Why Socialism is Necessary for Civilization - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15075762
ckaihatsu wrote:
Why shouldn't the U.S. just give that money to the *demand*-side of the economy, instead of to the *supply*-side of the economy? (This is a perfect opportunity for that 'redistribution of wealth' that you favor, UM.)



viewtopic.php?p=15075165#p15075165



Further on this topic, we're seeing the same 'trickle-down' *supply-side* economic policy implemented that was *discredited* back during Reagan:



the Federal Reserve announced $1.5 trillion in open market purchases.[214]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_stoc ... sday_(2020)




Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics." Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2]

The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[3][4]


It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.

— David Stockman, The Atlantic


Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth.[5][6] Trickle-down economics has been widely criticized particularly by left-wing, centre-left and moderate politicians and economists, but also some right-wing politicians.

A 2019 study in the Journal of Political Economy found, contrary to trickle-down theory, that "the positive relationship between tax cuts and employment growth is largely driven by tax cuts for lower-income groups and that the effect of tax cuts for the top 10 percent on employment growth is small."[7]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
#15075801
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, good to hear. So what do you think should be done about this:


You should be able to sue corporations, I suppose they can enter into contracts too. I assume they're trying to save innocent shareholders from liability because stupid things CEOs might do. I dunno. On the other hand, corporations shouldn't vote nor be allowed to donate to politicians or parties etc.

Okay -- so what should be done about *Iraq* these days, for example, particularly regarding the remaining U.S. military presence there?


Was very, very against the Iraq War. I don't know the situations there now, other than it's a sh!t-show, so even though ideally the US should be gone, when and how they leave has to be carefully considered because if they leave it will create a power vacuum. The last time Obama pulled a lot of troops out the power vacuum was filled by ISIS and Iran, among others. What you need is ideally a stable government there with strong enough institutions to maintain stability and security and keep out foreign influence. Easier said than done. Like I said, a sh!t-show. Similar to Afghanistan.

Well, what do you think about Marx's 'alienation' / exploitation, and about the *actual history* -- ?


Corporations screw around in weaker countries. They exploit them. It's a product of power, capitalism or not. Since the international system is anarchic, international law can't easily be enforced. If businesses were democratic I don't know whether or not or how it would change things. People vote for governments that mess around with other weaker countries too. So maybe it would change things, or maybe it would just create a different dynamic of exploitation, or maybe it wouldn't change much at all.
#15075810
ckaihatsu wrote:Why shouldn't the U.S. just give that money to the *demand*-side of the economy, instead of to the *supply*-side of the economy? (This is a perfect opportunity for that 'redistribution of wealth' that you favor, UM.)


It would seem to make sense to just give all that bailout money to regular people to stimulate the economy. But you also have to realize how dire the situation was during the great recession meltdown. If banks failed, millions of people's life savings are wiped out. If the big insurance companies fail, the money they have in the bank that are insured is no longer insured. You also lead to a massive loss in jobs.

You can criticize bailing out ie: auto companies. That means jobs are gone, but why support a company that's dying? Why not let it die? But when giant banks and insurance companies start to fail you're talking about the finances of the country collapsing. Systemic failure in 1929 wasn't exactly good for the working class. What they should have done is break up the "too big to fail" companies, but they didn't because of political corruption and the donations of the rich.

Further on this topic, we're seeing the same 'trickle-down' *supply-side* economic policy implemented that was *discredited* back during Reagan:


Reagan trickle-down was moronic. I'm not an economic conservative, i'm probably left-of-center. I'm left of Biden, probably less left than Bernie Sanders. I'm no longer a communist. I'm for universal healthcare and very subsidizes education, like Canada. I'm not for rearranging the entire economy and putting countless livelihoods at risk based on theory with little/no evidence. Any new economic system should be tested on a small scale, and only implemented on a bigger scale if evidence suggests it works better. So far history and statistics shows a healthy mix of capitalism with a strong social welfare state works best.
#15075916
Unthinking Majority wrote:
You should be able to sue corporations, I suppose they can enter into contracts too. I assume they're trying to save innocent shareholders from liability because stupid things CEOs might do. I dunno. On the other hand, corporations shouldn't vote nor be allowed to donate to politicians or parties etc.



Okay, the *politics* that I'm raising with all of this is that *corporate* personhood is often favored at the expense of *human* personhood, meaning that corporate rights often conflict with *civil* rights.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh-in on this latter part of the excerpt:



In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exempted Hobby Lobby from aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because those aspects placed a substantial burden on the company's owners' free exercise of closely held religious beliefs.[3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Was very, very against the Iraq War. I don't know the situations there now, other than it's a sh!t-show, so even though ideally the US should be gone, when and how they leave has to be carefully considered because if they leave it will create a power vacuum. The last time Obama pulled a lot of troops out the power vacuum was filled by ISIS and Iran, among others. What you need is ideally a stable government there with strong enough institutions to maintain stability and security and keep out foreign influence. Easier said than done. Like I said, a sh!t-show. Similar to Afghanistan.



Okay, I basically agree, but I'll add that if the U.S. / 'international community' is serious about rectifying the country of Iraq, given the destruction it's already meted out there, then such efforts can readily be undertaken since the U.S. certainly has sufficient *resources* for rebuilding -- it's the *least* it can do, considering all of the destruction and death that it caused there in the first decade of the 21st century.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Corporations screw around in weaker countries. They exploit them. It's a product of power, capitalism or not. Since the international system is anarchic, international law can't easily be enforced. If businesses were democratic I don't know whether or not or how it would change things. People vote for governments that mess around with other weaker countries too. So maybe it would change things, or maybe it would just create a different dynamic of exploitation, or maybe it wouldn't change much at all.



Okay -- I'll point out that corporations are an outgrowth of capitalism, the way the Internet is an outgrowth of computers.

Would you *favor* a strengthening of international law so that policies like genocide, as in Myanmar, can be adequately addressed and prosecuted?



Currently, the Office of the Prosecutor has opened investigations in 12 situations: Burundi; two in the Central African Republic; Côte d'Ivoire; Darfur, Sudan; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Georgia; Kenya; Libya; Mali; Uganda; and Bangladesh/Myanmar.[170] Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor is conducting preliminary examinations in ten situations in Afghanistan; Bangladesh/Myanmar; Colombia; Guinea; Iraq / the United Kingdom; Nigeria; Palestine; the Philippines; Ukraine; and Venezuela on events since April 2017.[171][172] Preliminary investigations were closed in Gabon; Honduras; registered vessels of Comoros, Greece, and Cambodia; South Korea; and Venezuela on events since 1 July 2002.[171]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... inal_Court



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
It would seem to make sense to just give all that bailout money to regular people to stimulate the economy. But you also have to realize how dire the situation was during the great recession meltdown. If banks failed, millions of people's life savings are wiped out. If the big insurance companies fail, the money they have in the bank that are insured is no longer insured. You also lead to a massive loss in jobs.



This is a contradictory statement -- either people have life savings from past income, or they can receive bailout money, which is the backing of the U.S. (etc.) government(s), the way that Wall Street is used to receiving. The money can't *both* go to bailing out consumers, *and* go to banking balance sheets, because any given dollar can't do double-duty like that.

Banks obviously fail, repeatedly, over the decades, so a demand-sided bailout sounds much better at this point in time -- several banks were briefly nationalized during the 2008-2009 bank bailout, so maybe that should be done again, and made *permanent* since *financial* institutions keep fucking up. Just as we could have a 'single-payer' for health care, there could be a single administration for all demand (money-type matters) instead of the prevailing anarchy that we have today, of private finance institutions.

Jobs can be created by the government (public / state sector), just as can be created by the private sector.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
You can criticize bailing out ie: auto companies. That means jobs are gone, but why support a company that's dying? Why not let it die? But when giant banks and insurance companies start to fail you're talking about the finances of the country collapsing. Systemic failure in 1929 wasn't exactly good for the working class. What they should have done is break up the "too big to fail" companies, but they didn't because of political corruption and the donations of the rich.



Okay, good to hear it -- you're basically acknowledging that a plutocracy exists.

Do you have any objections to the *workers* of those workplaces, as in the U.S. auto industry, taking over those bankrupt / failing companies, to collectively run them as they see fit? (The infrastructure is still functional, and could be activated to make cars, etc. -- productivity.)


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Reagan trickle-down was moronic. I'm not an economic conservative, i'm probably left-of-center. I'm left of Biden, probably less left than Bernie Sanders. I'm no longer a communist. I'm for universal healthcare and very subsidizes education, like Canada. I'm not for rearranging the entire economy and putting countless livelihoods at risk based on theory with little/no evidence. Any new economic system should be tested on a small scale, and only implemented on a bigger scale if evidence suggests it works better. So far history and statistics shows a healthy mix of capitalism with a strong social welfare state works best.



I think this is the standard knee-jerk response, unfortunately -- people immediately think 'Stalinism' when they think 'socialism'. While I tacitly / tactically support radical-reforms like nationalization, and worker-collective-run workplaces / factories, without compensation to existing private owners, I think that ultimately there's a *political* point to be made and realized, which is workers' control of social production for the entire *world*.

These material-type dynamics, like production, are *not* geography-specific, and so everyone needs to realize and acknowledge that the reigning plutocracy needs to be politically *overthrown* so that workers collectivation can take place everywhere at once.
#15076639
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, the *politics* that I'm raising with all of this is that *corporate* personhood is often favored at the expense of *human* personhood, meaning that corporate rights often conflict with *civil* rights.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh-in on this latter part of the excerpt:


I don't know enough about the Hobby Lobby case. I don't have the time or energy to read up on it, sorry.

Okay -- I'll point out that corporations are an outgrowth of capitalism, the way the Internet is an outgrowth of computers.


I mean maybe, I don't know.

Would you *favor* a strengthening of international law so that policies like genocide, as in Myanmar, can be adequately addressed and prosecuted?


Genocide is already against international law. It's hard to prosecute them because the international system is anarchic. In other words there's no world government police force that will go into these countries and arrest people like there are police on our streets. We basically need coalitions in the UN or whatnot to agree to go in militarily. UNSC was kind of supposed to do that (collective security). UN peacekeepers keep the peace, their job isn't to stop war currently going on.

This is a contradictory statement -- either people have life savings from past income, or they can receive bailout money, which is the backing of the U.S. (etc.) government(s), the way that Wall Street is used to receiving. The money can't *both* go to bailing out consumers, *and* go to banking balance sheets, because any given dollar can't do double-duty like that.

Banks obviously fail, repeatedly, over the decades, so a demand-sided bailout sounds much better at this point in time -- several banks were briefly nationalized during the 2008-2009 bank bailout, so maybe that should be done again, and made *permanent* since *financial* institutions keep fucking up. Just as we could have a 'single-payer' for health care, there could be a single administration for all demand (money-type matters) instead of the prevailing anarchy that we have today, of private finance institutions.


Well that's an interesting idea. I suppose you could bail out people's live savings rather than the banks. The problem with that is it would be much cheaper to inject liquidity into a bank to stabilize it rather than paying out every single person who has money in that bank if it fails. A government can also bail out banks and companies in exchange for shares, which can then be sold so they get their money back, or they can loan the bank money to be paid back. But corruption prevents these things sometimes.

Jobs can be created by the government (public / state sector), just as can be created by the private sector.


Sure, just not on the same mass level with the same success. The invisible hand of supply and demand is very effective at creating jobs efficiently, as long as you have enough regulation to protect workers and stabilize the system.

Okay, good to hear it -- you're basically acknowledging that a plutocracy exists.


Yes it does.

Do you have any objections to the *workers* of those workplaces, as in the U.S. auto industry, taking over those bankrupt / failing companies, to collectively run them as they see fit? (The infrastructure is still functional, and could be activated to make cars, etc. -- productivity.


How? The workers are free to all chip in and buy their own companies. Do you want the gov to buy the companies and then give them to workers? If there's evidence of this working, especially on a wide scale, i'd be for it. Not many people are in favour of all these billionaires owning so much of the wealth. I'm in favour of some kind of redistribution.

I think this is the standard knee-jerk response, unfortunately -- people immediately think 'Stalinism' when they think 'socialism'. While I tacitly / tactically support radical-reforms like nationalization, and worker-collective-run workplaces / factories, without compensation to existing private owners, I think that ultimately there's a *political* point to be made and realized, which is workers' control of social production for the entire *world*.

These material-type dynamics, like production, are *not* geography-specific, and so everyone needs to realize and acknowledge that the reigning plutocracy needs to be politically *overthrown* so that workers collectivation can take place everywhere at once.


I'm not in favour of mass nationalization of companies/industries. Some nationalization is ok, like utilities and whatnot. But i think private citizens generally do a much better job of allocating resources and making decisions that affect them than governments. I also don't want to give government even more power. That's why i'd favour more worker ownership, if it worked. Give the workers the power, rather than the rich and government.
#15076756
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, the *politics* that I'm raising with all of this is that *corporate* personhood is often favored at the expense of *human* personhood, meaning that corporate rights often conflict with *civil* rights.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh-in on this latter part of the excerpt:



Unthinking Majority wrote:
I don't know enough about the Hobby Lobby case. I don't have the time or energy to read up on it, sorry.



Okay, I brought it up because it's a telling test for where a person's politics are. Do you think that corporate 'rights' are often favored at the expense of people's *civil* rights?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay -- I'll point out that corporations are an outgrowth of capitalism, the way the Internet is an outgrowth of computers.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
I mean maybe, I don't know.



Are you familiar with mergers and acquisitions? It's how corporations rise out of smaller businesses, in any given market or industry.



Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are transactions in which the ownership of companies, other business organizations, or their operating units are transferred or consolidated with other entities. As an aspect of strategic management, M&A can allow enterprises to grow or downsize, and change the nature of their business or competitive position.

From a legal point of view, a merger is a legal consolidation of two entities into one, whereas an acquisition occurs when one entity takes ownership of another entity's stock, equity interests or assets. From a commercial and economic point of view, both types of transactions generally result in the consolidation of assets and liabilities under one entity, and the distinction between a "merger" and an "acquisition" is less clear. A transaction legally structured as an acquisition may have the effect of placing one party's business under the indirect ownership of the other party's shareholders, while a transaction legally structured as a merger may give each party's shareholders partial ownership and control of the combined enterprise. A deal may be euphemistically called a merger of equals if both CEOs agree that joining together is in the best interest of both of their companies, while when the deal is unfriendly (that is, when the management of the target company opposes the deal) it may be regarded as an "acquisition".



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Would you *favor* a strengthening of international law so that policies like genocide, as in Myanmar, can be adequately addressed and prosecuted?




Currently, the Office of the Prosecutor has opened investigations in 12 situations: Burundi; two in the Central African Republic; Côte d'Ivoire; Darfur, Sudan; the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Georgia; Kenya; Libya; Mali; Uganda; and Bangladesh/Myanmar.[170] Additionally, the Office of the Prosecutor is conducting preliminary examinations in ten situations in Afghanistan; Bangladesh/Myanmar; Colombia; Guinea; Iraq / the United Kingdom; Nigeria; Palestine; the Philippines; Ukraine; and Venezuela on events since April 2017.[171][172] Preliminary investigations were closed in Gabon; Honduras; registered vessels of Comoros, Greece, and Cambodia; South Korea; and Venezuela on events since 1 July 2002.[171]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... inal_Court



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Genocide is already against international law. It's hard to prosecute them because the international system is anarchic. In other words there's no world government police force that will go into these countries and arrest people like there are police on our streets. We basically need coalitions in the UN or whatnot to agree to go in militarily. UNSC was kind of supposed to do that (collective security). UN peacekeepers keep the peace, their job isn't to stop war currently going on.



What do you think of the International Criminal Court?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is a contradictory statement -- either people have life savings from past income, or they can receive bailout money, which is the backing of the U.S. (etc.) government(s), the way that Wall Street is used to receiving. The money can't *both* go to bailing out consumers, *and* go to banking balance sheets, because any given dollar can't do double-duty like that.

Banks obviously fail, repeatedly, over the decades, so a demand-sided bailout sounds much better at this point in time -- several banks were briefly nationalized during the 2008-2009 bank bailout, so maybe that should be done again, and made *permanent* since *financial* institutions keep fucking up. Just as we could have a 'single-payer' for health care, there could be a single administration for all demand (money-type matters) instead of the prevailing anarchy that we have today, of private finance institutions.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Well that's an interesting idea. I suppose you could bail out people's live savings rather than the banks. The problem with that is it would be much cheaper to inject liquidity into a bank to stabilize it rather than paying out every single person who has money in that bank if it fails. A government can also bail out banks and companies in exchange for shares, which can then be sold so they get their money back, or they can loan the bank money to be paid back. But corruption prevents these things sometimes.



Well then why didn't this action plan work in 2008-2009? We're back at the same crisis all over again now, in 2020 -- that's why I suggested that the nationalization of banking, and the bailout of *consumers* -- particularly for life-critical needs -- be done *centrally*, by government, *instead* of tending to piecemeal bank balance sheets for the same.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Jobs can be created by the government (public / state sector), just as can be created by the private sector.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Sure, just not on the same mass level with the same success. The invisible hand of supply and demand is very effective at creating jobs efficiently, as long as you have enough regulation to protect workers and stabilize the system.



No, I can't agree -- there are too many jobs losses and the statistical disinclusion of 'non-job-seekers' in the unemployment statistic for your statement to be true.

Government can create jobs, directed at providing for social needs, in a way that the private sector simply *cannot*, because of the bribe / premium it charges, known as 'profit'. A good example would be Venezuela:



In a bold and historic move, this factory was taken over by the workers themselves during the presidency of Hugo Chavez in 2005. The previously laid off workers formed a new team under self-management and breathed life into the printing presses, to serve the children of Venezuela.

The print workers make notebooks, maps, composition books and other paper products for over 6 million Venezuelan school children. Each child in Venezuela gets a backpack with school supplies for free.



Venezuela: American Teamsters tour printing factory

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2020/3/17/ ... ng-factory



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, good to hear it -- you're basically acknowledging that a plutocracy exists.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
Yes it does.



As a follow-up, what do you think can be done, and by whom, to prevent this continued plutocratic rule by the rich?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you have any objections to the *workers* of those workplaces, as in the U.S. auto industry, taking over those bankrupt / failing companies, to collectively run them as they see fit? (The infrastructure is still functional, and could be activated to make cars, etc. -- productivity.)



Unthinking Majority wrote:
How? The workers are free to all chip in and buy their own companies. Do you want the gov to buy the companies and then give them to workers? If there's evidence of this working, especially on a wide scale, i'd be for it. Not many people are in favour of all these billionaires owning so much of the wealth. I'm in favour of some kind of redistribution.



You've *said* previously that you're in favor of 'some kind of redistribution', but you haven't followed-up with any proposals or *details* for this. You're being *vague* -- how exactly should it be accomplished?

The *problem* with offering any compensation to the current owners of productive facilities (factories, workplaces), is that such financing becomes an economic barrier to the workers running and controlling their own workplaces. They're the ones doing the actual productive work, and all of the equipment and infrastructure that exists everywhere is due to such *past* efforts by workers, so they need to just be able to *take over* such productivity without financial or bourgeois-authoritarian hassles.

The well-known professor Richard Wolff has the politics that you describe, basically calling for a *nationalization* of factories / workplaces, for workers to then run, but he doesn't go far enough because he doesn't challenge the status-quo of capitalism *politically*. Any workplaces that are worker-run will *still* be subject to the same economic dynamics of competition in the marketplace, which is a *bad* thing now that society has sufficient productive capacity to just directly supply *everyone* with a decent standard of living. Market competition, and capitalism itself, are outmoded and need to be overthrown by the working class, worldwide.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I think this is the standard knee-jerk response, unfortunately -- people immediately think 'Stalinism' when they think 'socialism'. While I tacitly / tactically support radical-reforms like nationalization, and worker-collective-run workplaces / factories, without compensation to existing private owners, I think that ultimately there's a *political* point to be made and realized, which is workers' control of social production for the entire *world*.

These material-type dynamics, like production, are *not* geography-specific, and so everyone needs to realize and acknowledge that the reigning plutocracy needs to be politically *overthrown* so that workers collectivation can take place everywhere at once.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
I'm not in favour of mass nationalization of companies/industries. Some nationalization is ok, like utilities and whatnot. But i think private citizens generally do a much better job of allocating resources and making decisions that affect them than governments. I also don't want to give government even more power. That's why i'd favour more worker ownership, if it worked. Give the workers the power, rather than the rich and government.



But, as I just mentioned, worker-owned workplaces is *not* 'power' -- it's the power to have to then compete according to the norms of the marketplace, which would simply lead such worker-owned businesses to *self-exploit* -- whenever revenue from one of these businesses would come in, the decision would have to be made as to whether that revenue went to the *company*, or to the workers' *wages*, the same as with the company being owned and controlled by professional capitalists.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



You've stated that a plutocracy exists, and that you're for some kind of redistribution of wealth. You may want to elaborate more on these two topics.
#15076764
Just a reminder, kids, all (every last one of them) modern economies are mixed.

So the debate is always about the best balance between public and private, in a particular country.

The corona virus is about to teach us a lesson about that..
#15076765
late wrote:
Just a reminder, kids, all (every last one of them) modern economies are mixed.

So the debate is always about the best balance between public and private, in a particular country.

The corona virus is about to teach us a lesson about that..



No, late, this is *not* the case -- the private sector / market mechanism is good for handling conditions of *scarcity*, such as in the historical transition from feudal relations to bourgeois ones, but since then we've had *industrialization*, and that creates *immense quantities* of goods and services which capitalist economics can't distribute equitably or evenly, because of the inherent massive accumulations of wealth at the very top.

Global society has to address this outstanding 'income equality' that favors the already-rich with ever more wealth, at the expense of everyone else. While I don't agree with John Stossel's overall politics, he did make a relevant video:


Freeloaders: The Wealthy




And, as I just mentioned to UM:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Government can create jobs, directed at providing for social needs, in a way that the private sector simply *cannot*, because of the bribe / premium it charges, known as 'profit'. A good example would be Venezuela:
#15076808
late wrote:Just a reminder, kids, all (every last one of them) modern economies are mixed.

So the debate is always about the best balance between public and private, in a particular country.


I totally agree with this. Most western countries do a pretty good job. The US needs a bit more regulation and socialism, especially in education and healthcare.
#15077046
late wrote:
If that's not the case, then the economy is not mixed. That is, no capitalism, what you have a command economy like the USSR.

Is that what you meant?



Well it's certainly *getting* there -- from my far-left perspective, which basically lumps the Democrats and Republicans in together as the 'bourgeoisie' / ruling-class, there are *plenty* of national policies that have not been put to the public, as through referendums, for democratic decision-making. The immigration policy comes to mind immediately, also ties with Saudi Arabia, Israel, the $1.5 trillion sop to the markets, etc.

So, yes, I'd say on all major policy decisions the U.S., and other countries, *do* act as 'command economies' -- I've even said-so previously on this thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Present-day U.S. policy has put up tariff walls of up to 25% against China imports, which is essentially a *command economy* over international trade agreements, and over the so-called 'free market' itself. So I was wondering which you would favor -- Trump's rule by *diktat* over the international economy / markets, or the previously *unimpeded* international trade between the U.S. and China.



viewtopic.php?p=15027566#p15027566
#15077048
ckaihatsu wrote:
So, yes, I'd say on all major policy decisions the U.S., and other countries, *do* act as 'command economies' -- I've even said-so previously on this thread



That's a dodge.

All modern economies are a mix of private and public, so are you advocating a command economy?
#15077055
late wrote:
That's a dodge.

All modern economies are a mix of private and public, so are you advocating a command economy?



I'm not dodging *anything* -- to clarify, I'm saying that your so-called 'mix of private and public' is *not substantive* as a description, since it's state / national policy that overrides and shapes the form of the private sector, as with allowing corporate personhood, imperialist conquest, and shutting down eat-in dining as a preventative measure around the coronavirus (a *good* thing).

So, again, to state it differently, politics and political actions are all aimed at *government policy*, because that's what's *substantive*, and could be called a 'command economy' these days due to the lack of any per-policy democracy.

What *you're* doing is conflating economics (public and private), with *politics*, as with the current specialized bourgeois bureaucratic state apparatus, which overrode a recount in the 2000 presidential election by having the Supreme Court hand victory to Bush, resulting in the destruction and mass-murder of Iraqi people, under the imperialist pretext of 'weapons of mass destruction', without proof.

Would you consider *militaristic* actions by the nation-state to be 'a command economy', or not?
#15077060
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not dodging *anything* -- to clarify, I'm saying that your so-called 'mix of private and public' is *not substantive* as a description



You didn't answer the question, so I will assume the answer is yes.

The rather depressing reality is what you described has been a part of capitalism from the beginning. While most know how the petty nobles in Italy used the new abilities of the financial sector to bankrupt themselves, that was just the beginning.

A recent history looked at the influence of the military, in England, in the development of the economy, and of technology. Her conclusion was that the military was a primary driver of development.

Sorry, I've forgotten the name of the book. I wish I could find it.
#15077412
late wrote:
You didn't answer the question, so I will assume the answer is yes.



Well, I *did* answer the question, though:


late wrote:
If that's not the case, then the economy is not mixed. That is, no capitalism, what you have a command economy like the USSR.

Is that what you meant?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Well it's certainly *getting* there



viewtopic.php?p=15077046#p15077046



---


To clarify, I guess I'd prefer 'public / state' and 'private', to 'capitalism-and-socialism' -- facile use of the term 'socialism' only *misleads*, when what's *really* meant is 'social democracy' / reformism / liberalism. Socialism, strictly, means the control of mass production by the world's working class.


late wrote:
The rather depressing reality is what you described has been a part of capitalism from the beginning. While most know how the petty nobles in Italy used the new abilities of the financial sector to bankrupt themselves, that was just the beginning.

A recent history looked at the influence of the military, in England, in the development of the economy, and of technology. Her conclusion was that the military was a primary driver of development.

Sorry, I've forgotten the name of the book. I wish I could find it.



Yes, I know from past postings that you understand better than you let on.

May I ask what your politics are?
#15077414
ckaihatsu wrote:
May I ask what your politics are?



Progressive.

Let's say we wave a magic wand and, poof, I am king.

First thing I do is increase the budget of NASA by a factor of ten. The first step would be to go back to NASA's original plan for a ring of satellites to do precision measurement of climate change.

Second step is develop a better way to get into Space. The criteria is cheaper, safer and able to launch every day.

The third would be to start work on a lunar base that would be the first step to a permanent rotating station at L5. That would have to be a multinational effort.

Weren't expecting that, were you.

Next up would be a raft of social programs. If you've read my posts, you should have an idea, I don't want to type that much. Something I've been talking about for a couple decades is a program to get poor kids into STEM. But for doctors, we go full boat. A poor kid can get the cost covered by agreeing to be a GP for a decade.

Next, try to rebuild the damaged bureaucracies. That wouldn't be easy, even if I had all the power. Trump has totally fucked us over.

Undo all the crazy shit Republicans have done with taxes since 1980.

Start a Carbon Tax that adds 15 cents a year to the cost of gas and other carbon fuels. It would take over a decade just to catch up to Britains gas tax.

Start work on a Smart Grid plan, which would include building a few of the new nuclear plant designs. Not sure which design, but there would only be a few. They would power the biggest cities as part of the overall plan to reduce carbon emissions.

There are a couple pet projects I'd like to fund. One would be to develop small electrical vehicles. The technology is inching in that direction, but it's a sizeable market that needs to be developed, and good business for the country that develops it.

Do you know how you can use a computer to link a few telescopes together to create a huge virtual telescope? I'd like to do that in Space. The same way Hubble was a million times more powerful, we could get that kind of improvement across the spectrum.

Lastly, I'd set up Federal standards for a wide variety of things. Our food standards were stuck in the 1970s, but since Republicans got the country by the short hairs, they've been getting worse. Ditto for education. But I'd love to require bicycle friendly policies. If we made cycling safe, that would be good for the country several ways.

Ahh, almost forgot, I'd set up an independent election authority like the British Boundaries Commission. But I'd also give it authority to regulate how voting is conducted. Republicans steal far too many elections.
#15077419
late wrote:
Progressive.

Let's say we wave a magic wand and, poof, I am king.

First thing I do is increase the budget of NASA by a factor of ten. The first step would be to go back to NASA's original plan for a ring of satellites to do precision measurement of climate change.

Second step is develop a better way to get into Space. The criteria is cheaper, safer and able to launch every day.

The third would be to start work on a lunar base that would be the first step to a permanent rotating station at L5. That would have to be a multinational effort.

Weren't expecting that, were you.



Astounded and enthralled.


x D


late wrote:
Next up would be a raft of social programs.



The social programs are a runner-up to *space* -- ?

So we should prioritize *escaping earth*??


late wrote:
If you've read my posts, you should have an idea, I don't want to type that much. Something I've been talking about for a couple decades is a program to get poor kids into STEM. But for doctors, we go full boat. A poor kid can get the cost covered by agreeing to be a GP for a decade.

Next, try to rebuild the damaged bureaucracies. That wouldn't be easy, even if I had all the power. Trump has totally fucked us over.

Undo all the crazy shit Republicans have done with taxes since 1980.

Start a Carbon Tax that adds 15 cents a year to the cost of gas and other carbon fuels. It would take over a decade just to catch up to Britains gas tax.

Start work on a Smart Grid plan, which would include building a few of the new nuclear plant designs. Not sure which design, but there would only be a few. They would power the biggest cities as part of the overall plan to reduce carbon emissions.



Anything to say about thorium?


late wrote:
There are a couple pet projects I'd like to fund. One would be to develop small electrical vehicles. The technology is inching in that direction, but it's a sizeable market that needs to be developed, and good business for the country that develops it.

Do you know how you can use a computer to link a few telescopes together to create a huge virtual telescope? I'd like to do that in Space. The same way Hubble was a million times more powerful, we could get that kind of improvement across the spectrum.

Lastly, I'd set up Federal standards for a wide variety of things. Our food standards were stuck in the 1970s, but since Republicans got the country by the short hairs, they've been getting worse. Ditto for education. But I'd love to require bicycle friendly policies. If we made cycling safe, that would be good for the country several ways.

Ahh, almost forgot, I'd set up an independent election authority like the British Boundaries Commission. But I'd also give it authority to regulate how voting is conducted. Republicans steal far too many elections.



Well, being a revolutionary, I'm all for these *incremental* proposals, but *very* skeptical that they would take place under the current system that we're in, meaning capitalism and the capitalist state bureaucracy, all the way up to the president, etc.

I've even heard from environmentalist activists their estimation that tackling climate change isn't possible under the current setup, and that socialism would have to prevail for global climate change to even be addressed appropriately.

On the other hand, there's this -- care to comment?



GANS is the abbreviation for "GAs in Nano-state of Solid." The Keshe Foundation has developed a method by which Carbon Dioxide (CO2) can be extracted from the air by simple means and converted into a solid state in the nano-meter range (nano-state of solid). Production of CO2 GANS results when Carbon in the air joins with Oxygen of a Salt water solution. Within a kind of Plasma bubble, consisting of Magnetical and Gravitational fields, this conjunction is brought into a crystalline form. These crystals absorb light (the fields) and store and release them according to demand. Each crystal is like a sun! Nano-materials in GANS state are the most superconductive materials we have ever known.



https://en.kfwiki.org/wiki/Category:GANS
#15077421
ckaihatsu wrote:


1) The social programs are a runner-up to *space* -- ?

2) So we should prioritize *escaping earth*??

3)Anything to say about thorium?


4)Well, being a revolutionary, I'm all for these *incremental* proposals, but *very* skeptical that they would take place under the current system that we're in, meaning capitalism and the capitalist state bureaucracy, all the way up to the president, etc.

5) I've even heard from environmentalist activists their estimation that tackling climate change isn't possible under the current setup, and that socialism would have to prevail for global climate change to even be addressed appropriately.

6) On the other hand, there's this -- care to comment?



1) No, completely separate.

2) No, it will take generations to do that. As the tech evolves, so will our abilities. I would like us to develop towards mining the Belt. But I see that as robotic, we have a long ways to go before we are talking real colonies, even on the Moon.

3) Yeah, if thorium turns out to be practical, it would be the best option.

4) I share your scepticism.

5) Maybe, not sure there is any way to get the species to grow a brain and stop committing suicide. BTW, I wasn't being entirely figurative there. Been wondering if we should develop a smarter human.

6) Never heard of it.
#15077487
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I brought it up because it's a telling test for where a person's politics are. Do you think that corporate 'rights' are often favored at the expense of people's *civil* rights?


People's rights are far more important than rights of corporations. Corporations aren't people, they are business entities and should be treated as such.

What do you think of the International Criminal Court?


I like it, even if it's hard to enforce. There should be an international punishment mechanism for government officials who commit war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

Well then why didn't this action plan work in 2008-2009? We're back at the same crisis all over again now, in 2020 -- that's why I suggested that the nationalization of banking, and the bailout of *consumers* -- particularly for life-critical needs -- be done *centrally*, by government, *instead* of tending to piecemeal bank balance sheets for the same.


It did work. It stabilized the banks and the economy and then the economy recovered and GDP and markets went on to reach fantastic new record highs and continually climbed for the next 12 years on a remarkable bull market run (only interrupted by a virus), with the lowest unemployment rates of the last 40 years or so.

We're back to another economic contraction because of a virus that is temporarily reducing commerce. It has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism, and concerts, sports leagues, stores, restaurants etc would be temporarily shutting down just the same if everything was nationalized and socialism in place.

No, I can't agree -- there are too many jobs losses and the statistical disinclusion of 'non-job-seekers' in the unemployment statistic for your statement to be true.


What job losses do you refer? I don't understand any of this statement, explain.

Government can create jobs, directed at providing for social needs, in a way that the private sector simply *cannot*, because of the bribe / premium it charges, known as 'profit'. A good example would be Venezuela:


Central planning sucks at allocating resources and jobs on a wide scale. It's terrible. They screw up all the time. They are also prone to corruption. This has been proven over and over. It's led to mass inefficiencies, and when they screw up millions have starved to death. You want bureaucrats to do what private citizens have been doing by themselves. You want to transfer massive power from private citizens to government, which is frightening and damn foolsih, and they don't even do nearly as good a job and historically exploit and cause suffering far, FAR more than corporations have.

If they as government did as good a job as businesses in economics, countries would already be doing it. If they did, China wouldn't have needed to enact all those capitalist market reforms and blossomed as a result, and the USSR wouldn't have imploded under its own misallocation of resources and corruption.

You use Venezuela as an example, which is a joke. Have you been seeing what's been happening there the last few years? Competition creates efficiencies, because if you aren't efficient you can't compete, and if you can't compete then you go out of business. This is beautiful. Adapt or GTFO. If you're too corrupt, too inefficient, create products people don't want, and/or you waste money on a large scale you go out of business. It's wonderful.

As a follow-up, what do you think can be done, and by whom, to prevent this continued plutocratic rule by the rich?


You suggestions: do not let businesses able to make political donations. You limit political donations to an amount per year any average citizen could contribute, like say $500. You tightly regulate and restrict political lobbying, you keep it all on the books and transparent, ie: all lobbying must be registered, and maybe everything said should be put on public record.

You also put tight controls on conflict of interests. ie: politicians recently out of office can't become lobbyists or work for corporations in an industry that would unfairly benefit from their political access or knowledge etc.

You've *said* previously that you're in favor of 'some kind of redistribution', but you haven't followed-up with any proposals or *details* for this. You're being *vague* -- how exactly should it be accomplished?


Mainly what many western countries have done (besides the USA). Although I'd probably tax the very wealthy more. You could reduce taxes on the non-wealthy and/or implement social programs.

This includes implementing universal healthcare operated mostly by the private sector, well regulated, but medical claims paid for my the state. You could introduce universal dental and pharmacare too if there was enough tax money from the wealthy. Also have universal grade-school education and highly subsidized post-secondary education to keep costs low like in Canada. Most education organizations would also either be mandated to be non-profit orgs and/or regulated to keep tuition costs reasonable in comparison to operating costs. Healthcare and post-secondary schools would have low user fees, dispensing costs, and tuition fees in order to make them extremely affordable but not quite free in order to distinctive abuse.

The well-known professor Richard Wolff has the politics that you describe, basically calling for a *nationalization* of factories / workplaces, for workers to then run, but he doesn't go far enough because he doesn't challenge the status-quo of capitalism *politically*. Any workplaces that are worker-run will *still* be subject to the same economic dynamics of competition in the marketplace, which is a *bad* thing now that society has sufficient productive capacity to just directly supply *everyone* with a decent standard of living. Market competition, and capitalism itself, are outmoded and need to be overthrown by the working class, worldwide.


They've been saying that for almost 200 years since Marx. Market competition ensures efficiency and keeps costs low, naturally eliminates production of goods/services not wanted by people and naturally gives great incentive to produce and invent goods/services people want and to continually improve those goods/services. Competition, as you seem to agree, is a good and necessary thing. Nature is predicated on a "survival of the fittest" model, and economics benefits from following suit. Charity and being "nice" only goes as far as people willing to be charitable and nice, and many times they are but many times they aren't and human nature can't and won't be changed. Humans are often self-interested. Even priests molest altar boys and get drunk on church wine.

I'd be ok with worker-run and worker-owned companies. But you need to test it and you need evidence it works. Co-ops are perfectly legal to run and if there are any practical examples out there on a large or medium scale i'd like to see them, where they can be as productive and efficient as private companies.

You are a self-described revolutionary. The problem with revolutionaries is that they have good intentions but have the arrogance to think they can solve all of societies ills with nothing but their naive untested ideas, and it often leads to much suffering when the plans don't quite work out. You are very dangerous because you have all these theories, untested on a large-scale, and you're willing to transform our economy without knowing how it will work out. It could easily turn out poorly, and if it turns out to be less effective than the current market economy you're talking about destroying jobs, businesses, careers, life-savings, livelihoods etc, as has been the case with communism so many times. So if you're going to implement "revolutionary change" that will have revolutionary consequences, good or bad, you better be DAMN SURE you know what you're doing, you better have rock-solid real-world evidence that the system you propose will work as intended, and it should be tested and retested on a smaller scale until the kinks are worked out. This is one of the many mistakes socialists/communists have made throughout history, and its cost millions of lives.

Communists just don't understand human nature and free will. Humans are often self-interested. People usually want to make the most money possible for them and their family. When communist revolutions have happened, people with high ability to make much more than the average salary often naturally want to leave the communist country to a capitalist country so they can make more money. In order to prevent continual "brain-drain", communists then have to restrict freedom and free will and ban people from leaving and/or or moving away from the country. Now you have an authoritarian state. People also tend to want freedom, including freedom to vote on government policy. Now you have a dictatorship to control that.

The great thing about democracy is that dangerous ideas that change the system on a large scale like yours can't be implemented without widespread approval of elected officials.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14

Man, I was really scared that ISIS was going to c[…]

This is a serious characterization -- how was Mar[…]

However, all other black-majority countries haven[…]

I guess he's lucky he's not white and they weren'[…]