Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 12. (Read 21323 times)

If the family is multiplying, the resources become diluted among the individuals. If they indeed are consuming at a high rate and contributing nothing, the resources are likely to be squandered in short order.

There are many types of socialism.  These systems lie on a spectrum which harkens back to your giant blind spot on the political compass.  Even amongst socialists, there are many means to many ends.  

Workplace democracy is the form of socialism I have been arguing for all along.  You've been dying to get back to a semantic argument of how you define socialism but I refused to continue.  You're still going to have to be consistent.  No one wants a system like the Soviet union.  Every socialist I have ever met wants democratic socialism.  Please point me to one who wants totalitarianism.   You can't have it both ways to say that "my ideology" has killed millions of people then say the success of Marcora law and workplace democracy is not my ideology.  

1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.  

2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about.

4. Could be a chicken egg thing.  Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money.  

Simplisitic example:

-Unemployed shoe workers start shoe cooperative and make money selling shoes, pay taxes.

then

-Said workers buy bikes with their extra money, expanding the bike market

then

-More workers start a bike cooperative to help meet increased bike demand

then

-All of these new bike workers buy shoes.....GDP increases

This process doesn't continue forever. Cooperatives are only improved in areas where resources are idle and there is need.  If all aluminum was already in the economy, a business plan for aluminum bikes would not be funded.  

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

   I actually think the old school way of workers forming unions and negotiated a deal with the "evil" capitalists gets a far better deal than government mandated minimum wages, etc. I also don't think government inspired wealth redistribution inspires healthy innovation. Many nouveau riche deserve to be rich and some of their contributions are so good, they should be able to ensure that their descendants get some advantages too.

That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.

Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?

1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.

2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.

A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.

4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?

So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism.  Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism? 

1. Nope we've been through this.  Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency. 
2,3.  The economy is not running at full steam.  There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services.  We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone. 
I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy. 

"This has already happened." This what? I already responded to your single go to "Marcora laws". This is not empirical data that Socialism will stimulate the economy. First of all because the country is not Socialist. Second, even if it was, Socialism can coast on the fruits of the previous Capitalist system for some time until it fails.

This is the lie Socialists are best at selling. This is why I said Socialists are like an 18 year old with a credit card. Sure you can live off of a credit card and not produce as much as you consume for a little while, but eventually the debt comes due and your lie collapses.

It should be simple to grasp

1. Government has to take that money from workers by force
2. Businesses are already created with that money
3. Economic activity is already stimulated because we are operating under Capitalism
4. Workers are already paid and consume more from the economy

This has already happened.  I already gave you empirical data on the success of Marcora law in Emelia-Romagna.  Yes it stimulated the economy.  Yes people became happier.  Yes that region with 30% GDP coming from worker cooperatives is more resilient during economic crashes that affect the rest of the country.  No they did not collapse into inevitable dictatorship.

It should be simple to grasp
1.government spends money
2. businesses are created with that money (buying goods and services from other business)
3. business hire workers who produce goods and services (economic activity)
4. workers are paid, taxes are paid, and those workers go and consume more from the economy

You can say whatever you like, that doesn't make it true. You don't even bother explaining how Socialism will "stimulate economic activity", you just accept it as a given and everything magically works out. Once again, more theories are useless unless you have empirical data to back up your arguments.

Once again you talk for me. Why even have a debate if you are going to just make up arguments for me yourself and argue them. I never said anything about the gold standard, you did. For about the 800th time, you are the one advocating a change, the burden of proof is on you to support your argument.

"it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases."

What the fuck are you even rambling on about?

As usual, it couldn't be that you are wrong, no I simply have a "oversimplified understanding of monetary policy". Its not that you provide little to no support for your arguments, it is just that I need to look it it from the position of your mental gymnastics to understand it.

Lets put aside over 100 years of your ideology actually resulting in the systematic removal of property rights, then redefine the laws of economics so that inflation magically now doesn't reduce buying power because "the economy is already running at full capacity" whatever the fuck that means. Your next statement is just word salad in a sad attempt again to give yourself a facade of authority by jibbering off some economic buzzwords in a nearly meaningless order that are in direct contradiction to what would happen under the inflationary solution you propose.

You then proceed to make vast baseless generalizations and postulations without referencing anything at all to back up your rambling senseless attempt at justifying this failed ideology. The existence of debt does not invalidate Capitalism or support the idea of Socialism. I also don't like corporate handouts any more than I like Socialist handouts. Just because they can get away with it does not validate your own ideology.

Creating a larger monetary base is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN TO DECREASE BUYING POWER. This isn't something you can deconstruct your way around. Its not that big of a deal until Socialism burns up the remnants of the resources created under the previous Capitalist system, then it is a huge fucking problem. Sooner or later you run out of people to rob.





Oh he is being unrealistic? That is cute. In the real world companies holding large amounts of real estate that is not in use get tax cuts that effectively reduce their property taxes to zero. Yeah, you are right, who ever heard of speculative investment in real estate right?

How about margin call i think it's quite unique the concept of margin call, however, sorry to bother you the half of it concept is written comedy correct me if i'm wrong though, i drop a link below maybe some will watch it.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DqFRsPrns

Unrealistic hypothetical. In the real world, large amounts of real estate sits idle.   Real estate developers don't operate businesses. Thats just not the way our specialized economy is set up.  Landlords just want reliable tenants.  They gain nothing by letting their property sit idle while they continue to pay taxes on it.  Once the cooperatives starts accumulating money, they can put profits into a fund to buy their own building. 

People aren't going to take the 5 dollar jobs.  Its an illegal wage and those businesses would fail anyway.

What if all building owners refuse to lease to your socialist co-operatives.  But instead will operate their own businesses hiring people at $5/hr?

What you are going to do?  Where you are going to get the building to operate your socialist co-operative?

You are going to confiscate the private property sooner or later.  Just be honest about your plan.  

If your socialist workers want to buy the building, they have to come up with the money (gold or bitcoin as your socialist money will not be worth much) and buy it from the owner.  Then they can operate whatever business they want.  There will be nothing socialist about it.  Just a bunch of guys working in a limited partnership arrangement.

The "initial operating costs" include the lease on the building.   Everything is being bought.  Nothing is being stolen and I never suggested that.  Please stop trying to make this about the Soviets.  Creating money does not necessarily decrease buying power.  You seem to have an oversimplified understanding of monetary policy.  Yes if you increase money supply without increasing economic output then you decrease buying power, but in this context, that only happens once the economy is already running at full capacity. Running at full capacity means all of the economy's resources are already put to use and you have more money chasing fewer goods.   When the money is being used to put people to work and create businesses, you won't see this effect until no more resources (employees, buildings, or raw materials) are available to be purchased.   You should fear deflation just as much as inflation and having resources sit idle is not a good thing for the economy.  Also, the our purchasing power has been in steady decline for decades.  Have you never noticed the debt?  People only mention it as a doomsday scenario when we talk about using the new money to help people instead of using it to help large corporations.   Its really not that big of a deal if the economy is doing well.


Yes the reform policies I am suggesting would take place within the current system.  Thats the point. Its within reach.  Current tax code is not very cooperative friendly and actually makes them pretty much illegal in a lot of states.    Those would need to be updated as well to treat worker cooperatives as nonprofits.  There aren't many lawyers who have the training to deal with cooperative disputes either.  Very unfavorable right now yet there are still very successful worker cooperatives because the model is so superior.

Resources already exist, and they already have owners. Goods come from NATURAL RESOURCES as well as labor. You can not print resources no matter how much money you print. Also if you knew anything about economics you would know simply creating new money results in inflation by debasing its buying power. This is nothing but a form of theft from current note holders of the currency you create more of.

You claim you are for protecting people's property rights, yet you advocate for an ideology that will do so with zero explanation of how they will come into control of these resources without stealing the rights of others. Some one still owns that supermarket property before the workers magically acquire it. If you are suggesting they pay for it, then nothing in your hypothetical is prevented by the current standing system of Capitalism. Not only is Socialism not needed, it is really just what everyone else calls "Capitalism".

Someone owned the building and the land the supermarket was operating from.  The building was sold to someone else when the supermarket closed down.

You are suggesting the building is taken away from the rightful owner and given away to workers.  That is what Soviets did to kulaks.

And you think it is a good idea?  You need to be locked up.  You are planning all-out robberies.  FBI should be investigating you.

Do you even know what the property rights are?

You don't really need a lot of government supervision. If you use a PMA (private membership association), you can do a lot without government interference.

However, Woodman's Market of Janesville and Appleton Wisconsin has been employee owned for decades. They have even expanded out of state:
We don't really need government.

I don't think we should take people's property at all.

Resources already exist.  
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.  

1. The supermarket in a community closes down
2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.

Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it.  Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses.  Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.

Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.

Yes, entitled to does have a specific meaning. I didn't change anything, you invented an argument for me and I clarified my position to refute you speaking for me.
I see so, if the taking of other people's property rights is slower that makes it ok? Well that is different!

You haven't explained government financing AT ALL. You stated government will give subsidies and entitlements to groups as if those resources just appear with a pen stroke. I haven't skipped over anything. YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHERE THESE RESOURCES WILL COME FROM. Just claiming you have is not good enough. Government handouts have nothing to do with Capitalism (except that Capitalism pays for them), and just because they are beginning to be corrupted with Socialist policies is not proof they are working or a good thing.