The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I bolded the part I was talking about, but here it goes: "There will always be a difference in wealth that may or may not be fair but if everyone plays by the same rules then it is a fair playing field".

That does not mean I think life is a game. We have laws, correct?

 

[Koldo]

That does not mean I think life is a game.

What is everyone playing in a playing field then if not a game?

We have laws, correct?

Yes. Therefore?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Merely increasing the taxes obviously wouldn't solve the poverty by itself. There is no dispute over this. It certainly depends on how the government is spending the money. To what extent it is possible to make do with the current taxes is an interesting conversation to have. Do you have the numbers?

Here is the US budget:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf

This says $539B per year would end poverty in the US in 2018 so lets say $700B today.

Less Than 3 Percent of GDP Could End U.S. Poverty, New Research Shows - Georgetown University

A universal basic income (UBI) allowing all Americans to live above the poverty line would have a cost equal to less than 3 percent of the nation’s GDP, according to a new study by Georgetown University in Qatar professor Karl Widerquist.

www.georgetown.edu

Receipts were $4.8T, so if we cut 15% from every line item we could get there.

Therefore, if a rich person can afford to pay higher wages, but pay wages so low that the employees are living in poverty, this rich person is responsible for poverty to some extent.

No, they are not. They are responsible to run a profitable company for its employees. People are responsible for working hard and supporting themselves. If they cannot for some valid reason then the government need to help them.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What is everyone playing in a playing field then if not a game?

It is an expression. Do you believe me that I don't think life is a game or not. If you don't believe me then our discussion is done.

Yes. Therefore?

That was my point that. That we have rules to live by that does not make it a game just because games have rules. Bears and goats have legs that does not make a bear a goat.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Chinese version of socialism with a mixed economy is certainly working.

It is working, but not the kind of "working" that I call
a success. It retained the politically & socially authoritarian
communist government.

It has industralsed and. modernized and become the second most advanced and wealthy country in the world in double quick time.
It has the most advanced infrastructure and the cleanest and safest cities in the world.

Which it achieved once it allowed capitalism.

This is because it has the most democratic with the distributed power, local and regional government and mayoral system anywhere.
It's administrative system is unequalled. It has eradicated extreme poverty and homelessness in the past thirty years. It's highly competitive examination and education education system produces more highly qualified graduates and post graduates than north America and Europe combined.

I'm surprised to hear China is "democratic".
Not a lot of voting by the populace.

It has a modern hitec health service that is both inexpensive and covers the entire population.
In most scientific technical and industrial fields, it is either catching up with, or has overtaken the Usa.

It has not wasted is money on constant wars and military adventures.

China has begun wasting much money
on its military though. But this is a policy
independent of its economic system, ie,
it's a political decision.

However it has easily the second most advanced military in the world. With an ongoing

military and naval manufacturing capacity far in excess of the USA.


Not bad for a mere socialist country. Àmericans may not like it but it is reality

I wouldn't call China "socialist" these days,
given that it has a market economy. Although
Xi has made remarks that he wants to make
it more socialist than it currently is.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is working, but not the kind of "working" that I call
a success. It retained the politically & socially authoritarian
communist government.

You can go further back than that, it's government structure has changed very little since the days of imperial china. Since then it has only added a veneer of communist rule.

I'm surprised to hear China is "democratic".
Not a lot of voting by the populace..

The structure is different to most western countries.

At the peoples level, they vote for local level candidates.
At higher levels of city, region upwards. Each level elects the next higher level till the highest level votes for the leader. This is remarkably similar to the system used in the Church of England, and many other organisations.

It is a very efficient way of handling multi tiers of elections, as each level has intimate knowledge of the people they are electing.

China has begun wasting much money
on its military though. But this is a policy
independent of its economic system, ie,
it's a political decision.

I would not call China's military expenditure wasteful. It is many times less than the USA. however it has built up a largely defensive structure to cope with any likely attack by an enemy. Apart from long range missiles it has very little extreme range attack capability.

The American Military LOBBY system is perhaps the most wasteful of all. Resulting in disjointed planning a duplication and uncontrolled waste. While panning for sustained supply of ammunition and armaments due to use and attrition are almost entirely absent. As is the capability of replacing capital equipment such as ships.

I wouldn't call China "socialist" these days,
given that it has a market economy. Although
Xi has made remarks that he wants to make
it more socialist than it currently is.

China at a people level is highly socialist in nature but blended with Confucianism.
Economically it is based on a mixed economy, but with many more safeguards, concerning China's interests, and especially for complying with the countries 5 year plans.

It has been reports that Xi is particularly concerned with the disparity between the extreme wealthy and the layers of wage earners. And is also continuing to stamp hard on corruption of all kinds In both the private and public sector. This has been considerably reduced during his term of office.

A major factor in Chinas success it the efficiency and high level ability of its administrators.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can go further back than that, it's government structure has changed very little since the days of imperial china. Since then it has only added a veneer of communist rule.

It is astounding that you don't see the changes.

Chinese Communist Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you know anyone who lived thru that transition?
Ask them.

The structure is different to most western countries.

No kidding. Votes there are limited to supporting
what's dictated by a powerful central government.
Criticism is illegal.
Ask @Audie how democratic China is.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

`

It is astounding that you don't see the changes.

Chinese Communist Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you know anyone who lived thru that transition?
Ask them.

No kidding. Votes there are limited to supporting
what's dictated by a powerful central government.
Criticism is illegal.
Ask @Audie how democratic China is.

I am well aware of the changes in China since the defeat of the Nationalist.
I was posted to Hong Kong in 1953/4 during the Korean war, and followed their progress and failures with interest since then.

You seemed to have missed my point that the actual governing structures have changed little since ancient times. While names have changed.

 

[Audie]

It is astounding that you don't see the changes.

Chinese Communist Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you know anyone who lived thru that transition?
Ask them.

No kidding. Votes there are limited to supporting
what's dictated by a powerful central government.
Criticism is illegal.
Ask @Audie how democratic China is.

Nah dont.
I want to stay out of prison.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah dont.
I want to stay out of prison.

But they're democratic....so I'm told.
Question....
When was the election for Xi?

 

[Revoltingest]

`
I am well aware of the changes in China since the defeat of the Nationalist.
I was posted to Hong Kong in 1953/4 during the Korean war, and followed their progress and failures with interest since then.

You seemed to have missed my point that the actual governing structures have changed little since ancient times. While names have changed.

Then you really shouldn't consider
it a democratically run country.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Then you really shouldn't consider
it a democratically run country.

Is the electorial college system used in the USA democratic.

Countries that have prime ministers do not vote for them either. Nor for ministers.

Countries use many systems to appoint their leaders. None can guarantee a wise leader.
The American system seems to fail more often than not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the electorial college system used in the USA democratic.

It is, awkwardly so.
Had Trump succeeded with his fraudulent
electors, you might have an instance to
use for argument otherwise.

Countries that have prime ministers do not vote for them either. Nor for ministers.

Countries use many systems to appoint their leaders. None can guarantee a wise leader.
The American system seems to fail more often than not.

Think of democracy as representative government.
Russia has voting, but isn't representative.
I dislike the leaders elected in USA, but they
represent the populace.

 

[Koldo]

Here is the US budget:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf

This says $539B per year would end poverty in the US in 2018 so lets say $700B today.

Less Than 3 Percent of GDP Could End U.S. Poverty, New Research Shows - Georgetown University

A universal basic income (UBI) allowing all Americans to live above the poverty line would have a cost equal to less than 3 percent of the nation’s GDP, according to a new study by Georgetown University in Qatar professor Karl Widerquist.

www.georgetown.edu

Receipts were $4.8T, so if we cut 15% from every line item we could get there.

Let's presume 700 billions would be enough. If you cut the spending by 15% in every line, that would increase the poverty bar because it would involve cutting the funding to social programs. What would you cut then?

No, they are not. They are responsible to run a profitable company for its employees. People are responsible for working hard and supporting themselves. If they cannot for some valid reason then the government need to help them.

They are responsible in the sense that there is a causal relationship between employers paying low wages, when they could afford to pay higher, and people remaining poor. You can't tell me with a straight face that people paying low wages has absolutely nothing to do with poverty.

 

[Koldo]

It is an expression. Do you believe me that I don't think life is a game or not. If you don't believe me then our discussion is done.

That was my point that. That we have rules to live by that does not make it a game just because games have rules. Bears and goats have legs that does not make a bear a goat.

The problem is that even if I believe in you that you don't see life as a game we are still left with the problem that having rules being applied to everyone equally only constitutes a standard for fairness in games. Since we are not talking about a competition, why would you use that standard?

 

[Koldo]

It is, awkwardly so.
Had Trump succeeded with his fraudulent
electors, you might have an instance to
use for argument otherwise.

Think of democracy as representative government.
Russia has voting, but isn't representative.
I dislike the leaders elected in USA, but they
represent the populace.

Represent in what sense? What does it mean to 'represent the populace' on this context?

 

[Revoltingest]

Represent in what sense? What does it mean to 'represent the populace' on this context?

Leaders generally carry out the
wishes of those who elect them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's some other myths:
Riches to extreme riches counts as rags to riches.
Rich people are inherently smarter and harder workers.
Hard work is how you get rich.
The existence of the self-made milli/billionaire.
Greed is good.
Tragedy of the Commons.
Poor people are poor due to bad decisions amd bettering yourself as easy as just gettiny a better job.
Personality tests as predictors if you're suited for the job or not.
Amd for America:
Hard work and dedication (aka the No Vacation Nation) is an ideal and normal way to live.
People are adequately compensated for their market value.

 

[Revoltingest]

Riches to extreme riches counts as rags to riches.

Who says that.

Rich people are inherently smarter and harder workers.

This might tend to be true.

Hard work is how you get rich.

It's often true.

The existence of the self-made milli/billionaire.

Disproven.

Greed is good.

Greed is can be either good or bad.

Tragedy of the Commons.
Poor people are poor due to bad decisions amd bettering yourself as easy as just gettiny a better job.

I've hired the poor.
This is really really true.

Personality tests as predictors if you're suited for the job or not.
Amd for America:
Hard work and dedication (aka the No Vacation Nation) is an ideal and normal way to live.
People are adequately compensated for their market value.

Generally true.
I'm usually paid nothing.
That's what I'm worth

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who says that.

Everyone who thinks those like Bill Gates (who came from riches) counts as a rags to riches story.

This might tend to be true.

It's not true. Few work harder than farmers amd construction crews, the sciences tend to soak up the brains, but they aren't he wealthiest people out there.

It's often true.

You have better odds of getting rich by playing the lottery than you do by working hard.

Disproven

Yes, the self made man has been disproven. We are the combined efforts of everyone we've ever known (Chuck Palahniuk), amd without a society and others we have nothing (the wealthy of ancient Greece realized and accepted this).

Greed is can be either good or bad.

It's not good as taking more than you need leads to problems for the one doing it and others as well.

This is really really true.

And I've worked with a lot of people who are poor through no doing of their own (usually physicaland mental health woes).

Generally true.
I'm usually paid nothing.
That's what I'm worth

If we were paid in accordance to market value wed generally be paid more (with higher prices, but it's what proper First World countries do).