Employment Guarantee

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Commercial fishing is a great example. The hoki fish, found everywhere from Long John Silvers, McDonalds, and many grocery store brands, is regulated but the numbers have still plummeted, and quota limits are constantly being slashed. In Alaska some taking some sorts of fish is banned, even for local communities that previously fished those types for their own needs, because regulated commercial fishing has taken too many. And even with regulated use, massive commercial fishing has left fewer fish for many smaller towns that rely on fishing.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're making it sound like they had mass starvation the entire time they had communist rule.

I'm making it sound that way?
Pish posh!
I simply say that they had mass starvation, not that they continuously had it.
But this sidesteps the issue, which is that centrally run economies aren't good at addressing problems, particularly local ones.
Their farming practices have been terrible.
(Btw, father-in-law trained to become an agricultural administer in China, but fortunately escaped while it was still possible.)

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.

No, peacetime practices also resulted in famine.
Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The great Chinese famine was caused by social pressure, economic mismanagement, and radical changes in agriculture. Mao Zedong, chairman of the Chinese communist party, introduced drastic changes in farming which prohibited farm ownership. Failure to abide by the policies led to persecution. The social pressure imposed on the citizens in terms of farming and business, which the government controlled, led to state instability. Owing to the laws passed during the period and Great Leap Forward during 1958–1962, according to government statistics, about 36 million people died in this period.[7]"
North Korean famine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The North Korean famine, which together with the accompanying general economic crisis are known as the Arduous March(Hangul: 북한기근; Chosŏn'gŭl: 고난의 행군) in North Korea, occurred in North Korea from 1994 to 1998.[5]
The famine stemmed from a variety of factors. Economic mismanagement and the loss of Soviet support caused food production and imports to decline rapidly. A series of floods and droughts exacerbated the crisis, but were not its direct cause. The North Korean government and its centrally-planned system proved too inflexible to effectively curtail the disaster. Estimates of the death toll vary widely. Out of a total population of approximately 22 million, somewhere between 240,000 and 3,500,000 North Koreans died from starvation or hunger-related illnesses, with the deaths peaking in 1997.[6][7] Recent research suggests the likely number of excess deaths between 1993 and 2000 was about 330,000.[8]"
Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union tended to occur on a fairly regular basis, with famine occurring every 10–13 years and droughts every 5–7 years. Golubev and Dronin distinguish three types of drought according to productive areas vulnerable to droughts: Central (the Volgabasin, Northern Caucasus and the Central Chernozem Region), Southern (Volga and Volga-Vyatka area, the Ural region, and Ukraine), and Eastern (steppe and forest-steppe belts in Western and Eastern Siberia, andKazakhstan).[1]"
From the above, we see that famine & shortages were a normal way of Soviet life.
In a free market, there are many farmers. The innovative ones will lead the others.
In a centrally run economy, diversity of innovation is absent.
We benefit from farming practice being driven by guys who actually drive & fix the tractors.
Under socialism, it's some leather chair driving aparatchik who got his job cuz he's the nephew of a party member.

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.

When comparing apples to apples, ie, major powers in the commie & capitalist world, my claim holds water.
One can always find mass starvation somewhere in a capitalist country (eg, Ireland), but this does not make the 2 different system equally likely to have it.
Note: Ireland was unusual in its singular major cause, ie, over-dependence upon one variety of potato.

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.

They don't need to have US style capitalism in order to have capitalism.
My point is that life improved for them by adopting it.

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?

Detroit's problems were caused by several things, but a major factor was the labor market becoming less free due to union power.
This didn't made Detroit itself the problem because of what lawyers here call "the Michigan mentality", ie, they want big bucks for little work.
So industry moved into non-union areas where employees cost less & were more cooperative.
Other factors (mgmt complacency, increasing competition) are just the normal chaos of markets....there will be change, not all of it pleasant.
I worked in Detroit & the industry, & watched it happen. (Ford handled it better than the others.....no bail-out needed. But even they were a mess.)

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?

I'm just giving my personal preferences so that you understand my perspective.
I don't have THE TRUTH or any such foolishness.
Nonetheless, I only favor my agenda because it's better for everyone than socialism with the attendant authoritarian government.
The way to help the poor isn't to ditch capitalism....it's to provide a quality safety net.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Read a book?
Does it have lots'o pictures of muscular & voluptuous superheroes?
Without those, I'll just continue to wade thru me technical books.
I have quite a stack ahead of me.

Seriously though, I've no interest in reading people I largely agree with.
Notice that I prefer conversing with interesting commies like you to my fellows.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seriously though, I've no interest in reading people I largely agree with.
Notice that I prefer conversing with interesting commies like you to my fellows.

From our conversations, you'd probably disagree with him on many points.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Pretty much what I was thinking. I wonder where people ever got the idea that folks are entitled to jobs?

Not entitled but required. Though I don't think such a system as stated above would work.

 

[Revoltingest]

From our conversations, you'd probably disagree with him on many points.

Oh, good!
But I'm at a stage where I no longer read anything lengthy about politics.
There's so much more interesting stuff out there.

 

[Thief]

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!

You're just fooling yourself....
They OWN you.

 

[Thief]

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

Japan buys 50% of the hardwood leaving Africa.
they use it for chopsticks....

 

[Revoltingest]

You're just fooling yourself....
They OWN you.

Then let's say there are degrees of ownership.....
- In some countries they force you to fight in the military. Here, I avoided that.
- In some countries, speaking freely will get you imprisoned. Here, I say what I want.
There are things here we still need to fight....
- Papers being required for travel
- Warrantless searches
But things are better here than in many places.
Sure, you think we're owned.
Revolt!

 

[Revoltingest]

Japan buys 50% of the hardwood leaving Africa.
they use it for chopsticks....

Source?

 

[Thief]

Then let's say there are degrees of ownership.....
- In some countries they force you to fight in the military. Here, I avoided that.
- In some countries, speaking freely will get you imprisoned. Here, I say what I want.
There are things here we still need to fight....
- Papers being required for travel
- Warrantless searches
But things are better here than in many places.
Sure, you think we're owned.
Revolt!

Nay...by ownership I mean what you have and how you got it.
My house is paid for.
I own it.....but let a couple thou of taxes slip the due date.....OH MY GOD!

You swear the devil was come to take it all away!
and He WILL take it away!

Keep you drivers license up to date.....you'd better!

Ever think what it takes to live on the 'grid'?

 

[Thief]

Source?

sorry....old documentary about lumber and where it comes from....
did you know Opel valley is the LAST place in America to have old growth 400yr old trees?
It's government land.
The lumber companies want it REAL bad.
If it goes....it only takes twenty yrs......gone.....forever.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Nay...by ownership I mean what you have and how you got it.
My house is paid for.
I own it.....but let a couple thou of taxes slip the due date.....OH MY GOD!

Tis true that we only own things at the pleasure of government.
But we shouldn't let that make us feel "owned".
We can be revolting property.

 

[Revoltingest]

sorry....old documentary about lumber and where it comes from....
did you know Opel valley is the LAST place in America to have old growth 400yr old trees?
It's government land.
The lumber companies want it REAL bad.
If it goes....it only takes twenty yrs......gone.....forever.....

There are many more old growth forests.
But I also like preserving them.
This is not anti-capitalist, btw.

 

[Thief]

There are many more old growth forests.
But I also like preserving them.
This is not anti-capitalist, btw.

source please.
I was fairly sure of what I heard.

The lumberjacks would have to give up and relocate if the Valley can't be harvested.

 

[Revoltingest]

source please.
I was fairly sure of what I heard.
The lumberjacks would have to give up and relocate if the Valley can't be harvested.

List of old-growth forests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I recently visited some in CA & NC.

 

[Wirey]

Why not train them? The more skills you have, the more job opportunities you have. And as for infrastructure in America, is has been so horribly neglected that there won't be any shortage of work from repairing it any time soon.

Okay, now we've gone from mandatory employment to mandatory education. The fact that they're struggling to remain employed suggests a certain level of intelligence to begin with (not across the board, but facts be facts). How do you train them? And what happens when they're incapable of learning enough?

 

[Stevicus]

I'm making it sound that way?
Pish posh!
I simply say that they had mass starvation, not that they continuously had it.

Well, you also said "Now [that they've adopted capitalism] they have no more mass starvation," implying that the reason is due to switching to capitalism. That's specious reasoning at best.

From the above, we see that famine & shortages were a normal way of Soviet life.

Well, as I said, it was because they went through two world wars and a civil war. China also went through periods of sustained conflict. It took time to recover from that, even years after the wars were over. It had nothing to do with their economic system and more to do with the hazards of life - floods, droughts - as your links indicate.

In a free market, there are many farmers. The innovative ones will lead the others.

Not so much anymore in the U.S. Farming is corporate these days.

We benefit from farming practice being driven by guys who actually drive & fix the tractors.
Under socialism, it's some leather chair driving aparatchik who got his job cuz he's the nephew of a party member.

It's much the same in corporate America today. Things are mostly run by desk jockeys at the bank who micromanage every business that owes them money. No business has any independence these days since they're run mostly by bankers and insurance company executives. And they're so incredibly egotistical, too, insisting that they be surrounded only by "yes men" who make every corporate boardroom into an echo chamber rife with groupthink. Corporations are also very centralized.

The aspects of capitalism in America you're referring to no longer exist. The family farm is a thing of the past. Mom-and-pop small businesses have been put out of business by the big corporations. You blame the government, yet it's other businesses which are the biggest threat to business in America.

When comparing apples to apples, ie, major powers in the commie & capitalist world, my claim holds water.

But it's not apples to apples. The only reason China and Russia became major powers in the first place was precisely due to communism. Without communism, those countries would have been foundering and would have been anything but major powers.

It would be more valid to compare what China and Russia were like before communism and compare what it was like after. You also have to take into consideration that they suffered through major wars while we were mostly untouched, which had nothing to do with any "system" but just a fortunate quirk of geography.

One can always find mass starvation somewhere in a capitalist country (eg, Ireland), but this does not make the 2 different system equally likely to have it.
Note: Ireland was unusual in its singular major cause, ie, over-dependence upon one variety of potato.

It also happens in times of war or in the aftermath. There were also famines in British India and elsewhere in their Empire during WW2, mainly due to the interruption of food shipments to various regions. Millions died as a result of these famines and are considered among the overall casualties in that war. Shall we say that it was all due to the failures of British capitalism that all these people died? Using your logic, that's what we should conclude. Therefore, capitalism is a dismal failure because it leads to mass starvation.

They don't need to have US style capitalism in order to have capitalism.
My point is that life improved for them by adopting it.

Life improved in those countries by overthrowing capitalism and implementing socialism. There's nothing about socialism which requires that people live in squalor, so the people have better lives in China because their socialist government was committed to improving people's lives.

Likewise, the quality of life has declined in the United States precisely because our capitalist-controlled government wants it that way. FDR and other Keynesians wanted to improve life in the United States, and that's how it happened. (If we want to compare, we can look at the utterly dismal picture of America prior to FDR which was the result of pure capitalism. A total disaster for Americans. Yet, after FDR, America became much, much better.) Unfortunately, when life for working people got better in America, this somehow offended the wealthy classes, which is why they started supporting Reaganomics. Even though life was good in America and the wealthy were doing great, they didn't like the fact that the masses weren't suffering in squalor.

Detroit's problems were caused by several things, but a major factor was the labor market becoming less free due to union power.

Unions would never have become powerful if capitalists were willing to bargain fairly. Rather than cough up a few extra bucks that they could well afford, the notorious capitalist egotism got in the way again.

This didn't made Detroit itself the problem because of what lawyers here call "the Michigan mentality", ie, they want big bucks for little work.

I see this mentality far more among those at the top, not among blue-collar or union workers - who receive only a pittance compared to what CEOs make. And the CEOs do even less work than the janitor. It's the executive class which is excessively overpaid and they do very little work. So, it's perfectly natural that the lower-level workers would want in on the same sweet deal. Except they're demanding far less than the average executive.

So, I guess it's a matter of examining which is worse for a company? Hiring someone at $20/hr to do little work, or to pay someone $20 million/yr to do no work? If things go sour at a company, you would seriously put the blame on lower level employees and consider the top executives blameless (because they're so talented and innovative)? Is that what you mean by "Michigan Mentality"?

So industry moved into non-union areas where employees cost less & were more cooperative.

So, in the eyes of the company, the employees were just interchangeable cogs who could be easily replaced. A worker is a worker is a worker, whether in Michigan, Mexico, or Malaysia. They're all the same, right? Maybe they would have been better off applying that same mentality in regards to their executives. That's the reason business went sour, because their company leadership had no foresight. They wanted cars to be prettier, but not more efficient. These are the kinds of guys who spend money studying how car doors sound when they're slammed, and yet, they seriously believe that "it's all the workers' fault" that their company hit the skids. That's rich.

I'm just giving my personal preferences so that you understand my perspective.
I don't have THE TRUTH or any such foolishness.
Nonetheless, I only favor my agenda because it's better for everyone than socialism with the attendant authoritarian government.
The way to help the poor isn't to ditch capitalism....it's to provide a quality safety net.

I don't agree that it's "better for everyone." I would agree that life here in the United States is relatively better than most other countries, but in no way do I credit it that to a political or economic system. We're just beneficiaries of the spoils of war and the fruits of our conquests. Our early forebears came here and found a sparsely-populated continent teeming with arable land and resources to be exploited. We were geographically fortunate to be buffered by two oceans, and our climate and terrain have been favorable for farming and industrial development. There's no great "magic" or "mystery" to it all, but if we believe that it's all due to our great ingenuity or attribute it to the "wonders of capitalism," then we're only fooling ourselves and doing a disservice to future generations.

I don't think we should ditch capitalism entirely, but I don't think we should allow ideological orthodoxy to become a barrier to common sense in public discourse. Frankly, that was the same mentality that crippled the Soviet Union. They adhered to an ideology just for the sake of adhering to an ideology even when common sense dictated otherwise. That's what a lot of capitalist ideologues are doing here in the United States, and this has been to our ultimate detriment.

 

[dust1n]

We benefit from farming practice being driven by guys who actually drive & fix the tractors.
Under socialism, it's some leather chair driving aparatchik who got his job cuz he's the nephew of a party member.

Is this really true? I was under the impression that most farming practice is dictated in a board room for a food company.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you also said "Now [that they've adopted capitalism] they have no more mass starvation," implying that the reason is due to switching to capitalism. That's specious reasoning at best.

I don't just imply it.
I clearly state that adopting capitalilsm was the cure they needed.

I don't think "specious" means what you think it does.

Well, as I said, it was because they went through two world wars and a civil war. China also went through periods of sustained conflict. It took time to recover from that, even years after the wars were over. It had nothing to do with their economic system and more to do with the hazards of life - floods, droughts - as your links indicate.

They had famine even during peacetime because they were unable to cope with any setback, eg, drought.

Not so much anymore in the U.S. Farming is corporate these days.

Even 10,000 corporate farmers is more diversity of thought than a single governmental entity.
But I also know many small farmers who aren't incorporated.

It's much the same in corporate America today. Things are mostly run by desk jockeys at the bank who micromanage every business that owes them money. No business has any independence these days since they're run mostly by bankers and insurance company executives. And they're so incredibly egotistical, too, insisting that they be surrounded only by "yes men" who make every corporate boardroom into an echo chamber rife with groupthink. Corporations are also very centralized.

I take it that you don't personally know many farmers or bankers.
The former mind their own business.
And the latter have no desire to dictate farming practices.

The aspects of capitalism in America you're referring to no longer exist. The family farm is a thing of the past. Mom-and-pop small businesses have been put out of business by the big corporations. You blame the government, yet it's other businesses which are the biggest threat to business in America.

We've been put out of business?
Pish posh.....poppycock....balderdash.....barsh...flimshaw!
I & many associates run small businesses.

But it's not apples to apples. The only reason China and Russia became major powers in the first place was precisely due to communism. Without communism, those countries would have been foundering and would have been anything but major powers.

They were/are powers because they're big & they chose/choose to exercise power.
If anything, socialism is a drawback in funding their adventurism.
That's why the Soviet empire fell.

It would be more valid to compare what China and Russia were like before communism and compare what it was like after. You also have to take into consideration that they suffered through major wars while we were mostly untouched, which had nothing to do with any "system" but just a fortunate quirk of geography.

Many countries went thru devastating wars.
The capitalistic ones chose to remain so.
The socialist ones chose capitalism.....except for N Korea, which continues to suffer horribly under the pall of socialism & its attendant oppression.

It also happens in times of war or in the aftermath. There were also famines in British India and elsewhere in their Empire during WW2, mainly due to the interruption of food shipments to various regions. Millions died as a result of these famines and are considered among the overall casualties in that war. Shall we say that it was all due to the failures of British capitalism that all these people died? Using your logic, that's what we should conclude. Therefore, capitalism is a dismal failure because it leads to mass starvation.

Do we see mass starvation here.....in Japan, in Germany, in.....oh, you get the picture.
Where we have the flexibility of free markets, we do much better than societies with centrally managed agriculture.
Don't forget that the biggest famine in history (43,000,000 dead) was the Great Chinese Famine around 1960.....which was peacetime.
This was all thanx to the Great Leap forward, which had outlawed private land ownership, & mandated bad farming practice.

Life improved in those countries by overthrowing capitalism and implementing socialism. There's nothing about socialism which requires that people live in squalor, so the people have better lives in China because they're socialist government was committed to improving people's lives.

Do you know any people who lived under USSR or PRC socialism, & then under capitalism.
I do. They'd disagree with you about how great things were back in the day.

Likewise, the quality of life has declined in the United States precisely because our capitalist-controlled government wants it that way.

Capitalists want a lower quality of life?
Drat!
You're on to our secret fiendish plan!

So, in the eyes of the company, the employees were just interchangeable cogs who could be easily replaced. A worker is a worker is a worker, whether in Michigan, Mexico, or Malaysia. They're all the same, right? Maybe they would have been better off applying that same mentality in regards to their executives. That's the reason business went sour, because their company leadership had no foresight. They wanted cars to be prettier, but not more efficient. These are the kinds of guys who spend money studying how car doors sound when they're slammed, and yet, they seriously believe that "it's all the workers' fault" that their company hit the skids. That's rich.

This is how free markets work.

I don't agree that it's "better for everyone." I would agree that life here in the United States is relatively better than most other countries, but in no way do I credit it that to a political or economic system. We're just beneficiaries of the spoils of war and the fruits of our conquests.

What are our spoils from wars?

Our early forebears came here and found a sparsely-populated continent teeming with arable land and resources to be exploited. We were geographically fortunate to be buffered by two oceans, and our climate and terrain have been favorable for farming and industrial development. There's no great "magic" or "mystery" to it all, but if we believe that it's all due to our great ingenuity or attribute it to the "wonders of capitalism," then we're only fooling ourselves and doing a disservice to future generations.

So prosperity just happens when there's a bounty?
The Soviets had far more resources, & yet their economy never even approached ours in productivity.

I don't think we should ditch capitalism entirely, but I don't think we should allow ideological orthodoxy to become a barrier to common sense in public discourse. Frankly, that was the same mentality that crippled the Soviet Union. They adhered to an ideology just for the sakke of adhering to an ideology even when common sense dictated otherwise. That's what a lot of capitalist ideologues are doing here in the United States, and this has been to our ultimate detriment.

Common sense is a rare & wonderful thing.