Jerome Powell the Federal Reserve Chair says: Economy As We Know It Is *OVER* - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15140905
Goranhammer wrote:What the fuck? Currency DETERMINES wealth.


No it isn't. Currency is a medium of exchange and its value is determined by what we believe it to be. Wealth is a form of possession.

The bourgeoisie do not "steal" labor. They provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for that labor. The answer isn't to revolt. It's to renegotiate. This is why socialism fails as well - it's always trying to bargain from a position of weakness. And instead of strengthening that position, they just turn violent.

If you don't believe your labor is worth as much as someone else does, find another to exchange that labor for, or improve your own labor to encourage more compensation for it.


Well steal is subjective but as labor is a necessity to survive, it is. The proletariat has no choice but to play into the system unless they are prepared to break the system. Hence the importance of class distinction and the need of welfare to maintain their ignorance for the bourgeois.

But that's besides the point and actually a strawman. The point was it is their labor that creates the taxation that someone else pays for them because they profit from their surplus labor. So the proletariat doesn't take more than they put into the system.
Last edited by B0ycey on 03 Dec 2020 17:36, edited 1 time in total.
#15140909
B0ycey wrote:Wealth is a form of possession.


Really? With a straight face?

Well steal is subjective but as labor is a necessity to survive, it is. The proletariat has no choice but to play into the system unless they are prepared to break the system. Hence the importance of class distinction and the need of welfare to maintain their ignorance for the bourgeois.

But that's besides the point and actually a strawman. The point was it is their labor that creates the taxation that someone else pays for them because they profit from their surplus labor. So the proletariat doesn't take more than they put into the system.


Nobody does, because you're ignoring one factor: risk. The proletariat put NO risk into the system, while the bourgeoisie put in ALL the risk. That risk carries a premium.

The simple fact is that both sides take out the absolute most that they can. If one side doesn't feel like they're valued properly, there are modes to remedy that. However, your "wage slavery" crap is just shifting blame. It's almost as if socialists think labor is beneath them.
#15140914
Goranhammer wrote:Really? With a straight face?


Totally!

Nobody does, because you're ignoring one factor: risk. The proletariat put NO risk into the system, while the bourgeoisie put in ALL the risk. That risk carries a premium.

The simple fact is that both sides take out the absolute most that they can. If one side doesn't feel like they're valued properly, there are modes to remedy that. However, your "wage slavery" crap is just shifting blame. It's almost as if socialists think labor is beneath them.


Well again this is a strawman. It is the labor that creates the.... oh why bother.

Besides, I understand the mechanics of capitalism and don't really ask for a massive change. But the only way to make the system work is to adopt a Nordic economic model and that is the more you earn the more you pay and you redistribute that more fairly in order to keep the system functioning. If you think that is unfair, then remember that if you are sent to the gulags because the real power is in numbers and people who cannot afford to live usually break at some point.
#15140916
B0ycey wrote:Totally!



Well again this is a strawman. It is the labor that creates the.... oh why bother.

Besides, I understand the mechanics of capitalism and don't really ask for a massive change. But the only way to make the system work is to adopt a Nordic economic model and that is the more you earn the more you pay and you redistribute that more fairly in order to keep the system functioning. If you think that is unfair, then remember that if you are sent to the gulags because the real power is in numbers and people who cannot afford to live usually break at some point.


People can always "afford to live" because capitalism dies without labor. Hell, any system dies without labor. Therefore, capitalism cannot continue if the lowest level of the pyramid cannot sustain themselves.

In America, they easily can. It's not about survival but quality of life. A full-time, minimum-wage worker in the States can make it. They might drive a shitty car and have a roommate or 3, but they're not in danger of death. They're just going to have a shitty life. However, to a major extent, that was self-determined.

We already have a progressive taxation system. However, I don't think success should be punished. If someone earns more than I do, I don't see them as a lamb to be bled.

Why is it my responsibility if you don't have everything you want? Why isn't it yours?
#15140924
Goranhammer wrote:Why is it my responsibility if you don't have everything you want? Why isn't it yours?


What makes you think I don't have everything I want?

The system cannot work without welfare. Pointing that out is not a sign that I want more. It is explaining that without it the wealth divide would have expanded more significantly than it has today, especially in America. And that may well have caused a revolution. It is no coincidence that in Europe welfare became more prominent after the French revolution to strive off the proletariat and their protests FYI. And again this is ignoring that surplus labor gets taxed and that is the labor of the proletariat which was my initial point and something you continue to ignore with strawmen.
#15140977
Goranhammer wrote:The proletariat put NO risk into the system, while the bourgeoisie put in ALL the risk. That risk carries a premium.

I'm trying to imagine all the "risk" that Bill Gates took.

His father was rich, he had connections, so he used them to exploit other people's work, in effect bullying real inventors with his connections and wealth.

Whereas the sweatshop workers in the Third World who make all our products have to risk their lives in building collapses and pollutions side effects.

Your opinion about "risk" seems to have been agreed upon on a golf course where the only "risk" was sunburn on your nose.
#15140984
Oxymoron wrote:Well economies have forever been changing, and yes automation will replace many jobs. Yet there are many many jobs that will be and are now available.
There is a massive shortage of trade professionals, there is a massive shortage of craftsmen and artisans. As automation becomes more robust human nature will want items made by hand, these items will be at an ever higher premium. So mother fuckers learn to plumb or learn to code, either way working on the assembly line is not a career.

Nevertheless, it is far easier for the Gov. to hire the unemployed than it is to "pull levers" to induce the private sector to want to hire them. It is also far easier to fine tune these jobs to have exactly the required number of jobs. Too few leaves some out of the economy and not buying stuff from local businesses, unless they are given welfare. Too many jobs in the private sector means wages rise as corps. bid them up to hire labor away from its current job.
The MMT Job Guarantee Program (JGP) is really neat. It sets a floor under all wages. It expands and contracts as needed to have exactly the right number of jobs at all times. It is not inflationary because the wage and good benefits are fixed for everyone in the JGP. At the very start, prices may rise as the economy adjusts to this new minimum wage and to the increased flow of money into every community/town (that increases sales at many small businesses, so local business people should like the JGP). This price increase is not inflation, because it will soon stop. One key element of the program is that the wage be set high at what MMTers call a "socially inclusive" level, so that people can live on it for life if necessary. MMTers expect that the workers will have a lot of choices and can petition to do something they want, like take care of their baby or open a daycare center. Note that the local gov. controls the program (as long as it doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, etc.); this means the local gov. can stop doing something that it decides is not "socially useful" enough and have the workers do something else. OTOH, it will be pretty easyfor the JGP workers to move somewhere else for a "better" job at the same wage.
#15141289
QatzelOk wrote:I'm trying to imagine all the "risk" that Bill Gates took.

His father was rich, he had connections, so he used them to exploit other people's work, in effect bullying real inventors with his connections and wealth.

Whereas the sweatshop workers in the Third World who make all our products have to risk their lives in building collapses and pollutions side effects.

Your opinion about "risk" seems to have been agreed upon on a golf course where the only "risk" was sunburn on your nose.


His father was a lawyer, so there goes your "he was born into wealth" horseshit.

He had no connections. He got his name because he was a known hacker and re-wrote the BASIC language. He worked for an essential startup (of course, except for IBM what wasn't a startup in the computer industry at that time). His selling of that BASIC rewrite was where he got his seed money.

I know it's fun to sit there and pretend all rich people are exploiters, but damn. You're just getting lazy now.
#15141449
Goranhammer wrote:His father was a lawyer, so there goes your "he was born into wealth" horseshit.

It took three seconds to wiki his dad, who was really well-connected and wealthy.

I guess one of us should have taken three seconds of his lazy time and done that.

Because my dad can't "get that done" for me, I had to do it myself.
#15141506
QatzelOk wrote:It took three seconds to wiki his dad, who was really well-connected and wealthy.

I guess one of us should have taken three seconds of his lazy time and done that.

Because my dad can't "get that done" for me, I had to do it myself.


As I said, his dad was a lawyer. Not exactly on welfare, but you're making it out like he was a trust fund baby. According to your article, his dad enlisted in the Armed Forces (not exactly a move of the privileged) and went to college on a GI Bill.

So what's your definition of "wealthy" and "privileged"? I guess I fit your description because I had a [used] car at 16 and never burned leaves for warmth.
#15141649
Goranhammer wrote:As I said, his dad was a lawyer. Not exactly on welfare, but you're making it out like he was a trust fund baby. According to your article, his dad enlisted in the Armed Forces (not exactly a move of the privileged) and went to college on a GI Bill.

So what's your definition of "wealthy" and "privileged"? I guess I fit your description because I had a [used] car at 16 and never burned leaves for warmth.

I am not going to define words for you if you are unable to consult any other material on the web to "learn" before you write.

Likewise, if you are unable to spend more than three seconds on researching something that you just "believe," you are just posting common ignorance that was absorbed from mass media viewing and your own life.

That's simply not enough for an interesting point of view on the elite and their "right to steal from everyone else."
#15141661
Istanbuller wrote:Same things were said when steam engine came out in early 1900s. People always tend to think that their times are unique but it is not. Each time we had greater productivity and greater wealth as a whole of societies. Technology is our friend.

Masses won't go unemployed. New jobs lines will arise. Markets adjust themselves.


I'd like to be optimistic as well, but when technology effectively obsoletes manpower what new jobs could possibly arise as the result?
#15141731
libertasbella wrote:I'd like to be optimistic as well, but when technology effectively obsoletes manpower what new jobs could possibly arise as the result?

The railroad barons decided that the First Nations in the West were "useless."

They had all the money, so multiple genocides happened, some involving biological agents.

Lately, Silicon Valley has been noticing that there are a lot of useless people again...

What does "useless" mean in these contexts?

My big reveal is that I was Q all along. :lol:[…]

How to deal with Trump?

I like the last few posts. Interesting. The only t[…]

I found this to be a really interesting set of ob[…]

I created and maintain eighty or ninety websites.[…]