Topic: Why Socialism is the key - page 17. (Read 33165 times)

People can't sell things for less than they cost, or they quickly end up with nothing.
If they don't make money, they can't keep working.

And yet that's exactly what you're complaining about - the fact that nothing is free and we have to work for a living.






It's not called a markup, and it's much less than what you're talking about.

Most businesses only keep about $2,500 for every $100,000 they take in.  If they do well.

So one person pays another person to work, buys the materials, pays for the electricity and property tax, pays the salesmen to sell the product, pays to have the product shipped, pays for any other cost that arises, and pays for anything that breaks or goes wrong.

All of that adds up to $100,000, and if he's lucky he can sell $102,500 worth of brooms.

He does all that, employs all those people so they can feed their children, and at the same time he provides people with the best quality broom for the lowest price, because they need brooms.

And everyone participates freely of their own choice.  
No one is forced to make brooms, no one is forced to buy brooms.
The workers take the job because they want it.
The customers buy the brooms because they want them.

They could make their own brooms instead,
but they would be poorer quality and cost more than the brooms from the factory.
Instead of spending several hours and multiple resources on making a broom at home,
people can buy the factory broom for less "labor hours" than it would take to make one.

And if the owner of the factory only sells $97,500 worth of brooms, he's still spent $100,000.  He has to pay $2,500 of his own money just to give everyone else a job.  He ends up with less money than he had when he started.  But the worker still gets 100% of his pay.  The salesmen get 100% of their pay.  The material suppliers get 100% of their money for the wood and the straw and the metal and the stitching.  The truck drivers still get paid to deliver the brooms.  The repairmen get 100% of their pay for maintaining the machines at the factory.  

The retail stores get to sell the brooms for more than they paid, and they use that money to pay their own employees and their own bills.

And the people who buy the brooms still get to sweep their floors, even if the man who owns the broom factory lost money.

And by the way, the factory didn't appear out of thin air.
If the man hadn't built the factory, none of those people would be able to get paid by the factory.
None of those people could afford to build a building,
and they certainly couldn't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for the machinery.

Even if they had borrowed the money, they wouldn't have known how to build a broom factory.
And even while they're getting paid by the factory, they don't work one bit harder than they have to.
They waste time, waste money, screw things up,
and if they cause the factory to go out of business,
leaving the owner and his wife homeless and in millions of dollar of debt,
the employees just go get another job.  They owe nothing.
The employees don't care, because they're only in it for the money.  They're greedy and selfish.

The employees didn't help pay for the building or the machines,
but they don't mind taking the money that comes from those machines.  
The employees don't even help pay for maintenance and repairs.

In fact, the employees are free to leave whenever they want, with no responsibility to the factory, while the owner might end up losing his house, or even going to jail, if the employees break the rules without his knowledge or screw up bad enough just one time.  So the job pays the workers enough to buy 100% of all their needs in life, and it brings no risk or responsibility for them, while the owner risks everything he has to give them those jobs.
 






"Value of their labor"?

There are 7 billion people on this planet.
If not one of those 7 billion people values your labor any more than your current employer values it, then that's probably a pretty good estimate of your labor's real value.  Your paycheck gives you 100% of what you earned, and probably more than you're worth.

If you're "losing the value of your labor", then quit and get a better job.

If someone is asking too much for a broom, go buy one cheaper.

If you can make a broom or a mop at home, then make it instead of buying it.

But if you can't find a better or cheaper broom anywhere on Planet Earth,
then your whining about how it costs too much is pure garbage.  Isn't it?

"This is better quality for a lower price than any human has been able to buy in all of human history.  And it's oppressing me!"






You're not referring to any type of reality.






So if the worker quits his job at the broom factory,
goes home and cuts down a tree,
and starts making brooms in his garage,
owning the tools and materials which are the means of production,
then he's suddenly transformed from a laborer into a capitalist?

HINT:  He was already a capitalist when he took his paycheck every week







Unless they lose everything they own and go out of business,
which happens to rich people every day.

So...what you're saying is stupid.






If they have nothing, how can they get any poorer than that?

It's nonsense.  You're saying things that are impossible.






What does that mean?

That other humans beings are obligated to give us things, and it is our right to receive them?
Tell that to the millions of people throughout history who starved to death, or were eaten by wild animals.

None of our so-called "poor people" in the United States ever starve to death, and they never get eaten by wild animals.  Do you know why?  Because they're receiving the benefit of other people's labor which keeps them safe and well-fed.  And the majority of all U.S. residents "under the poverty line" have more than 1 video game console, cable TV, cell phones, a different change of clothes for every day of the week, and they eat meat 3 times a day.

So the poor get richer.  A LOT richer.

"Poor people" now have things that rich people didn't have 100 years ago.
Because poor people have consistently gotten richer in the free market system.

And they don't even have to work.
Basically, they live like kings.  
They can eat and get drunk and have sex and consume entertainment,
all day and all night,
and they never have to lift a finger for anyone else.

So the people who "own the means of production" go to work every day and pay for "poor people" to party.  In other words, the factory owner is a slave who is forced to work for the enjoyment of the privileged class who receive "welfare" tribute appeasement money.








You think rich people get their money from poor people.

If that doesn't sound like a joke to you, then you have serious problems.

First you must know bitcoin have nothing with social system.
Bitcoin is money, decentralized crypto currency and can be used in every system we know it.



Second you probably don't know anything about socialism.
This was first step from monarchist France toward more human system.
First time people were equal in their fight for rights and freedom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpDbvlAI_A0

OMG are you actually saying that the capitalists owning the means of production will have greater power than the laborers??? And therefore will become richer by exploiting the work of labourers?

Would it mean... That MARX WAS RIGHT??? And that marxism and socialism (which are different things but with some common ideas) are actual answers to the domination of capital?

Damned! Who would have thought that there was such inequalities in our world...

Wait... FUCKING EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN!

1) Why would a venture capitalist pay a laborer to create a product that the capitalist is going to sell for the same amount it cost to produce it?  That's not how the market works!  The capitalists sell the product at what is called a "markup."  It is usually much greater than the 8/12, on average, than I included in my example.

2) When I say laborer, I am talking about anybody in the labor pool....so, if one laborer produces broomsticks and another laborer produces mop heads, they don't necessarily have to buy the exact product they produce to lose the value of their labor because we're looking at the pool in its entirety.  The broomstick laborer will need a mop head and the mop head laborer will need a broomstick....therefore, their labor/hours are still spent in proportions unequal to the rate they are paid. That's how the system works.....it is a fact, not an opinion.

3) When I am talking about the "market" I am not referring to any type of governmental structure....economic systems and governance systems are two distinct entities.  Many confuse the two because they are often interrelated in rhetoric.

4) It was asked why the laborer would work for the capitalist if the laborer could just go out and produce the product on their own....the capitalist owns the means of production....that's what makes them the capitalist.  Therefore, the rich get richer (they own the means of production), and the poor get poorer (they're not receiving the true value of their labor).

Now, I have no opinion on which economic system is best....I'm just pointing out some facts to explain why the gap between the very rich and the very poor is increasing.  That's all.

Seems like you still don't understand anything...

I never said that. I said the peasants were selling to the only one who accepted to buy from them which is the food industry! Because now nobody buys directly to the peasants!
It's not that they're dumb it's that they have no choice ><

True, it's probably a waste of time talking to them.

Like this guy who talks about ignorant peasants who can only do what they're told,
and then immediately says he doesn't believe in different classes.

You're right about Bitcoin, and these socialists here wouldn't even be involved with Bitcoin if they followed the rules they want to impose on everyone else.

Seems like you never worked a day in your life and you never heard about mass manipulation if you actually believe companies don't control consumers. And it IS currently happening. See that yourself:

http://www.alternet.org/food/food-brands-climate-change

10 companies control everything in the food industry. You don't have the impression that it's actually going closer and closer to a monopoly?

No, it's not.  And you know it's not.

It's a ridiculous lie to say that people work 8 hours and then owe 12 hours.  
No reasonable person can honestly believe that.

For one thing, workers don't buy all the products they make themselves.
So it wouldn't matter even if it did cost 12 hours to buy something that took them 8 hours to make -
unless it's something they absolutely must buy again and again every single day of their lives.
But that would be stupid, not to mention impossible.

The typical reality is something more like this:
 - They go to the factory and make things
 - They get paid for their work, and they can't find anyone in the world to pay them more
 - They don't ever have to buy the things they make, unless they want to
 - It's cheaper than what they could have made by themselves, thanks to "the capitalists"
 - It only costs the worker 6 hours to buy the product that would cost them 24 hours to make at home
 - The only time their money and labor is taken forcibly from them is by the government
 - The government takes about 16 hours of their labor each week, you want to increase that
 - The workers and the employers both contribute value to the world
 - They both respect the other's freedom and help each other fulfill their needs
 - Money-grabbing socialists contribute nothing

 






You hate freedom, so you don't want people to have the choice to buy what they want.








Wal-Mart sells mirrors.  Look into that.

Consumers only go to Wal-Mart out of a free choice to benefit themselves.

People only argue against that if they're brainwashed.






So you're saying Black people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed their own money,
because they're an inferior underclass without the capacity to make their own decisions?

Good luck getting people to agree with that, you racist freedom-hating money-grabber.

What equality is there between an engineer child and a worker child in a country where studies cost few hundred thousands dollars?

Edit: And as say above there is no "rulling class" in a direct democracy. That's the whole point of it...

Great, if you admit you don't give a fuck about solidarity and that it's everyone alone then you're right socialism is not for you.

If you find normal that if you die tomorrow your kids will have to take a 200k$ loan in order to go to university then go on.

I don't find it normal though

Do you actually understand that since the beginning he's talking about a direct democracy? Which means there is no "rulling class" or "government monopoly" as the government is the people?

Nicely said.

The Socialists here don't really give a shit about moral arguments nor logical ones. They're hung up on the fears of "monopolies", meanwhile they advocate for the most dangerous form of monopoly called Government. Nothing was said when I pointed that out to them, except "look at the Gini index". That is not an argument, it's just throwing stats around and avoiding thought.


I do agree a widening gap between rich and poor is not ideal. But who the hell are you to determine what that correct arbitrary number is? You understand that you'll never make everyone equal in terms of wealth and you admit it wouldn't make sense. So in other words, in your opinion, there is some magic number that is "fair", which only Socialism and it's all knowing leaders can determine?

Socialism attempts to make things more equal or more fair based on some purely subjective measure of fairness. Yet fair and equal mean different things to different people, even among Socialists!

Socialism promises equality for everyone (except the ruling class of course). Free markets or Voluntarism just give people the best chance at an equal opportunity.

Notice I didn't say Capitalism. Capitalism these days is way too confused with what I call Cronyism or Corporatism. I refer to free markets (Voluntarism), which under the current Capitalist systems throughout the world, don't really exist. I don't consider the USA to be a free market. There are some elements of free markets, but for the most part Western economies are just mixed economies or semi-socialist.

You're whole argument is essentially that American Socialism (which you call Capitalism) is bad and that European Socialism is better. There is a saying, "Same shit, different pile". They are two sides of the same coin.

You'You can't really have a free market when the Government has monopoly control over the nations money and hence why I am very enthusiastic about Bitcoin. I believe there should be a free and competing market in currencies. They shouldn't be monopolized by nation states. As a Socialist though, I'd assume you'd rather Bitcoin be controlled by government like everything else, correct?

This is sad to find people like you here. What has bitcointalk come to? Bitcoin is here to wipe out socialism. Try to force me to pay for someone else's mistake with Bitcoin. You cannot. OP needs to get his head out of his ass.

I see in western countries and American countries, many people are indifferent and do not like to socialize with other people. if this habit of your nation?
so many fights between people. and many who do not respect others

Because that's not EXACTLY what's happening with the whole food industry?

Thank you for proving how horrible the capitalism and free market system is.

Big companies like Walmart corrupt consumers. Consumers only go here because they're brainwashed as fuck. Peasants can only sell to Walmart. Walmart decides how much they pay the peasants.

That's what is currently happening. And not only with food. With everything.

You think that people can be totally free and that is not the case, they will always be manipulated and influenced by the companies.

If that was true, the laborer would just "create a product" and sell it to another laborer for 12 labor/hours.
Maybe you've left out some important details?

What you've described makes "laborers" look like complete fools,
obviously in need of your control to save them from their own choices.

The truth is that a free market allows everyone to engage in voluntary exchange. 
Whatever deal the laborer makes, he makes it freely because he feels that it is beneficial to himself. 

But you don't want the laborer to be able to decide what is best for himself.

And that is what socialism is about: 
taking away people's freedom, their power of choice,
and giving all that power to a few people.

And take a look at Gini index of the USA, one of the most free market of the world:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/rich-and-rest-us-united-states

Yeah it gonna reach 0.5 one of the highest it ever was.

You still think free market is giving everyone his chance?

I would like to introduce all of you an important thing which is not famous enough. You probably all know what growth is, what GDP is...

But have you heard of the Gini index?

The gini index is extremely important. It goes from 0 to 1 and describes inequality of wealth. At 0 everybody in a country owns exactly the same amount of wealth. At 1 one person owns everything.

In France the gini index steadily decreased years after years under a true socialist government. It stabilized around 0.27; which seemed to be a good end point as you don't want EVERYONE to have exactly the same thing, that would make no sense.
For the last 15 years, we had liberals only, they could be left or right wings but they were not socialist that's for sure. What happened? They got rid of regulations, taxes, work laws... They slowly turned French economy into a free economy. Direct consequence? A rise of unemployment and poverty but also a rise of Gini index which came back again to 0.3 and will grow steadily...

http://www.inegalites.fr/spip.php?article632

Socialism is about helping each other. It's about one being successful and help the whole society. It's about EVERYONE having the chance to success if you work hard enough.

It's not possible in a free market simply because those who already have power and money will not let you try.

This is wrong you seem to have 0 notions of proportions. I advice you to look at any state budget then compare it to, for example, the income of companies like Apple and then realize that one is without any doubt much higher than the other.