you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have been bamboozled. PROFIT on the corporate level emerges from ONE phenomenon only: UNDERPAID WORKERS. If workers are paid the full value of their work, and the owner of the corporation earns the fair value of his contribution, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT, i.e. no profit.

The "big shot" CEO playing golf with regulators of their industry isn't earning anything: he's stealing his "earnings" from the workers by underpaying them. The VPs creating makework for their prestige and to make their subordinates look busy so they can justify bigger budgets next year are also creating more waste than value.

What you fail to understand is that in capitalist economies, THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market. Each worker is pit against all the other workers (in a geographical area, within a sphere of competence) for which one will do more for less. As a result of this, people create more and more value and are paid less and less. WHERE DO YOU THINK the massive inequality and iniquity in the current economy comes from? Fairy dust?

No. Look at the inflation-adjusted, per household income over the last 53 years: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/07/07ff29d2e2e637e5c74515d2282051bc.png

So, it grew from about $48,000 to $63,500 in 60 years. Not very much, correct? Now realize that BACK IN 1967, ONLY ONE PERSON PER HOUSEHOLD WORKED. In 2019, there are almost two income earners per household, so in reality, INCOME IS GOING DOWN. And that's adjusted for OFFICIAL INFLATION NUMBERS which, if you know anything real about economics, you know these numbers are VASTLY UNDERSESTIMATED over the last 20 years. So in all likelihood, real median household income is going DOWN while DOUBLING the number of workers per household. That's how great capitalism without actual socialism is.

Socialism isn't what you think. The word has been co-opted by communists to propagandize people like you and lobotomize your ability for critical economic thought. Your definition of socialism is essentially COMMUNISM. Actual socialism, such as in Sweden, France, the UK and Canada of the 20th century (it's vanishing now, everywhere) ensures that everybody's survival isn't threatened by random economic events. This cuts down on crime, increases population satisfaction and - GASP! - doesn't significantly increase welfare recipients. Yes, even in Sweden where on social security you get a full 70% of a middle-class income, Swedes don't stay on it any longer than absolutely necessary, because they are (or "were", remember, it's vanishing) proud and productive members of society who wouldn't dream of stooping low enough to sit on their fat asses collecting welfare.

I would educate you some more, but I have things to do. Please ask more questions about what you don't understand about this topic, I will come back later. It is my pleasure to educate.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

PROFIT on the corporate level emerges from ONE phenomenon only: UNDERPAID WORKERS

This belief emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between employer and employee. Just like when you hire a plumber to install a toilet this does not mean he owns part of the toilet relative to his contribution in it being there; in the same way the workers do not own the products of a factory. In fact trying to structure society on that absurd notion is untenable. You absolutely can not calculate everyone's contribution, not just because there are too many factors, but also because value added is a subjective and ever changing quantity. There is a reason that people who make this claim never ever build factories, these people lack sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function.

THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market

This just isn't true. Unions exist. Competence is not easily measurable. Worker value comes from thousands of factors including personality traits. Nepotism exists. Employers are not all knowing, and this ignorance prevents and efficient market, and an inefficient market is not competitive. All of these individually disprove your claim, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

That's how great capitalism without actual socialism is.

There is definitely a conversation to be had about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor, but beyond identifying that a gap exists and is growing you don't seem to understand it at all and yet are making extremely arrogant conclusions about it. That there are problems that can be identified in capitalism is in no way a valid argument for socialism. That is a logical fallacy. If ford cars are unreliable that does not necessarily mean that dodge cars are more reliable; they could very well be less reliable.

On top of that the income gap is a red herring; meaning that it is a distraction from a far more important factor. What really matters is not the gap but the absolute level of wealth for any given individual. And the data clearly shows that Capitalism raises more people out of poverty and creates more wealth for the working poor than any other system. Communism certainly makes everyone equal; equally poor. That should not be a goal.

Socialism isn't what you think.

Oh, of course. It is whatever you say it is despite all the literature contradicting you. Despite the fact that you can't even articulate a definition of it and rely on cherry picking some policy that you think is working and saying: see it's something like this and since my example works anything I propose and call socialism will therefore also work. If you want to advocate for a particular policy then propose that and lets have a discussion on that particular policy. Don't push socialism as a concept, claiming it is only this one policy you like, then when some fool accepts your nonsensical argument and agrees to socialism you bring in a slew of other policies that you will claim fall under socialism. Social safety nets are a part of socialism, but socialism is not a social safety net. You got it ass backwards.

I would educate you some more

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But I will play along and ask away. Why do socialists always need to steal the means of production and never create it? After all, under capitalism everything socialists advocate for is allowed. Workers can own the factory. Worker owned factories can set up welfare systems. If you believe in it then live it. Instead socialist are always trying to use force to take wealth away from others and redistribute it to themselves. The motivation is clear, and it clearly contradicts the rhetoric.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This belief emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between employer and employee. Just like when you hire a plumber to install a toilet this does not mean he owns part of the toilet relative to his contribution in it being there; in the same way the workers do not own the products of a factory. In fact trying to structure society on that absurd notion is untenable. You absolutely can not calculate everyone's contribution, not just because there are too many factors, but also because value added is a subjective and ever changing quantity. There is a reason that people who make this claim never ever build factories, these people lack sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function.

There is no need to CALCULATE anything. It's a simple fact. And you state that every economist lacks sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function. I beg to differ. You don't seem to know economics or economists very well. Some of us are smart people.

THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market

This just isn't true. Unions exist. Competence is not easily measurable. Worker value comes from thousands of factors including personality traits. Nepotism exists. Employers are not all knowing, and this ignorance prevents and efficient market, and an inefficient market is not competitive. All of these individually disprove your claim, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The existence of unions has nothing to do with my claim. And again worker value DOES NOT NEED TO BE MEASURED. Nepotism exists but not in the LABOR market. It exists for choice executive functions a lot more than rank and file LABOR. I also did not state that all aspects of the labor market are always only in perfect competition, only that it is the only market in which this occurs to a significant degree. That you lack the ability to understand this does not disprove it.

There is definitely a conversation to be had about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor, but beyond identifying that a gap exists and is growing you don't seem to understand it at all and yet are making extremely arrogant conclusions about it. That there are problems that can be identified in capitalism is in no way a valid argument for socialism. That is a logical fallacy. If ford cars are unreliable that does not necessarily mean that dodge cars are more reliable; they could very well be less reliable.

This statement means absolutely nothing. As an economist I am fully qualified to make the statement I make, and replying meaningless platitudes does nothing to bolster your (is there one?) counter-argument.

On top of that the income gap is a red herring; meaning that it is a distraction from a far more important factor. What really matters is not the gap but the absolute level of wealth for any given individual. And the data clearly shows that Capitalism raises more people out of poverty and creates more wealth for the working poor than any other system. Communism certainly makes everyone equal; equally poor. That should not be a goal.

You still think socialism and communism are related if not the same. You aren't qualified to talk about these things. You speak out of ignorance and disinformation. It does not paint you in a very good light. Please educate yourself more.

Oh, of course. It is whatever you say it is despite all the literature contradicting you. Despite the fact that you can't even articulate a definition of it and rely on cherry picking some policy that you think is working and saying: see it's something like this and since my example works anything I propose and call socialism will therefore also work. If you want to advocate for a particular policy then propose that and lets have a discussion on that particular policy. Don't push socialism as a concept, claiming it is only this one policy you like, then when some fool accepts your nonsensical argument and agrees to socialism you bring in a slew of other policies that you will claim fall under socialism. Social safety nets are a part of socialism, but socialism is not a social safety net. You got it ass backwards.

You want a definition? Sure:

Socialism I. Definition Socialism is an economic philosophy based on the need for regulations on capitalism. Unchecked capitalism, most economists agree, can create serious problems in the long term, since short-term personal profit does not motivate companies to take care of infrastructure, the environment, or their workers. Socialists emphasize this fact and argue that only the government can solve the problems created by capitalism. Other economic philosophies generally acknowledge the problem, but advocate other solutions to it, while only a few extremists deny that there is any problem with absolute capitalism.

Although many people think that socialism and capitalism are completely incompatible systems, the fact is that most developed nations operate on a combination of both. For example, nearly every major city in the developed world has some system of government-run public transportation, such as bus lines or a subway. There are also laws against child labor, unsafe workplaces, and reckless pollution, and government programs that help provide education, food, and healthcare to the poor. All of these are socialist ideas that exist in relative harmony with capitalist economies. Capitalism vs. socialism is a question of balance, not an “either/or” question.

From: https://philosophyterms.com/socialism

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But I will play along and ask away. Why do socialists always need to steal the means of production and never create it? After all, under capitalism everything socialists advocate for is allowed. Workers can own the factory. Worker owned factories can set up welfare systems. If you believe in it then live it. Instead socialist are always trying to use force to take wealth away from others and redistribute it to themselves. The motivation is clear, and it clearly contradicts the rhetoric.

I have stated it before and will state it again: you do not understand what the word "socialism" means. Therefore you equate it with communism, marxism, leninism. These are THREE WHOLE WORDS for basically one idea. Do you seriously think the word "socialism" which came over a century before these other 3 words means THE SAME THING? WHY???? Yes, people have been using them interchangeably AND THAT IS INCORRECT.

I will repeat: Socialism is ABSOLUTELY tied to capitalism. They work together, hand in hand. There is no capitalist system without some degree of socialism. There is no socialism without there being also a capitalist system at the same place and at the same time. The two are intrinsically, and BY DEFINITION entertwined. There is no contradiction between them. You're thinking of Marxism, Leninism, Communism: all these are contrary to both Capitalism and Socialism. Stop drinking the marxist-leninist kollaid please! It makes you spew lies, propaganda and nonsense.

And oh my god, you said something true in your last sentence: Social safety nets are part of socialism, but they ARE not the whole of socialism. While being blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about this topic, I salute the truthfulness of your statement.