Employment Guarantee

[Revoltingest]

The thing is, capitalism has made it so many people do not know the difference between a need and a want.

Socialism is good at emphasizing needs because survival is so difficult.
Think of the mass starvation in K Korea, PRC, USSR.
This is not a good thing IMO.
Tis better to have an excess....then we have more than survival....we get luxury & choice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tis better to have an excess....then we have more than survival....we get luxury & choice.

Survival will become much more difficult when excess leads to depletion, which is inevitable when societies consume more than the earth can produce. The soil can only provide so much nourishment for crops, aquifers are not endless, many of the metals we rely on are in limited supplies, and it takes millions of years to replace things like coal and oil. The lust for profit has already driven many species to extinction, pollution is killing off many, and many more species are threatened and endangered for no other reason than profit.
Rather than living within our means, we must begin to live within the Earth's means, which is something capitalism has shown, time and time again, it is not well equipped for doing. Some companies are making changes, but ultimately will be forced to the environment and sustainability first because resources will become too scarce. Or, hopefully before that happens, we will release we must have foresight when taking from the Earth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Survival will become much more difficult when excess leads to depletion, which is inevitable when societies consume more than the earth can produce. The soil can only provide so much nourishment for crops, aquifers are not endless, many of the metals we rely on are in limited supplies, and it takes millions of years to replace things like coal and oil. The lust for profit has already driven many species to extinction, pollution is killing off many, and many more species are threatened and endangered for no other reason than profit.
Rather than living within our means, we must begin to live within the Earth's means, which is something capitalism has shown, time and time again, it is not well equipped for doing. Some companies are making changes, but ultimately will be forced to the environment and sustainability first because resources will become too scarce. Or, hopefully before that happens, we will release we must have foresight when taking from the Earth.

Capitalism is not the problem regarding over-use of the planet's resources.
It's having too many people.
Would you institute population control?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Capitalism is not the problem regarding over-use of the planet's resources.

How is it not? America out consumes the rest of the world. Advertising convinces people they need things that they don't. But, advertising is a cornerstone of capitalism, as it gets the company name and product out there.
I'm more in favor of very strict regulations for advertising, and very strict regulations regarding resource consumption (similar to hunting restrictions regarding the number of animals a hunter can take). I'm also for very strict import laws, so strict that it would become impossible for companies like Apple and Nike to import things produced from exploited labor and sell it here. If we have anti-child labor laws, our imports should also be held to those laws. I also favor strict quality-control laws. Prices will go up, but it's better overall to pay more for something that will last than pay less for something cheaply made that won't last long.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is it not? America out consumes the rest of the world. Advertising convinces people they need things that they don't. But, advertising is a cornerstone of capitalism, as it gets the company name and product out there.
I'm more in favor of very strict regulations for advertising, and very strict regulations regarding resource consumption. I'm also for very strict import laws, so strict that it would become impossible for tech companies like Apple to import things produced from exploited labor and sell it here. If we have anti-child labor laws, our imports should also be held to those laws. I also favor strict quality-control laws. Prices will go up, but it's better overall to pay more for something that will last than pay less for something cheaply made that won't last long.

I prefer a less authoritarian government.
Your world sounds like being an adolescent in a home run by a tiger mom.
Even though they'd be good for me, I don't wanna take cello lessons.
Besides, if we don't address the overpopulation problem, it's only a matter of when (not if) we deplete our resources.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Besides, if we don't address the overpopulation problem, it's only a matter of when (not if) we deplete our resources.

That requires great changes in social mentality. For starters, it shouldn't be considered a tragedy, or anything negative, if someone doesn't want a child. We should be encouraging people to have less children. If things get too extreme, we may need to tax people who have more than two children, but that would be a last resort.

Your world sounds like being an adolescent in a home run by a tiger mom.

Mine would be a world that puts the Earth before profits, and people just barely above the Earth. It is the home we all share, it is our only home, it sustains us, nurtures us, and failure to take care of it is leading to disastrous consequences. It's one of foresight, one where work ensures all basic needs are met, and one where people acknowledge we are one with nature, not above or separate from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

That requires great changes in social mentality. For starters, it shouldn't be considered a tragedy, or anything negative, if someone doesn't want a child. We should be encouraging people to have less children. If things get too extreme, we may need to tax people who have more than two children, but that would be a last resort.

Mine would be a world that puts the Earth before profits, and people just barely above the Earth. It is the home we all share, it is our only home, it sustains us, nurtures us, and failure to take care of it is leading to disastrous consequences. It's one of foresight, one where work ensures all basic needs are met, and one where people acknowledge we are one with nature, not above or separate from it.

Alas, anything I can think of in response would be repetitious.
So I'll post this....

 

[Curious George]

I prefer a less authoritarian government.
Your world sounds like being an adolescent in a home run by a tiger mom.
Even though they'd be good for me, I don't wanna take cello lessons.
Besides, if we don't address the overpopulation problem, it's only a matter of when (not if) we deplete our resources.

I'm actually a supporter of capitalism, the tragedy of the commons assumes limited resources. While some resources are finite, innovation discovers new resources.

However, what I am against is this laissez faire worship of the market. Lack of regulation leads away from the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The reason we have regulation is because lack of regulation DOESN'T work! I understand many individuals feel that they are entitled, but if on my left one is saying they are entitled to water regardless of whether they work or not and on my right they are saying they are entitled to an extra 10% of their income because gosh darn it they work hard for that money-- I am going with the water folks.

We absolutely need regulation, we need more regulation, more taxes, more investment in our people. And I get that hurts the ears of people who already feel as though they are pulling more than their fair share. But your not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm actually a supporter of capitalism, the tragedy of the commons assumes limited resources. While some resources are finite, innovation discovers new resources.

The tragedy of the commons does assume limited resources, but we were better managing resources under communal ownership, or limited ownership, whereas commercial use, regulated or unregulated, has lead to extinction, depletion, and is causing resources to dwindle rapidly. The tragedy of the commons also assumes that no one will react to the overuse of resources. It's actually a flaw in many arguments for private property, is that they assume people will not tell those over using a resource no more. It's about as common as the flaw in many limited/no welfare positions in assuming hordes of people are content with being bottom feeders just sitting on their *** and collecting a check.

 

[Curious George]

The tragedy of the commons does assume limited resources, but we were better managing resources under communal ownership, or limited ownership, whereas commercial use, regulated or unregulated, has lead to extinction, depletion, and is causing resources to dwindle rapidly. The tragedy of the commons also assumes that no one will react to the overuse of resources. It's actually a flaw in many arguments for private property, is that they assume people will not tell those over using a resource no more. It's about as common as the flaw in many limited/no welfare positions in assuming hordes of people are content with being bottom feeders just sitting on their *** and collecting a check.

I fail to see how regulated ownership is worse than communal ownership or limited ownership. Perhaps you can walk me through that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm actually a supporter of capitalism, the tragedy of the commons assumes limited resources. While some resources are finite, innovation discovers new resources.

However, what I am against is this laissez faire worship of the market. Lack of regulation leads away from the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The reason we have regulation is because lack of regulation DOESN'T work! I understand many individuals feel that they are entitled, but if on my left one is saying they are entitled to water regardless of whether they work or not and on my right they are saying they are entitled to an extra 10% of their income because gosh darn it they work hard for that money-- I am going with the water folks.

We absolutely need regulation, we need more regulation, more taxes, more investment in our people. And I get that hurts the ears of people who already feel as though they are pulling more than their fair share. But your not.

I don't see anyone arguing for a complete lack of regulation & taxes.
We just have far too much of both.
Both systems need redesign to do a better job with less.
Gov takes far too much money from us, & spends it unwisely, so I believe in starving the beast.

As for water.....it costs, especially for people who decide to live in deserts.
So it shouldn't be free.

 

[Stevicus]

Governments don't do it as well as private individuals.
The really innovative & driven types eschew government work.

Here is the kind of thing which goes on with taxpayer money....
Bill and Hillary Clinton's charities got £50million of British aid cash | Daily Mail Online
Now our pols fleece even Brit taxpayers!

Well, definitely, there has to be a fix and a reorganization within government. Part of the problem with government is that it's not really a "government" but more like a pro-capitalist mafia commission. What you see in the US government today is the result of what happens when capitalism gets out of control.

I too see dysfunction in government's taking away benefits at a greater rate than increasing work income.
It's a powerful disincentive to work. I know people who have experienced this personally (single moms).
Benefits under the safety net shouldn't be removed so quickly as wages begin & increase.
Things can be run much better. But change for the better in government is a hit & miss thingie.

What there needs to be is fairness in the system where everyone works and no one gets a free pass. Prices and rents need to be strictly controlled so that people can actually have something to show for their hard work. An earlier example in this thread is that people on workfare have to take fewer hours because it will screw up their subsidized housing. That would not happen if housing prices were kept under control. Price controls in the medical field would also obviate the need for Obamacare, which amounts to nothing more than a taxpayers' blank check for the capitalist insurance industry.

There are things that government could do to lower expenses and reduce the tax rates, yet capitalist lobbyists are the ones standing in the way of needed reform. You speak of innovation and drive, but the few examples you give are from over a century ago. What has capitalism done for us lately?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, definitely, there has to be a fix and a reorganization within government. Part of the problem with government is that it's not really a "government" but more like a pro-capitalist mafia commission. What you see in the US government today is the result of what happens when capitalism gets out of control.

I see the opposite, ie, it's what happens when government gets too much control over capitalism.
It's more than excessive regulation & taxation....it's the threat of more which allows politicians to fleece us for 'donations'.
I don't believe in dealing with crooks by cracking down on their victims.

What there needs to be is fairness in the system where everyone works and no one gets a free pass. Prices and rents need to be strictly controlled so that people can actually have something to show for their hard work. An earlier example in this thread is that people on workfare have to take fewer hours because it will screw up their subsidized housing. That would not happen if housing prices were kept under control. Price controls in the medical field would also obviate the need for Obamacare, which amounts to nothing more than a taxpayers' blank check for the capitalist insurance industry.
There are things that government could do to lower expenses and reduce the tax rates, yet capitalist lobbyists are the ones standing in the way of needed reform. You speak of innovation and drive, but the few examples you give are from over a century ago. What has capitalism done for us lately?

I'll take free markets over wage & price controls any day.
It's much more efficient & fair resource allocation.
Rent control is an utter failure because political corruption rules, & because it cannot apply to new housing (which no one would build were it there).
Your proposals only work for people with a different value system....eg, Soviets, N Koreans, Maoists.
Now yer entering 2nd Amendment territory.

Note:
My town some years ago tried to implement rent control. The ordinance was so draconian that the state enacted legislation banning rent control in the entire state. The city wanted to roll back rents to an earlier unprofitable level, & impose a massive bureaucracy upon landlords. This is essentially an unconstitutional taking under the 5th Amendment. We noble capitalists (freedom fighters) beat back the commie attack.

I know someone quite wealthy who lives in LA, but has a rent controlled apartment in NYC. She leaves the apartment vacant, but keeps it for the occasional visit there. It's so cheap that she can afford to do this. But when my daughter moved to NYC last year, there were no cheap rent controlled apartments.
Remember what Peter Parker's Uncle Ben told him.....
With great power comes great abuse & corruption.
Keep your government on a short leash.

 

[Stevicus]

Socialism is good at emphasizing needs because survival is so difficult.
Think of the mass starvation in K Korea, PRC, USSR.
This is not a good thing IMO.
Tis better to have an excess....then we have more than survival....we get luxury & choice.

I don't know if these kinds of comparisons are accurate or relevant. One could argue that socialism actually improved life in Russia and China compared to the capitalist systems they had previously. One could say the same about Cuba and compare their situation to other Caribbean or Latin American states.

It's not merely a matter of quality of life, but also a matter of efficient use of resources and overall viability of a country. Capitalist Russia could not defend against German invasion in WW1, but communist Russia showed a different result in WW2. Likewise, capitalist China could not defend against Western imperialism or Japanese invasion in WW2, yet communist China became a powerhouse after 1949 - and rather quickly, too - far more rapidly than would have been possible under capitalist management. An even more telling comparison is that communist Russia triumphed over Nazi Germany, while capitalist Western Europe folded up rather quickly - totally helpless and unable to defend themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know if these kinds of comparisons are accurate or relevant. One could argue that socialism actually improved life in Russia and China compared to the capitalist systems they had previously. One could say the same about Cuba and compare their situation to other Caribbean or Latin American states.

Note though that Russian & China eventually came back to capitalism.
Now they have no more mass starvation.
There's also consequently greater political freedom.....although exercising it still comes with great risks there.

It's not merely a matter of quality of life, but also a matter of efficient use of resources and overall viability of a country. Capitalist Russia could not defend against German invasion in WW1, but communist Russia showed a different result in WW2. Likewise, capitalist China could not defend against Western imperialism or Japanese invasion in WW2, yet communist China became a powerhouse after 1949 - and rather quickly, too - far more rapidly than would have been possible under capitalist management. An even more telling comparison is that communist Russia triumphed over Nazi Germany, while capitalist Western Europe folded up rather quickly - totally helpless and unable to defend themselves.

Efficiency is a big issue.
Manufacturing efficiency is much better under capitalism.
But economic freedom allows consumers to be inefficient because they can have more than the bare necessities of survival.
I don't like efficiency imposed by an authoritarian government.
What we have suits me better.
Would you ever consider moving to a country which would deny you all but the necessities?

 

[Stevicus]

I see the opposite, ie, it's what happens when government gets too much control over capitalism.
It's more than excessive regulation & taxation....it's the threat of more which allows politicians to fleece us for 'donations'.
I don't believe in dealing with crooks by cracking down on their victims.

Yes, but they're all cut from the same piece of cloth. The top leaders in government and business wear different hats at different points in their career, moving from public sector to private sector and back again with ease. They're all heavily pro-capitalist/pro-mafia themselves. You're trying to paint "capitalists" and "politicians" as if they come from completely different worlds, but that's not the case at all.

Also, I think you're overstating the notion that regulation and taxation are "excessive." Compared to Western Europe and Japan, our regulations and taxes are pretty tame here in America, yet they have higher standards of living than we have - even though their countries are much smaller and have fewer resources than we do. How do you explain that?

Even comparing states within the United States, the so-called "blue states" with heavier regulations and taxes have a better standard of living than those states which believe in reducing regulation and taxes as an incentive for business. New York is such a liberal bastion, replete with all kinds of taxes and regulations, yet Wall Street and all these corporations still remain there. Why haven't they moved to Texas yet? Or even Arizona? Many of our state politicians make arguments similar to you, that there's too much taxation and regulation from government acting as a disincentive to business and economic growth. And yet, they still can't seem to get anywhere.

I'll take free markets over wage & price controls any day.
It's much more efficient & fair resource allocation.

I don't agree. Wage and price controls bring about stability to an economy when it is badly needed, such as during WW2.

Rent control is an utter failure because political corruption rules, & because it cannot apply to new housing (which no one would build were it there).

Who says it can't apply to new housing? There are ways of dealing with political corruption, if only our society would develop the backbone to do it.

Your proposals only work for people with a different value system....eg, Soviets, N Koreans, Maoists.
Now yer entering 2nd Amendment territory.

Not really. The Soviets and Maoists faced completely different circumstances and had to impose certain policies out of necessity. My proposals are quite moderate by comparison.

I don't know what the Second Amendment has to do with anything.

Note:
My town some years ago tried to implement rent control. The ordinance was so draconian that the state enacted legislation banning rent control in the entire state. The city wanted to roll back rents to an earlier unprofitable level, & impose a massive bureaucracy upon landlords. This is essentially an unconstitutional taking under the 5th Amendment. We noble capitalists (freedom fighters) beat back the commie attack.

Who says that housing needs to be "profitable" anyway? It's a necessity of life, just like police and fire departments. Does anyone complain that the police and fire departments are "unprofitable"? No, but we pay for it because it's a necessity. Even your point about drive and innovation doesn't hold up here, since where is there any innovation in collecting money on older housing built generations ago? The "profit" is merely a demand that people should pay more for the same thing that people paid less for generations ago. It's more a form of mafia tribute than any kind of legitimate service at a fair price. Capitalists are not unlike "pretty princesses" who think "they deserve it because they're so wonderful." "I'm worth it." But that's part of the illusion. When you actually look at the figures and see it in terms of dollars and cents, they're overpriced and overpaid.

Sure, in a mobbed-up state like Michigan, I imagine capitalists can get together and bribe state politicians and cause local ordinances to be overturned. Michigan is an example of what happens when capitalism gets out of control. (*cough* Detroit *cough*)

BTW, there are/were no real "commies" in America, other than the ones which existed in the imaginations of Joe McCarthy and his ilk. The whole "communist conspiracy" angle has always been overstated and exaggerated. Excessive fear of communism and socialism has done far more harm to this country than the ideologies themselves.

I know someone quite wealthy who lives in LA, but has a rent controlled apartment in NYC. She leaves the apartment vacant, but keeps it for the occasional visit there. It's so cheap that she can afford to do this. But when my daughter moved to NYC last year, there were no cheap rent controlled apartments.
Remember what Peter Parker's Uncle Ben told him.....
With great power comes great abuse & corruption.
Keep your government on a short leash.

This also means keeping capitalists on an even shorter leash. And the leash has to be controlled by the people, not by capitalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but they're all cut from the same piece of cloth. The top leaders in government and business wear different hats at different points in their career, moving from public sector to private sector and back again with ease. They're all heavily pro-capitalist/pro-mafia themselves. You're trying to paint "capitalists" and "politicians" as if they come from completely different worlds, but that's not the case at all.

Also, I think you're overstating the notion that regulation and taxation are "excessive." Compared to Western Europe and Japan, our regulations and taxes are pretty tame here in America, yet they have higher standards of living than we have - even though their countries are much smaller and have fewer resources than we do. How do you explain that?

Even comparing states within the United States, the so-called "blue states" with heavier regulations and taxes have a better standard of living than those states which believe in reducing regulation and taxes as an incentive for business. New York is such a liberal bastion, replete with all kinds of taxes and regulations, yet Wall Street and all these corporations still remain there. Why haven't they moved to Texas yet? Or even Arizona? Many of our state politicians make arguments similar to you, that there's too much taxation and regulation from government acting as a disincentive to business and economic growth. And yet, they still can't seem to get anywhere.



I don't agree. Wage and price controls bring about stability to an economy when it is badly needed, such as during WW2.



Who says it can't apply to new housing? There are ways of dealing with political corruption, if only our society would develop the backbone to do it.



Not really. The Soviets and Maoists faced completely different circumstances and had to impose certain policies out of necessity. My proposals are quite moderate by comparison.

I don't know what the Second Amendment has to do with anything.



Who says that housing needs to be "profitable" anyway? It's a necessity of life, just like police and fire departments. Does anyone complain that the police and fire departments are "unprofitable"? No, but we pay for it because it's a necessity. Even your point about drive and innovation doesn't hold up here, since where is there any innovation in collecting money on older housing built generations ago? The "profit" is merely a demand that people should pay more for the same thing that people paid less for generations ago. It's more a form of mafia tribute than any kind of legitimate service at a fair price. Capitalists are not unlike "pretty princesses" who think "they deserve it because they're so wonderful." "I'm worth it." But that's part of the illusion. When you actually look at the figures and see it in terms of dollars and cents, they're overpriced and overpaid.

Sure, in a mobbed-up state like Michigan, I imagine capitalists can get together and bribe state politicians and cause local ordinances to be overturned. Michigan is an example of what happens when capitalism gets out of control. (*cough* Detroit *cough*)

BTW, there are/were no real "commies" in America, other than the ones which existed in the imaginations of Joe McCarthy and his ilk. The whole "communist conspiracy" angle has always been overstated and exaggerated. Excessive fear of communism and socialism has done far more harm to this country than the ideologies themselves.




This also means keeping capitalists on an even shorter leash. And the leash has to be controlled by the people, not by capitalists.

When government controls both morality & economics, they own you.
Nothing you can do escapes their scrutiny & control.
Thus, we need economic independence from them.

That means the ability to work in private industry, to start companies, & to make a profit.
Anything less is to be a ward of the state.

I'm in business.
I & most of my fellows behave ethically.
But government....when they aren't incompetent, they're corrupt & thieving.
It's war.....starve the beast!

 

[Stevicus]

Note though that Russian & China eventually came back to capitalism.
Now they have no more mass starvation.

You're making it sound like they had mass starvation the entire time they had communist rule. The famines were temporary and were the result of war and its aftermath - not the result of the economic system. We were lucky due to being buffered by two oceans, but if we had suffered the brunt of the fighting as they did, we would be singing a completely different tune these days.

I'd give those countries a bit more credit than you would, especially since they fought on our side! There are/were capitalist countries which have also faced mass starvation, all across South Asia and Africa, so obviously, capitalism can't save a country from starvation and destitution. Your examples and bases for comparison are not valid.

There's also consequently greater political freedom.....although exercising it still comes with great risks there.

I wouldn't make any assumptions about Russia or China at this point. The policies they adopt for their own purposes might make it seem like they're "coming back to capitalism," but that doesn't mean they embrace US-style capitalism or turning pro-American.

Efficiency is a big issue.
Manufacturing efficiency is much better under capitalism.

If that were the case, then US manufacturing would be booming, and cities like Detroit would return to their former glory. Instead, the once-great US industrial machine has been summed up in two words: Rust Belt. Did the "dirty commies" do that, or was it the "dirty capitalists" in the Reagan Administration responsible for turning our industrial powerhouse into a worthless pile of junk?

But economic freedom allows consumers to be inefficient because they can have more than the bare necessities of survival.
I don't like efficiency imposed by an authoritarian government.
What we have suits me better.

Well, it may be good for you, but what matters more is what's good for the collective whole of society. What good is it if only you benefit and the other 310,000,000 Americans have to suffer?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't know about the rest of the world but as for things as they appear from here in the good 'ol US of A: Some good points for both capitalism and socialism. Some bad points for each, too. The robots are coming, so in 100 years the conversation may be very different. A lot depends upon very small probabilities, so we don't know whether the future is capitalist or socialist. We do know that currently there is a lot of movement towards a system like Canada's and Finland's. At the same time there are a lot of scare tactics used by opponents and rosy glasses used by proponents. The scare tactics were weakened by the success of Obama's presidency. (The dollar did not take a dive. We did not go bankrupt as predicted etc.) At the same time, the positions of the major political parties have shifted. People are reconsidering who they have been trusting. Its all still up in the air which way we we will go here in USA.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see anyone arguing for a complete lack of regulation & taxes.

You should read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. His libertarianism has a government (he calls it the ultra-minimal state) that exists for the sole purpose of enforcing his idea of justly acquired property (abit more complicated than what it seems (technically impossible when completely followed through), but it's pretty much just what it seems). No regulations, no military, no safety-nets, no taxes, nothing of that sort because private industry and the free-markets take care of every thing.
And he was a Harvard professor, and many libertarians take him seriously.