If you think it means something else you're the only one who thinks that.
Yes, these exist. They're called "employee-owned corporations." The workers own stock in the company and receive dividends.
Even in usual corporations, employees receiving stock in the company is a common part of a benefit package.
I don't know your logic on that. Labor belongs to the laborer, not to society.
>Regarding Cuba, if you have good knowledge of cuban history you'd realize that cuba was poor even before the communist revolution, Cuba is a poor country and the most reliable source of income they had was salt, claiming that if Cuba turned capitalist right now then that would make it instantly rich and prosperous is a false claim.
Except this is the norm for every developing country that opens up to free trade and capitalism. Hong Kong doesn't have any resources at all, and it's the jewel of South Asia.
The profit should be distributed but still everyone has a wage gap, an engineer is not equal to a simple McDonalds worker, they get different pay according to their work but the profit that comes out of it is shared by everyone, if lets say no one wants to be an engineer then that means engineers will be more expensive to hire and so on, it's the excess money that will be distributed not the actual salary of every worker.
You say it's important for the market to deal with the scarcity of engineers.
But what about the scarcity of entrepreneurs?
Please tell me more about how companies/corporations would work in your ideal society.
If profits are shared by everyone, then who gets the losses when the company fails?
If the losses are shared just like profits, then what keeps the system from going bankrupt?
If the losses are put on an individual while the profits are shared, what is that individual's incentive to do anything in the first place?
No you just have to allow every field viable to have jobs for those who are less fortunate. people will always tend to go for the jobs with more money and less work, but if those jobs don't pay enough then we should at least give them the option to work in other fields where the work is hard and the pay is good and not monopolize their job opportunities just so that we can get more money by having fewer workers.
Yea call them mashed potato salad if you want, but those employee owned corporations are a perfect example of what socialism is about.
Also can you give me a source of a few of those companies? I really need to research about them.
I don't really understand what you just said.
Do you mean that we should give them "hard-working jobs" and pay them "well," even if that isn't an economically efficient outcome?
Who will pay for these jobs? Society, in the form of taxes?
Why should we tax people to provide busywork?
Losses are shared
And that's the point, people share the profit and if they suffer a loss then they'll hold a meeting and discuss what caused such a loss in the first place maybe someone is not working efficiently or maybe they should shift to a more profitable idea and so on, everyone will interact because if they don't work well they carry the loss too, and if someone else doesn't work then they should be either kicked out of the company or gets a warning.
if a company loses 500million, it has no direct impact on emplyees, they do not have to pay the obligation and they do not suffer any losses if a company goes under, except losing their job
If the company earned 0 profit then yea lol, but that never happens, if you suffer a loss then everyone gets lower wages, and that they should think of ideas to improve their work, if let's say the suffer heavy losses and the workers decide to leave the company then that means the company is not benefiting the society that much and that specific sector is not needed anymore (but I'm pretty skeptical about this theory)
There's multiple problems with shared profits and losses.
1. Are there managers? Not everyone is a good manager. Presumably there would be executives and managers. But I suppose the workers would have voting powers over the managers and.. presumably could fire managers. Why would they not: fire managers at the first sign of loss, demand higher base wages (at the expense of managers/higher-paid workers), etc?
2. This hugely discourages start-ups and growth companies. You may or may not be aware that most businesses suffer losses for MANY years before becoming profitable. Why would I join a new company if its losses will be deducted from my paycheck? Likewise, why would I join a growth company where the profits are reinvested into the business for capital, when I could join a mature dividend company where my pay will be supplemented?
3. Would this not drastically accelerate the decline of a company that might otherwise get over a rut? Think of it, losses one year and then lots of good workers leave for more profitable businesses, more losses the next year due to the flight of quality human capital. It creates a snowball effect that would end a company very quickly.
Also, please tell me more about who actually starts the company, why the start the company, and who manages the company.
You said you'd give them busywork, right?
What "hard-working" jobs could you give them that they wouldn't get in a regular market economy?
If they wouldn't get the job in a market, then it's not an economically efficient outcome. Their work isn't worth their pay.
Therefore, the money to pay them comes from somewhere - taxes?
>If the company earned 0 profit then yea lol, but that never happens
and i thought capitalists were inhuman. During 2008 many even large companies made a loss, and you cannot run a society where lower class of workers do not get paid for years straight. Not only that i seriously doubt many people would want to work for 0$ hoping your company is the one that makes any shekels during a recession, which would increase unemplyement and start a downward spiral.
Also, how does one start a company if there are so many legal stipulations about how many people you must hire and to do what. Does the government have to take a hand in starting businesses in order to make sure they are employing the "right" number of people at the "right" wages? If the government isn't deciding what businesses are allowed to start and who can work in them for what wages then how are all these rules enforced? Magic? What do you do when, inevitably, someone says "Nah, fuck that senpai. I'm going to start a business hiring only the people I want for the wages I want/they agree to and pocket all the profit myself."?
The guy who owns the company goes to debt so the entire company goes to debt and that means you're basically getting paid by the banks so you're taking money from the market for a job that is not profitable and only one guy takes the heavy loss at the end.. not very good for the economy I'd say.
If I'm lazy and I didn't work hard enough I just do the same stuff everyday, then the company goes into debt and I still wouldn't care because I'm still getting paid the same, and I just lay down and throw it all on the owner of the company to deal with this problem.
>if let's say the suffer heavy losses and the workers decide to leave the company then that means the company is not benefiting the society that much and that specific sector is not needed anymore
There are other reasons. For example... because voting on business decisions is the most inefficient way of being successful, and because a low-level employee may not actually know how to run a business.
In a multi-unit company I worked for, I know store managers who were the best I've ever seen.
But when they got promoted to area manager, they failed because they didn't know how to manage multiple units.
I knew area managers who were fantastic at managing multiple units. But when it came time for them to run a single unit (for vacations, etc) they were a total failure.
Every individual is good at some things and bad at others. When you force a person to work at a level that doesn't suit them, they fail.
Capitalism has a natural way of working this out. People move up based on their talents, and either succeed or fail.
>If I'm lazy and I didn't work hard enough I just do the same stuff everyday, then the company goes into debt and I still wouldn't care because I'm still getting paid the same, and I just lay down and throw it all on the owner of the company to deal with this problem.
The success or failure of a company is rarely due to how hard people work. It's mostly due to management decisions - the products you're going to sell, the price you sell them at, where you sell them, your operating costs, etc.
Please tell us about how your companies are managed.
> taking money from the market for a job that is not profitable and only one guy takes the heavy loss at the end
not at all if that one guy doesnt repay his debt, it is likely that bank loan wont be paid back in full, hence why banks dont loan to any retard that comes there.
>If I'm lazy and I didn't work hard enough
then you get fired.
Well now you're reaching a zone that I'm not 100% sure about, but I do know this
A company is run by the managers who first developed the idea to make the company and paid the initial money to start it up, let's say we're 5 guys who want to open a chocolate factory, we take money from a bank and make our small company by buying an empty warehouse and hiring 100 workers, we give them jobs and distribute them according to their skills, we take the profit next month, we subtract the wages of everyone including the managers (we need to have a wage too because we're running the company) and subtract a sum of money to pay part of our debt and we use half of what's left as a shared profit and the rest for the development of the company.
As for the losses, well the workers become literal investors in the company, if a company suffers great losses in capitalism and everyone stops investing in it, wouldn't that also lead to it's decline? So if many people leave and these guys can't find workers it means that no one is willing to invest his labor in such a company, so the company will either disband or shift to other products that are more needed in the market
But in most cases they'll just take a loan and try to live off of it, if it doesn't work then everyone just invests more and if all fails then it's game over
The government won't provide them with the jobs, it's a bunch of regulation to force company owners to hire a certain amount of low skill people at minimum pay or more based on their work, we'll be forcing the market itself to find a place for those people.
Welllllll... in a perfect socialist country you won't deal with banks anymore, you'd deal with the government who would give you loans but at a very low interest rate or none at all, and since the great depression is caused by the banks then I think a socialist country can avoid that problem.
>since the great depression is caused by the banks
Um. No. Do you even know what a bank is? I'm increasingly sure you have no idea what they are or how they work.
If you want to start a company then probably the only regulation you'll face is having to hire more low skill workers at low pay, you'll give them basic jobs, and if they don't do the job well you can kick them out and hire more effectively working peeps, and the other regulation is that you gotta pass the profit around.
If someone wants the profit for himself.. then He's greedy! And we shouldn't allow people to think that they are the only ones in a society that we all participate in, so the best solution would be calling his parents and telling them how bad their son is behaving lately.
You just said it yourself, that's why we need votings, everyone hold their place in the company, if let's say a worker finds a way to improve production then we shouldn't promote him to be a manager because he found a way to improve production within his line of work, everyone knows exactly how to do their job and they should be rewarded by getting a bigger pay doing their job, not by giving them another job.
As a worker, why would I join a new company that is suffering losses every year instead of a mature company that nets me a sweet dividend? I don't want to be an investor. I just want to work and get paid.
Also, what's to stop the managers from simply paying themselves higher salaries to the point where profits = 0? You'd just have the system we have now, but with 10x more red tape.
> if a company suffers great losses in capitalism and everyone stops investing in it, wouldn't that also lead to it's decline?
Yes, but not quite so rapidly because you aren't losing all your workers.
>it's a bunch of regulation to force company owners to hire a certain amount of low skill people at minimum pay or more based on their work, we'll be forcing the market itself to find a place for those people.
So you are burdening employers with additional costs for no gain. As I said, this isn't an economically efficient outcome.
So someone would start a company by getting a loan from the government, not a bank.
1. Who is responsible for paying back the loan? The people that started the company? If so, why should they socialize the profits if they bear all the initial costs?
2. How are you so sure the government will make good investment decisions? In a market economy, you either make good investments or you go bust. You think the government should go bust if it gives out a bunch of bad loans? Isn't that kind of an unstable?
Your whole plan, in fact the entire theory of socialism denies human nature.
So the guy working on the machines is going to vote a raise for the engineer who came up with a better way of production?
The machinist is going to vote an extra $20k per year for the engineer because he will provide the machinist with an extra $3000 per year in profit?
More likely this... the machinist will vote against giving the raise because, you know... that young punk engineer thinks he's SO much better than everyone else, fuck him.
As I mentioned in another comment, this entire concept was covered in the book Atlas Shrugged with the "20th century motor company". As much as the book is BS on a number of things, it got that part pretty right.
Any plan that denies human nature; any plan that depends on changing human nature, is doomed to fail.
Employees today are a cost of production and are not necessarily not needed just because a firm cannot afford them... but unemployment is a cost to society today that someone ends up having to pay for directly or indirectly.
Firms cheapen their operation costs today by laying people off, which everyone ideally wants to do. The less people you employee the more cost efficient you are.
Some form of non-monetary accounting system for inputs would function under socialism which would have to deal directly with consumption and investment funds instead of capitalistic wages (source of demand for consumption) and profit (source of demand for future means of production).
> unemployment is a cost to society today that someone ends up having to pay for directly or indirectly.
Right. In a free market, the unemployed pay directly for their unemployment. It isn't a loss to anyone else, unless they choose to donate to an unemployment charity.
No, instead of the company manager going "hmm let's hire 100 people who are well experienced oil engineers in my oil field" the government forces them to hire let's say 10 unexperienced oil engineers and 90 well experienced.
Also I understand how banks work in general, but the great depression was caused by giving loans to people who couldn't pay it back.
>10 unexperienced oil engineers
Oil engineers are not typically a big part of the unemployed. They can accept lower salaries if they are inexperienced.
What about the majority of the unemployed? People that don't have skills suited to the current economy?
People with no skills that are not of any significant value to an employer. They cannot be hired for a "living wage" without someone else paying for it.
Most unemployed just end up mooching off their family or friends. It's a loss to society in the sense that there is a massive amount of potential resources which are lying idle and not being used.
The market will use them if they can be used. Skills training is available. Loans to pay for skills training are available. Apprenticeships and on-the-job training will be available, if it wasn't practically outlawed.
But the person themselves must shoulder the costs.
The loan is paid by people who decided to open the company, and it becomes a company debt meaning that they will always remove a sum of money from the profit just so they can pay the debt, if everything goes wrong then the guys who opened the company have to pay the debt
And here comes another thing, the government won't be making "investments" because they won't get interest rates from the loans, but instead it'll have a debt on that persons company, the country can't go bankrupt and die because it'll still have tax money coming from other areas of work and they can give these loans to other people deciding to open a new company, ofcourse though these need to be creditable people who in case that the company fails will lose something like their house or somethings like that which allows the government to earn back it's loss
This should arguably be in pol and not biz. I didn't read your post but I already know what it says.
People are naturally greedy, selfish, and self interested. People work via reward and require punishment when wrong is done. Until these features are no longer relevant in the human psyche, a free socialist society can never exist.
I skimmed over something about raises. Raises only motivate people initially until they feel entitled to that pay level and desire more. I work at a place where the peons make 20/hr starting an area that makes 13-14/hr starting, yet some still bitch and are lazy.
You need to get a job and you'll see why all of this is true.
It's a metaphor, an example, who would even hire 100 oil engineers in a single field, cmon anon.
But yea let's say you'd hire 100 highschool graduates for some company, then you'd have to hire 10 primary school graduates who are looking for working (if there are any) out of the 100 you'll hire, just basically means that you gotta lower your standards for those who are unskilled and unexperienced.
>bankers want to grow their bank accounts
>bankers give loans to people who can't pay knowing in advance they have enough government influence to get a bailout for their bad behavior
>grow bank accounts using tax dollars
Sounds good man
There is punishment and there is reward in socialism, if the company loses you also lose, if the company gains a profit you also gain a profit that's how it is generally, they only give you a raise because you managed to improve your line of work, but they can also punish you into working longer hours if you hurt the company or even kick you out (and by "they" I mean other workers in the same company)
For socialism to work, you have to have a homogenous society. Not necassarily race, gender, etc. But at least a broad common culture.
Socialism will not work with diversity, unless a strong government subjugates it's population.
I'm going to post some personal impressions of communism.
I wasn't alive when communism was abolished in my country, but my parents and my grandparents lived through it, and here is roughly how it went.
During the Second World War, the monarchy sided with Germany. Our history textbooks say that it's because there were German tank divisions just beyond the borders. They point out that our nation was one of the few that didn't hand out any of the jews for the death camps.
I think history is a little more gray, ambiguous. We didn't join the nazis only out of fear. I'm sure Boris' greed was also a factor. We didn't turned over the jews, but we did exile them and took what property they left behind.
There were heroes, there was scum.
We lost the war, we paid heavy reparations. And the communists were there as the counterpoint to the fascists. They were still a new, young movement, full of vigor and with no blood on their hands yet. There were idealists among them, I'm sure, who fought for noble goals and not for power.
When they did take power in a few years, things didn't look too bad for my grandparents. One of my grand-grandparents was a priest, and that branch of the family was repressed. Not sent to labor camps, although there was at least one labor camp for political dissidents. But the communists were nevertheless very firm atheists, and that meant that nobody else was allowed to practice religion.
Our people were Christian for over a millenium, it was one of the things that binded us together and gave us strength. 45 years was all it took for them to destroy that facet of our society. The huge majority of people today are only nominally Christian, and a large share are agnostic or atheist (including me).
There was only one radio in the village, and it was locked up, and transmitting only the regime sanctioned frequency, lest someone hear something critisizing the powers that be.
There was property redistribution. They took houses, land, money, and gave it to the poor. Haha, no. They took it for themselves.
The government did distribute most of it away, but the party members and those that sucked up to them became the new elite. They went on holidays on the Black Sea, they ate caviar, they had cars and apartments.
There was progress, undoubtedly. The first point in the constitution was "The Communist Party is the leading party in the Parliament", but still, a step ahead from a constitutional monarchy. Factories were built, GDP rose quickly, living standards jumped, higher education became more widespread. Part of it was from the technological progress, part of it was from trade with the other communist countries (we had a VERY profitable trades with the Soviet Union, to the point where the USSR was losing a shit ton of money, for decades), and part of it came from the absolute control and firm hand of the ruling elite. There is little you can't achieve when there is no opposition.
There was progress.
There was also control, and abuse of power. You can't move to live in another city, unless you marry someone living there. You can't leave the country, unless you know a party member. Certain subcultures that the Party didn't like were crushed altogether. Once the Beatles' music came in, if you were caught with long hair, police officers would haul you to the police station and buzz cut it. Foreign literature was rare. Books, for the most part, were heavily censored, and if you were printing the wrong books on a hidden printer in your basement, you were a wanted criminal.
People did print books nonetheless, little ruffled books, not fancy by any stretch of the imagination, and passed them along. It was not rare to be happy to get a book that a hundred other before you have read.
The communist ideal was a diligent youth, subservient, hardworking, and never critical. You are to read the books we give you, you are to pass exams on the Lenin legacy, you are to wait in line for a decade or two for a shitty apartment or a car, you are not to listen to bad music, or do drugs or stay up late, or obsess over things we don't understand.
Everything was Communism, and everyone was communist. There is NOTHING great that came from that period. The massive scale projects were party sanctioned, and served only to glorify the party, not for the good of the people or any external purpose. No great art, only stale communist propaganda. There were exceptions, but free spirit was mostly crushed. No scientific progress. My mother worked in a research facility, and her work consisted entirely of copying western technology. My father was a mathematician, he never had a reason to improve or challenge himself. After all, everyone make the same salary, why not just plagiarize an old text?
The soviet aesthetic was everywhere. Every culture and group vibrant enough to oppose the state was crushed under bullshit pretenses, and sometimes with no reason given at all.
A noble movement was perverted. The communist leaders were partisans, hiding in the woods, risking their lives daily for an utopia, a post-scarcity society. Once they had the power, they turned into fat, lazy, greedy drugari. The regime didn't breed strong, free people so many ideologists dreamt of. It bred career bureaucrats, it bred ass-kissers and snitches.
Then, slowly but surely, inevitably, came the economic collapse. Our soviet brothers cut the cord, no more ultra cheap commodities. The corruption and lazyness meant the industry was no longer competitive. Factories were making little to none, sometimes losing money. Of course, people couldn't be fired, and nobody could call out the incompetent party member in charge.
Sorry for what happened I guess..
But that wasn't socialism, that was an example of corrupted state capitalism of the Soviet Uniom.
Communism that happened during Stalins rulership was bullshit, Lenin at least said that they are far away from a dream that they fought for but stalin was that big fatty meatball that gave communism a heart attack.
Socialism is nothing like that and it generally focuses on the worker themselves earning the profit and not the owner or the government, it simple stated that everyone gets a different wage sure, I get $120,000 a year as a doc for an example while a normal worker would get $25,000 but the profit from the company is divided between us, and doesn't go to a rich fellow behind the desk who's only participation to the company is being the one who paid money to it.
The idea of "I paid for the company so all the profit should come to me" is wrong, that's the basis of socialism and why it started.
Nobody had any incentive to work, unless watched, to put in overtime, to invent, to take risks. To enforce quality control. Worse, the losing "companies", for lack of a better word, kept working forever. Because to close them would mean that several hundred people were out of work, and that can't happen, no sir. More importantly, to close them meant that the communist dream was failing.
So they kept on working. A massive factory that built car parts, broken within minutes from leaving the conveyor belt. Roads leading to nowhere and filled with potholes within months.
Downwards spiral. The control tightened to compensate, the crumbling accelerated. Hyperinflation. When people got paid, they RAN to the store, because the clerks adjusted the prices every minute.
You know what it's like to count your monthly salary and realize you have money for 13 breads? Not fun. There was no "luxury" goods in the stores by that time, of course, such as oranges, meat, and jeans. Only in the black markets, at jacked up prices. Eventually, even basic goods like bread and salt became rare. If you saw a line outside a store, you get in line, because you get a chance to buy something.
When the regime eventually fell, I'm sure that this basic things, the dropping standard of life played the biggest role. People were pissed, really pissed off.
There were, finally, democratic elections. And what do you know, we forgot the knack of democracy in the two generations of communism. We, as a nation, made huge mistakes. There was privatizations of property, at a huge loss, and the people that managed to secure them were criminals that now had massive power and resourses. The politicians in several years turned out to be the same people. Several years back, the secret service records were made public. What do you know, a LOT of the highest officials were once the snitches that worked for the communists.
Everything went from bad to worse, crises that were just barely contained during the comminism were out of control, others arose.
Eventually we elected the offshoot of the communist party into power. That didn't help. We even invited the progeny of Boris back. Didn't work either.
Just this past decade we've finally managed to sort of find our step and move forward.
My point is, if you want socialism, these things happen:
1) you give a lot of power to a certain group of people. Even if they deserved it in the first place, power corrupts. You need checks and balances on every step.
2) You take away or reduce the incentive for people to leave their comfort zone. You stifle progress, and that cannot be avoided, that's the very foundation.
There is no 3. There are other faults of communism, and I'm not going over them, because I can accept that they can be avoided. Those two are enough.
Very smart people, very driven people have attempted it again, and again, and again, and have always ended in tears. How about this time we DON'T put our hands in the fire?
1- in Karl Marx theory he didn't speak about the state, he didn't care about the state, he cared about the workers and how they were abused at the time.
You can have a democratic system with socialism and everyone takes place within the country, you can vote to switch back to capitalism if socialism didn't work correctly, you're no longer living under the rulership of stalin and his friends.
2- no one is putting you in an uncomfortable zone, the regulations and the sharing is to stop certain people from becoming too greed driven that they stop focusing on improving the company that they are running and start investing or using banks for profit, you said it yourself, power corrupts, well greed corrupts too, shouldn't we try to prevent it too?
Before we had a bunch of people who controlled our lives (feudalism) but we kicked them out, and decided that we all should run the country, so why not do the same with companies? Why can't we have a say in the company and be able to share the profit because we're all participants in it?
And the reason why we're discussing this now is because capitalism is slowly failing, sure you see rich countries in capitalism, but they are only rich because of the few rich people they have while in fact the rest of society is barely holding up and no making major advancement, you see many people out of work and unemployed and they can't find decent jobs to live off.
>Why can't we have a say in the company and be able to share the profit because we're all participants in it?
Because the owners put up the capital to start the business. The owners leased the warehouse, paid for the raw materials, made deals with distributors, paid the engineers, paid the laborers, paid the advertisers... and the owners are on the hook for the debt and interest.
> rest of society is barely holding up and no making major advancement, you see many people out of work and unemployed and they can't find decent jobs to live off.
"The rest of society" is doing pretty damn fine really. The middle class have a better quality of life than anyone in their position had at any previous point in history.
Now, the unemployed lower class people that struggle to get by... the thing about them, is that we don't need them. Their suffering / death isn't going to result in the failure of capitalism. The gears will keep turning, with or without minimum wage burger flippers and the structurally unemployed.
So... only the rich can start a business? if you have only a few people that control it because they're rich or born rich then that's not even good for the economy that's like dictatorship over the market.
And if you start and say "well everyone can take a loan from the bank and start a business" then that really makes the owner nothing better than you, he just has a debt on his hand and he needs your help and labor to pay it off.
all the workers can work to pay the debt because no debt means more money for everyone considering that we have to subtract a certain amount of money from the profit to pay the debt.
Paying for the stuff doesn't give your the privilege of earning all the profit, sure you get the highest pay and what not but you don't get all the profit for yourself.
Also, yea the unemployed don't affect the economy if they all die right? But aren't they a wasted resource? Don't you think that the economy will grow even bigger if those people worked and participated in their society?
Letting them to rot and die is even worse, because it will stir hatred between the classes and might cause riots.
And currently more and more people from the middle class are entering the lower class, at a much quicker rate than upper middle class getting richer, this means the middle class is disappearing, unless we help people back on their feet and build a stronger middle class then eventually our economy will crumble and there will be nothing we can do about it.
>Now, the unemployed lower class people that struggle to get by... the thing about them, is that we don't need them. Their suffering / death isn't going to result in the failure of capitalism. The gears will keep turning, with or without minimum wage burger flippers and the structurally unemployed.
What the hell is the point of having a society if you don't take care of members of it? I've realized you are just an evolved edgelord that's moved on to shilling for the powerful who care little for you, but still I must ask because you're likely human, how can you justify their misery through an appeal to some vague ideal?
>Because the owners put up the capital to start the business. The owners leased the warehouse, paid for the raw materials, made deals with distributors, paid the engineers, paid the laborers, paid the advertisers... and the owners are on the hook for the debt and interest.
Where did they originally get that capital, or land, or anything else? Did they receive it from god, or is there some other mechanism by which the few are chosen to lord over the rest of us? Don't try telling me that they earned it, because 99% of the time the money came from somewhere beyond the scope of the "free" market. I live in California where old school feudalism is still in effect on farms owned by ultra wealthy who only own the land because their great grand dad either was, or fucked over, a Spanish land grant recipient. Banks are formed out of aristocratic family fortunes and not individual depositors, and some started off by being glorified loan sharks. How does the free market account for the legacies of a fraudster? Is it right to leave such large parts of the economy in the hands of people who are professional heirs, or who's only skill getting away with fraud?
>shilling for the powerful who care little for you
its because those "powerful" are abig part I have bread in the morning and toilet paper. Wherever there is a shorage of these " powerful who care little for you", there are bread lines and poverty, i know this is hard for you to understand because, you come from the richest part of the world and your entitled ass hasnt faced a hardship before.
You have a distorted world view where rich are scrooge mcduck who just sit on their asses drink champagne and laugh at plebs, but in reality THE VAST MAJORITY of them worked their ass of for 90hours a week for years on end, untill they finally broke through and became successful
I get it, you're outraged at how people can act "immoral" (as defined by -YOU-) and wish that instead of enjoying the fruits of their labor so much the wealthy would just give it away to people you feel are more "deserving" (again, as defined by -YOU-). You want a system of government that forces people to enforce your morality on other people and to that end has the power to take away resources from people who are disfavored and give it to people who are favored. That's a lot of power to hand one person over another, and you just can't comprehend what a fucking mess it makes when that power is abused.
I've seen stuff like >>1054803 more times than I can count. You want socialism, but that's what you get. You can cry and complain all day about how that's not what you meant and if people only did things exactly the way you planned them and no one was a corrupt jerk then everything would be perfect but that's not how the world works. Not everyone is corrupt but enough people are that systems that rely on the inherent goodness of people inevitably collapse. Democracy and capitalism don't always work out perfectly, but because they don't assume any one person (or group) is wise and just enough to hold absolute power and depend on people to act in their own best interest they tend to work out on the whole because those are two things you can count on about humans.
>And if you start and say "well everyone can take a loan from the bank and start a business" then that really makes the owner nothing better than you, he just has a debt on his hand and he needs your help and labor to pay it off.
It does make the owner better than you. He TOOK THE RISK. They could have taken the risk, but instead they chose merely to labor for a wage. They both made choices which they personally prefer. The owner wanted more reward, so he risked his neck with debt. The laborers are risk-averse and chose the safer option of a wage. Both get what they want.
Also, it is pretty damn common in a lot of start-ups to offer equity in the company to your first employees instead of a wage. That is also an option. The point is that it's VOLUNTARY. But believe it or not, most people do not want to risk their income. They just want to work for 40 years and retire.
>But aren't they a wasted resource? Don't you think that the economy will grow even bigger if those people worked and participated in their society?
Of course it would be better if they worked and participated - but ONLY if their work was actually valuable. If you're advocating for busywork or tax-subsidized work or whatever the heck... that is not valuable work! They need skills. There are services available (school) that teach people skills. If they want to get those skills then they can be valuable workers. If they don't, that's their choice and they can die or mooch of of people - doesn't matter.
>Letting them to rot and die is even worse, because it will stir hatred between the classes and might cause riots.
Perhaps so, but not necessarily. This hinges entirely on government policy. I would note that many societies have dealt with the poor without massive government programs. Also, I would note that I actually don't have a problem with the government employing them AS LONG AS it was a 100% self-funded program. Put them in a poorhouse and feed them while making them work to provide for themselves. That's what they did in England for a long time.>And currently more and more people from the middle class are entering the lower class, at a much quicker rate than upper middle class getting richer, this means the middle class is disappearing,
People are being structurally unemployed/underemployed because the economy is changing. They need new skills. The government is actively preventing people from getting those skills.
>What the hell is the point of having a society if you don't take care of members of it? I've realized you are just an evolved edgelord that's moved on to shilling for the powerful who care little for you, but still I must ask because you're likely human, how can you justify their misery through an appeal to some vague ideal?
In my view, people that think we should have social programs to care for the poor should just put their money where their mouth is. If people REALLY care for the poor, then they will donate to charities to provide for the poor. Forced redistribution of wealth is not economically efficient and I rather think it's immoral to waste taxpayer money on worthless people.
Mhmm, a corrupt politician who managed to get rich apparently by your standards have less effect on the economy and society than a corrupt worker who decided to steal a little amount of money?
Look, paying for everything doesn't make you special "oh I paid for it, now I owe anything that this company produces and every single penny comes to my pocket, I worked real hard to get that money and now it's time for me to get rich!"
No, that's not how a society works, thinking selfishly IS corrupt and it WILL destroy the society.
What I'm saying is this:
Since you opened the factory or the company you get to earn a good pay for that, if you think you did so much labor then you deserve a pay, something similar to a wage like everyone else, but there is no way in hell you're going to take the profit for yourself, you're talking about the owners fruit of labor? What about the workers fruit of labor? Why are you taking their fruit of labor and giving them so little in return? That you don't even consider sharing the profit with them?
I'm against safety nets because I think it's pretty clear that it creates moral hazards. The destruction of the family unit, single motherhood, not saving for retirement, healthcare schemes, etc - all kinds of moral hazards created by government interference.
The free market is not only economically efficient, it also deals with a LOT of social problems that we're experiencing. For fuck sake. Imagine if your health insurance premiums would double if you were a fatass. I think that could motivate some people to stay fit.
>How does the free market account for the legacies of a fraudster? Is it right to leave such large parts of the economy in the hands of people who are professional heirs, or who's only skill getting away with fraud?
I don't know what kind of fraud you're talking about, but legitimate fraud is illegal in a free market and those who are defrauded should be compensated.
As for inheritance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Providing for your children is one of the primary motivators that people have in life. And it makes logical sense. You are free to give your money to anyone while you're alive. Your should be able to do the same when you're dead. And you should know that most family fortunes are wasted by the third generation. Most people who are rich from inheritance blow it all, and don't know wtf they're doing. If they just inherit a managed trust, then that's perfectly fine as well. Their trust manager is doing work with that capital.
As for the rest - they either earned the money by laboring, they convinced investors to give them a chance, or they took a business loan out of a bank. There is nothing wrong with any of these things.
Okay but wouldn't making them all educated and ready for work raise the standard of employment? You won't be making them work, you'll just make it harder for everyone else to compete.
The best way is by making them hire low skilled people.
Also you're saying that taking the risk is worth taking all the profit for themselves? That's like a betting system if I take the risk and go all in, then I should get all the money, but that's not how to benefit everyone.
Your perfect idea will never work because it requires human beings to flip switch their basic instincts and way of thinking concerning wealth and survival. That cannot and will not ever happen overnight.
You are just morally outraged. You're not making any arguments.
The owner gets the profits because he owns the profits by contract. The employees voluntarily work for him under a contract. He pays for the lease under contract. He contracts with suppliers. He contracts with buyers. All of the materials were purchased by the owner.
He merely paid people to do X. Why do the people who got paid to do X have any right to the raw materials that the owner bought?
>Okay but wouldn't making them all educated and ready for work raise the standard of employment?
It will lower wages in the area where more workers become available due to education or skills training.
>You won't be making them work, you'll just make it harder for everyone else to compete.
Wages will go down due to competition, yes. But more people will be employed.
>The best way is by making them hire low skilled people.
How, exactly? If they wanted to hire low skill people, they would do that. I mean, many employers actually do. Lots of large corporations have training programs for people so that they can pay them lower wages than experienced people. Public Storage was a job I was looking into a few years ago. They hire people to manage their facilities with no prior manager experience, because they only pay you $11/hr.
>Also you're saying that taking the risk is worth taking all the profit for themselves? That's like a betting system if I take the risk and go all in, then I should get all the money, but that's not how to benefit everyone.
The option already exists to "socialize" the risk. That's what corporations are. If someone has a good idea, they can offer to sell EQUITY in their business to investors. It's all voluntary, and the risk/reward is borne by individuals. This encourages personal responsibility and makes individual people exercise their best judgement, because their choices directly impact their own lives.
>Because those people actually gave value to the material.
They were paid for the value they added.
They did not give the material 100% of it's retail price.
There is a value in distributing products, marketing them, etc.
Most importantly, there is a value in the idea of the product/process itself, and the enterprise itself. That is what the owner earns in the form of profit.
Lower wages and higher requirement, instead of having let's say 50 engineers working in my company now I raise my standards to hire 50 over qualified engineers, or those with more experience.
Meaning that no matter what you do to the society the owners will always try to hire those who are the best.
It's like having a class of 100 students and telling them that only the 10 students with the highest scores will pass, no matter how well everyone does in the tests, you'll always hire the best 10.
So that's why I said we should force them to hire some low skill workers, sure they can educate or train them or do what they want with them, as long as they provide them with a job that is.
And so if we pay the workers a salary for their labor, why shouldn't we pay the owner a salary for his risks and labor?
>why shouldn't we pay the owner a salary for his risks and labor?
we shouldn't because what right do you have to decide a corporation owners salary if you have nothing to do with that company
do you realize how deluded you are?
you would destroy any incentive for enterpreneurs
> Me a guy with an idea
> get a loan of 1,000,000 from the bank
> Open a chocolate factory
> hire 10 engineers, 100 workers who are highschool graduatea and 2 healthcare graduates 5 accountants and 3 mechanics
> I pay the engineer (just an example not related to the real world) $4000 a month, and the healthcare graduates $2000 a month and 5 accountants $1000 and the workers $800 a month and the mechanics $1200
> It adds up to 132.6k
> I paid $800,000 for the factory and the materials and the machines
> the month ends, and we earn $300,000
> I give everyone their salary and I'll have about 170k
> let's assume the material costed 70k and I'm left with 100k
> I give myself a salary which will be 10k and I'm left with 90k
> I pay 50k to pay some of the debt am left with 40k
> I split 20k for everyone working in the factory including me
> I group with everyone and ask them what we should do with the other 20k, and how to improve our work with it.
> a worker says we should buy better material
> hmm okay!
> follow his advice and earn 20k more next month
> good job anon! and give him a raise, now he earns $1,000 which is $300 more than the rest
> I just keep trying to pay the debt while I pay myself a steady salary which is generously good considering the risk and effort I took
Am I doing this wrong???
Why does he own the labor of others? The company is a collective work of everyone in it, not just the owners, and it's the workers that give value to the material.
Let me give you an example:
I can buy a rock for $10 and sculpture it into a statue and sell it for $100 and that means I earned $90 because of my labor.
But if I bought the rock and told you "Hey anon! Care to turn this rock to a statue for me? I'll pay you $20!!" And you sculpture it and I sell it in the market for $100, then I just earned $70 because of my hard work and labor? Or because I owned a $10 dollar rock?
I surely can take $20-$30 for my effort, but not all of the profit that's for sure, because you earned me this profit, you gave value to this rock with your hard work, and I should share this profit with you.
>The option already exists to "socialize" the risk. That's what corporations are. If someone has a good idea, they can offer to sell EQUITY in their business to investors. It's all voluntary, and the risk/reward is borne by individuals. This encourages personal responsibility and makes individual people exercise their best judgement, because their choices directly impact their own lives.
That's complete and utter bullshit.
The whole point of corporations is to encourage investment by reducing, not promoting, personal responsibility. The alternative is to have businesses actually run by individuals (whether alone or through partnership structures) in which case those individuals actually are responsible for the business. If the business owes someone money, the individual has to pay that money. That certainly encourages personaly responsibility.
The purpose of a corporation is to limit the risk to investors by creating a separate legal person to take on the responsibility. If the business goes bad and can't pay its debts, the shareholders lose the cost of their shares but that's it. They can walk away. The creditors (including employees) who are owed money can only seek to recover it from the company, which by this point doesn't have any money. They potentially lose more than the owners.
So using a corporate structure shifts responsibility away from business owners/investors and onto anyone who deals with the business, including its workers.
> instead of having let's say 50 engineers working in my company now I raise my standards to hire 50 over qualified engineers, or those with more experience.
Why would you pay the same for overqualified engineers, when you could pay a lower rate for engineers with the same qualifications as before?
>Meaning that no matter what you do to the society the owners will always try to hire those who are the best.
No... they don't. I gave you a specific example of a company that hires people with no management experience to manage their storage facilities. Businesses try to minimize costs.
Some companies, yes, will pay top dollar for the best. That's the Netflix philosophy. Not nearly every company does that.
Structural unemployment only occurs when the value of your work is no longer worth a living wage.
>And so if we pay the workers a salary for their labor, why shouldn't we pay the owner a salary for his risks and labor?
Because he owns it. He isn't the owner if he's only making a salary.
If you want the government to own every company, then say so. But that's stupid for a host of reasons, too.
You are absolutely free to do that if you want to. In fact, lots of companies give their workers bonuses when profits exceed expectations.
You don't give us a good argument for why it should be MANDATORY, however.
Personally, I think it's 100% retarded to be on the hook for $1M for only a $15k salary. I wouldn't be willing to do that.
He doesn't own the labor of others. He is merely renting it.
In your example, the person you hire can perfectly well decline your offer and do the work himself. Apparently, he thought it was too much of a trouble to buy a rock and after he's done crafting a statue, to deal with the bother of selling it on the market. He made a choice - guaranteed pay for 1 step of work. He didn't risk his $10 in buying the raw materials, and he didn't put himself through the hassle of selling his finished product.
Okay why I think it should be mandatory is because most company owners tend to earn increasingly more money from profits while the workers in the same company earn the same salary throughout their life, and that the company owners think it's their privilege to own all the company profits because they own the resources and can capitalize on other people's hard work, then those guys get rich and spend their money investing and not improving their companies or even improving the living standards for the people working in it.
Also you'll be earning more but since you're using a certain amount to pay your debt then you're actually just benefiting from 10k, you took the risk and you got yourself a good paying job at the end, while also sharing the profit meaning if you had 99 workers and you earned 100,000 in excess profit then you distribute it equally between everyone, and eventually you'll get 100k/100=$1, 000 extra and so on, you just distribute the profit between you but not the salary itself, and there is no government in my example, the only thing the government may interfere with is how much your salary should be. (Like if you have 100 workers you get 10k if you have 1000 workers you get 40k and so on based on how many people you employ and how big your company is)
Also the guy could refuse it's true but if you come to real life, then this guy either doesn't have $10 for the material or has no experience in buying and selling in the market, just because he has the skill to craft and you have the skill to sell and buy doesn't necessarily make you the better guy, cus clearly you both need each other to work.
The ignorance gets exposed. How many "company owners" do you know? You seem to have an amazing level of insight into how "most" (your words) of them think and what they spend the profits of their companies on. Your math is terrible and the only people who want to work for such a company are unproductive leeches who would be fired from every other job. Lastly, your idiotic plan incentivizes companies to make zero profit on paper and simply embezzle all excess revenue at the behest of its directors. Whether those directors are private or government makes no difference. The company will simply increase its own spending on either improving its own processes as many companies already do, paying its own directors in non-salary embezzlements, or be drained by a government bureaucrat in the same form.
I'm not sure why you feel so certain that everything would be great if only everyone would just follow your orders and never act "too greedy" (as defined by your highness) when you clearly have no experience in business, much less with people in general.
You want to write rules that force people to act virtuously (as you define it) but can't understand how that could (and would) be perverted into a system of tyranny instantly.
Are you convinced you know how to spend everyone's money better than they do themselves, if only they weren't so stupid/greedy? If you are, can't you step back and realize how narcissistic, ignorant, and dangerous that is? You're not the first person in history to think that if only everyone followed your orders everything would be peachy. Smarter people than you have tried, and the end result is communism as already described above in this topic. If you cannot be convinced otherwise by a tide of reasoning, consider the remote possibility that you really just don't know what you're talking about and maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.
>Lastly, your idiotic plan incentivizes companies to make zero profit on paper and simply embezzle all excess revenue at the behest of its directors.
Or you could just issue one ordinary share to each worker (including the 'owner') and pay the excess profits as dividends.
> Muh feels! Muh free market!
Wow and I thought I was being too edgy.
Look buddy you don't want any regulations on the market, you want complete freedom, but regulations are bound to happen.
It's like the country banning rape but yet you go against it saying "it's my human nature! You shouldn't control my freedom! Hitler controlled people's freedom see what happened to him now!"
It's time we recognize human greed as an obstacle to our improvement and we should no longer tolerate it as a tool to "get rich".
Plus these regulations don't hinder your progression, they mainly just force you to implement a fair system with no greed in it.
But it's okay I get what you're saying, and this is how it can work, both systems start working in the same society and we basically make people choose which system they prefer to work in, if many people choose the socialist program then that means it's a success but if not then that means it's a failure and we should go back to capitalism.
No one is forcing anyone else, we just give people more options and see what they prefer.
>But it's okay I get what you're saying, and this is how it can work, both systems start working in the same society and we basically make people choose which system they prefer to work in, if many people choose the socialist program then that means it's a success but if not then that means it's a failure and we should go back to capitalism.
>No one is forcing anyone else, we just give people more options and see what they prefer.
I'd love that. Unfortunately, leftists hate states' rights and want nothing but to expand socialist programs at the federal level. Of course, Republicans are guilty of expanding federal power too. We're fucked.
I start to understand the preppers now. Can't trust our own people to not A) Fuck us or B) be as thickheaded as>>1055157
The sculpture is the loser as he took such a small wage if the market value of his work is so high. Me let his work go at a deep discount, perhaps due to bids from competitors.
Fair cost for the rock and a very nice cut for the sale, but that's just how it is in that transaction. Who got hurt? Everyone got paid, and so will the farmer when they want food. So really we should talking about how we are all STEALING THE SUN AND WATER. This is what we should be trying to end, abuse of solar bodies and rape of natural cycles.
greed is what makes us want to become better, anon. if not for greed we'd all be in circles banging on bongo drums. sorry some of us want better in life. us making it to the moon was the result of our greed to get there before the Russians did. Us having cars was a result of our greed to want to travel more conveniently. iPods, phones, TV's, computers, easier travel and lodging accommodations are all a result of our greed to want these things. without greed there is no advancement.
sure some get pushed to the wayside because of greed. like the runt of the litter not being able to suckle on a teat because the other dogs are greedy and want all of the milk. sure that runt may die off or be smaller than the rest, its natural selection. nothing wrong with survival of the fittest at all. it brings us to new heights.
there was a time when there was no greed, well except for the church, they were the dark ages, a few centuries of zero innovation and growth. fuck that.
if there were a way for all of mankind to somehow come together for the greater good and everyone was motivated to improve the lives of each other, then it would be an amazing society. unfortunately we have a lot of parasites and leeches in our society who would make it near impossible for this to happen. so, those of us that are greedy and willing to do what must be done to get ahead will succeed and thrive. while those that wish for hand outs and a teat to suck off of will fail. if only everyone wanted better..
No, I'm not even done with how fucking dumb this scenario is.
So $70 is too much profit and you should share with the sculpture? What about the buyer? Is it not fair to give them a little back too?
Maybe it would just have been best to just sell it for $50? $10 for the rock, $20 to sculpt and $20 for you. Perfect, even, fair.
Again, I think of the buyer. If someone wanted it for $100, how many want it for $50? More? would they bid over each other for this one of a kind sculpt?
Your just so fucking narrow minded. "durr fix the system and be fair with distribution of wealth" What the fuck even is that?
>STEALING THE SUN AND WATER
This was a part of the physiocrats doctrine who saw the wealth accumulated by landowners as being derived from the sun and soil (this wasn't an environmental thing though). It's an interesting idea because if you think about it; what right does someone have to natural resources that they just receive access because they own the land? You could chalk it up to the value that they charge being the product of their labor upon the land, but what actually gives them the exclusive right to labor on that land? We've existed in a time when most workable land is already spoken for, but how did those people who currently own it manage to acquire it? It's like they received it from Santa in their sleep rather than having earned it. Some of the original advocates of free markets thought that the state would somehow either tax away the value derived from these unearned privileges, or just redistribute the lands to benefit the expansion of industry. It is weird to think that we went from this to the belief in the sacredness of private property being the cornerstone of a "functioning" free market, which is coincidentally exactly what the aristocrats resisting industrialization were pushing.
>if only everyone wanted better..
Everyone wants to live a good life, but frequently they've become so beaten down by the misery of society that they just give up.
Have you ever heard of those experiments they did on dogs where they kept shocking them to get them to perform a task? Eventually the dog would just lay down and take the shocks because it figured they would never end.
All those people you think of as leeches are the same as those dogs, shit everyone is the same as those dogs, if you keep getting beaten down eventually you stop giving a shit and just take the beating.
> Omg you're controlling the free market!
If he wants to sell it for $100 then you shouldn't set a price for it, you can't control the market like that.
And if you think that competition is that good that it should drive the economy then that's wrong, that means the companies will do whatever they can to provide cheaper materials and products for the market, they'd go far enough as to hire foreigners who work for less, this will lead to less pay for the workers.
Let's say I hire you for $20 an hour, but another Mexican guy offered to work for $12 an hour, then I'll kick you out and hire the Mexican, then you'll have to work for $10 in order for me to hire you, but then an Arabic guy says he will work for $5, so your pay went from $20 to $5 due to competition right? That's bad, this damages the society and only helps the owners of the companies itself, when we set a cap for minimum wage we are literally applying socialism, because eventually wages will be so low that you can't live off of them.
And right now you find people fighting against a higher minimum wage which doesn't make sense at all.
Isn't being a Cole miner a vital job in the system. Why should an innocent Cole miner be paid less for simply being born without as much mental capacity to remember hundreds of medical conditions.
This doesn't sound like socialism, more like capitalism.
If someone is damaging the society and hurting everyone then the society should either stop providing for him or help him work harder, becauae anyone who doesn't contribute or help the society shouldn't be a part of it.
If I joined a Skyrim club, but I refused to talk about skyrim while I just laid back and listened to music or played other things then I shouldn't even be a part of the club, and they have every right to kick me out.
> Cole miner
But no, we shouldn't pay them equally, we need intelligence and experience in the country, and we pay them differently to stimulate people to be more intelligent and hard working, if everyone earns the same then everyone can be the a mere worker and earn a similar pay.
>we pay them differently to stimulate people to be more intelligent and hard working
No, that's not why we pay them differently. Wages are not determined by how hard the person works, or how intelligent they need to be. Employers don't think about how much someone in a particular job deserves to get paid, as though there's some kind of moral dimension to it.
Under a capitalist system, labour is a commodity. You buy it for the cheapest price someone is willing to sell it for. The reason a particular job has a high or low wage is purely because of how much you would have to pay to find someone else willing and able to do it.
Many of the most difficult, dangerous and physically demanding jobs actually have very low wages. Without government intervention in the market (eg minimum wage laws), capitalism encourages businesses to adopt a labour structure focused on extremely hard jobs with low barriers to entry. The most straightforward example is a sweatshop. People work long hours doing difficult work in horrible conditions, and they get paid very little because there's a huge supply of desperate people who are capable of doing the work.
The reason people become doctors or lawyers rather than labourers isn't because they want to get paid more. It's because they don't want to be labourers. If you ask a doctor whether they'd prefer to be a coal miner if they'd get paid the same either way, the vast majority would say no.
>Many of the most difficult, dangerous and physically demanding jobs actually have very low wages
>The most straightforward example is a sweatshop
no, they dont, actually dangerous jobs have relatively higher wage and recieve extra benefits for their dangerous position
is the only shitty job example from the 3rd world? i mean you do know that people in sweatshops would be starving on the streets or doing subsistance farming if they hadnt had the job right? Even people like Krugman arent as delusional.
>The reason people become doctors or lawyers rather than labourers isn't because they want to get paid more
of course thats one of the main reasons why they wanted to become doctors in the 1st place. You are comparing doctors who make up the smartest population on earth and are capable to achieve self actualization in life with a sub90 iq coal worker. If this "doctor" would have passion for painting, but was rational enough to realize his painitng career would suck bring him starvation and low wage, he would give up being a doctor in an instant
>The "product" of their work is mostly just a debt burden on consumers rather than disbursement of much needed credit to keep the consumption-production cycle going.
Niggas are fucking morons b
>actually dangerous jobs have relatively higher wage and recieve extra benefits for their dangerous position
If all other factors were equal, you would expect a more dangerous job to have a higher wage, yes. But obviously the other factors are never equal, and many dangerous jobs are low-skilled (because it's hard to convince people with other options to do something dangerous).
>is the only shitty job example from the 3rd world?
It's the clearest example because it's pure capitalism, without government-imposed restrictions on pay and conditions. In a more highly developed country the state does not allow employers to treat workers quite that badly or pay them that little, which prevents it from happening on such a dramatic scale. But you still have difficult jobs that pay minimum wage because it's easy to find people who can do them.
>i mean you do know that people in sweatshops would be starving on the streets or doing subsistance farming if they hadnt had the job right?
Yes. Obviously they wouldn't accept the job if it wasn't better than their other options. That doesn't contradict anything I'm saying.
The point is that the difficulty of a job does not determine the wage; the market does. Capitalism does not pay people higher wages for doing harder or otherwise less desirable jobs. It only pays higher wages for skills which happen to be in high demand in the labour market. Those may or may not coincide with 'hard' jobs.
>It's the clearest example because it's pure capitalism, without government-imposed restrictions on pay and conditions.
can you name me a poor country where workers are treated nicely and paid a good salary?Or a rich country where workers are paid a very low salary and have bad conditions(that isd capitalistic)? no? well thats because good salary and safe work are a product of increase in production not MUHREGULATIONS.
>It's the clearest example because it's pure capitalism, without government-imposed restrictions on pay and conditions.
and which skills are in highly paid? difficult jobs that require lots of training, intelligence and commitment - engineers, doctors, lawyers, executives.
>can you name me a poor country where workers are treated nicely and paid a good salary?Or a rich country where workers are paid a very low salary and have bad conditions(that isd capitalistic)? no? well thats because good salary and safe work are a product of increase in production not MUHREGULATIONS.
The US is the obvious example of a rich country where workers are paid a very low salary. And it's the direct result of the fact that the US has a much lower minimum wage than most other developed countries.
China has both wealthy professionals and executives and dirt poor sweatshop workers.
I really don't think you've thought this through at all. I mean, what do you even mean by 'increased production'? You think countries like India don't have high levels of 'production'?
>and which skills are in highly paid? difficult jobs that require lots of training, intelligence and commitment - engineers, doctors, lawyers, executives
I'm a lawyer myself, and I wouldn't say it's an especially 'difficult' job really. It does require a lot of training, that's true. And the fact that we have to pay for a lot of that training ourselves is a factor in why lawyers expect somewhat high salaries (although most don't really earn that much).
In a communist system, you obviously wouldn't have to pay for your own education. Indeed you would be supported by the government to undertake that education. So why would someone mind about doing a job that required a lot of study? Study is easier than work.
Go write a blog or go to Tumblr or something.
If you want my input as a free-market capitalist and economist, do a search for "Veritas Regnum" and drop me an email at my blog and I'll respond back either with a post or an email.
I'll answer whatever you want to debate. I'd be happy to educate you on why socialism is literally the economic road to hell.
>Well can you tell me how to improve it?
abandon it altogether
for socialism/communism to work, you would first have to radically brainwash the entire population of your country into becoming inhuman automatons who no longer try acting in their own interest.
but - if it were even possible - when you do this, you suddenly have a country full of mindless drones that can't compete with any functional human society, so your project country will get dominated by foreign nations one way or another.
>Everyone wants to live a good life, but frequently they've become so beaten down by the misery of society that they just give up.
>Have you ever heard of those experiments they did on dogs where they kept shocking them to get them to perform a task? Eventually the dog would just lay down and take the shocks because it figured they would never end.
>All those people you think of as leeches are the same as those dogs, shit everyone is the same as those dogs, if you keep getting beaten down eventually you stop giving a shit and just take the beating.
you're so deluded and naive, it's awe-inspiring.
>bad people dont exist!
>its just the evils of society that make them do bad things!