|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 31 2013 07:13 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 05:16 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
No military reduction because of jobs and defending freedoms and support our troops and red commies in China and blah blah blah.
Next idea? Military spending is already being reduced. Let's cut healthcare spending. 1: by how much over how long? 2: how would that in any conceivable way be a good idea?
1:
2: US healthcare is expensive. There's ample room to reduce spending without harming real tangible healthcare benefits.
Edit:On October 31 2013 07:16 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 07:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 05:16 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
No military reduction because of jobs and defending freedoms and support our troops and red commies in China and blah blah blah.
Next idea? Military spending is already being reduced. Let's cut healthcare spending. Let's do it. I have an awesome plan: single-payer. ^^ If that's too extreme, let's just go with price controls. ^^
Politically price controls and other cost saving measures should be feasible. At least in small steps (every bit helps...).
|
Safety net programs are at high levels, and are approaching unsustainable levels; cuts, or alterations have to be made; so that more is gotten out of them. Productivity is important, and providing funding for no productivity is a bad investment, when we could instead use it for something productive.
I wish I was in charge and could just implement fixes to all these things.
|
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive?
"Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. "
|
On October 31 2013 08:01 zlefin wrote:
Safety net programs are at high levels, and are approaching unsustainable levels; cuts, or alterations have to be made; so that more is gotten out of them. Productivity is important, and providing funding for no productivity is a bad investment, when we could instead use it for something productive.
I wish I was in charge and could just implement fixes to all these things.
Exactly. Safety nets are of course necessary, but in some ways the money it takes to support them also necessitates safety nets in the first place. It would be cool if we had something like the CCC again to at least get some sort of productivity out of benefits.
Sam I agree that capitalism is imperfect, but if you are going to continue to run a capitalist system you should try to at least get it right. Running some sort of hybrid economic structure may not be the best solution.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
classic economics looks at cost from the perspective of the firm because they are the ones making all the decisions about production. it's ultimately a production centric approach. so how much you pay labor seems like an efficiency problem, when it really is a distribution problem when not under boundary conditions, where labor cost does constrain how much you'd produce.
the old argument against unions was also framed in competitiveness terms, and of course for some industries it's true. but nowadays that's not really the case (especially if we are talking about safety net which in some ways is a subsidy for employers as well).
the present problem is large inequality and a lot of wealth stuck on empty, that is to say they are not circulating productivey in the economy. circulation involves money flowing to labor (the actual consumers). it's a dynamic cycle. this can be done with wages or with government distribution. some of the posts make it seem like a free handout, but when it's about safety net of working people that perspective is highly misguided. it's basically government stepping in to fill what businesses are not doing.
|
On October 31 2013 06:28 Chocolate wrote:
, but to be honest I know multiple people on SSI / similar benefits programs that could work and contribute. There are also total bullshit reasons to be on SSI, like from injuries and conditions that arise from complications related to obesity.
Of course, SS reform will not pass in the foreseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide.
and I know plenty of lawyers and bankers who contribute nothing productive to the world, so taxing them at 90% wouldnt affect the productive economy, so lets raise taxes on them. Of course, raising taxes on the rich will not passing the forseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide.
|
On October 31 2013 08:11 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 06:28 Chocolate wrote:
, but to be honest I know multiple people on SSI / similar benefits programs that could work and contribute. There are also total bullshit reasons to be on SSI, like from injuries and conditions that arise from complications related to obesity.
Of course, SS reform will not pass in the foreseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide. and I know plenty of lawyers and bankers who contribute nothing productive to the world, so taxing them at 90% wouldnt affect the productive economy, so lets raise taxes on them. Of course, raising taxes on the rich will not passing the forseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide.
They produce no tangible product but provide services that are very much in demand. Just like waiters, tour guides, tutors, teachers, etc. Compare that to those who receive benefits and neither produce a product nor offer a valuable service.
I would definitely not eliminate bankers. Even if they screw us over pretty frequently, without a form of banking we would be much worse off in a lot of ways. It's currently a very popular sentiment to feel that bankers contribute nothing to the world but make themselves richer, but that does not make it true.
|
On October 31 2013 08:06 Chocolate wrote:Running some sort of hybrid economic structure may not be the best solution.
We DO run a hybrid system. There's no way you would ever be able to implement a real laissez-faire economy, you'd have a revolution. It's just a class struggle about the power balance within the hybrid economy.
On October 31 2013 08:11 Sub40APM wrote:
Of course, raising taxes on the rich will not passing the forseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide.
be realistic, demand the impossible :D
|
On October 31 2013 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:06 Chocolate wrote:Running some sort of hybrid economic structure may not be the best solution. We DO run a hybrid system. There's no way you would ever be able to implement a real laissez-faire economy, you'd have a revolution. It's just a class struggle about the power balance within the hybrid economy. Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:11 Sub40APM wrote:
Of course, raising taxes on the rich will not passing the forseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide. be realistic, demand the impossible :D
Of course we run a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that hybridizing certain things will be better than complete capitalism. Sometimes a fully capitalist or fully socialist approach is better than a half socialist, half capitalist one simply because neither system is really created with the expectation that there will exist some weird sort of halfsies between the two. As long as we continue to run a mostly capitalist system we should continue to legislate (regarding the economy) in a manner that makes the capitalist system work while also looking out for those that do not benefit from it.
|
Has nothing to do with productivity. If that was the case (productivity being important) I would still be working, despite my health issues. I was always a tremendously productive employee. I replaced one full-time and two part time employees at one job where they couldn't wipe their ass without me there (should have seen the look on my boss's face when I was summoned for jury duty which he of course denied lol). I was top in sales consistently at another job. I've worked extremely physically demanding jobs where most people don't cut it through the trial period (corrugated plant). But, with my sleep issues, I had trouble making it to work on time. More than made up for it when I got there, but it was always a case of making an example out me and power. Never about productivity at all.
You don't cut safety net programs for people who want to be productive, but can't. Reform the system against abuse.
I hope you all stay young and keep your health. This old Boxer was sent to the glue factory long ago.
|
On October 31 2013 08:24 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2013 08:06 Chocolate wrote:Running some sort of hybrid economic structure may not be the best solution. We DO run a hybrid system. There's no way you would ever be able to implement a real laissez-faire economy, you'd have a revolution. It's just a class struggle about the power balance within the hybrid economy. On October 31 2013 08:11 Sub40APM wrote:
Of course, raising taxes on the rich will not passing the forseeable future anyway because it would be political suicide. be realistic, demand the impossible :D Of course we run a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that hybridizing certain things will be better than complete capitalism. Sometimes a fully capitalist or fully socialist approach is better than a half socialist, half capitalist one simply because neither system is really created with the expectation that there will exist some weird sort of halfsies between the two. As long as we continue to run a mostly capitalist system we should continue to legislate (regarding the economy) in a manner that makes the capitalist system work while also looking out for those that do not benefit from it.
the system is not "created." there's no such thing as "capitalism" or "socialism" in an idealist sense.
I think "complete capitalism" is a utopian fantasy and has never and will never exist. The only capitalism is crony capitalism. Regulatory capture is not a bug it is a feature. If you say "make capitalism work while looking out for those who do not benefit from it" that's just the definition of social democracy, which was a passing moment that has become increasingly obsolescent in the end-game of technological unemployment and crisis of overaccumulation. It's the welfare state or a revolution, pick one, but if you don't like the first option you better put your thinking cap on.
|
On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive?
Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
cold war, the american forever war. even social security 'debates' have these threat to capitalism ideas that can only be found in america.
|
I am not a staunch believer in capitalism. If I had my druthers I'd live in a completely different economic system altogether. That doesn't mean that social security is still a good idea (in its current state) and that abuse and overuse is a big problem.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
social security isn't in that bad of a place right now. raise the cap on the ss tax and maybe increase retirement age a bit and it's fine.
the idea of an automatic retirement mechanism is also pretty good, because left alone at least some of the people are not very good at it. also, without this form of security you'll see a higher savings rate and a less consumption driven economy
as far as security programs go the loophole leechers is a regional problem (looking at you, conservative south). medical cost tho is srs and the U.S. needs to solve that pretty badly, especially with end of life care for baby boomers coming up.
|
On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it...
well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself
On October 31 2013 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
increase retirement age a bit and it's fine.
thus exacerbating youth unemployment even more than its already dismal state
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 31 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it... well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
increase retirement age a bit and it's fine. thus exacerbating youth unemployment even more than its already dismal state
yea i'd rather everyone work 30 hour weeks.
|
On October 31 2013 09:28 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it... well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself On October 31 2013 09:17 oneofthem wrote:
increase retirement age a bit and it's fine. thus exacerbating youth unemployment even more than its already dismal state yea i'd rather everyone work 30 hour weeks.
it's far too elegant of a solution to too many problems to ever work.
|
How is Social Security not a good idea? As far as I can tell, it has been a huge success. Perhaps we could take what works and apply it to other policies even?
Social Security currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion. This year it is on track to take in $38.8 billion more in revenue than it will pay out, according to the forecast of the program's trustees. These funds sit in something called the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF).
To fund benefit payments every month, the Social Security Administration redeems bonds from the SSTF with the shortest maturity, receiving principal plus interest. The government finances Social Security redemptions by issuing new general-issue Treasury bonds. This is the nub of a key right-wing critique of Social Security - namely, that it's a Ponzi scheme, and that it has no real assets. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality: The SSTF actually is one of the largest creditors of the U.S. Treasury - right up there with China and Japan, which together hold $2.4 trillion in Treasury debt.
Source
|
On October 31 2013 08:01 zlefin wrote:
Safety net programs are at high levels, and are approaching unsustainable levels; cuts, or alterations have to be made; so that more is gotten out of them. Productivity is important, and providing funding for no productivity is a bad investment, when we could instead use it for something productive.
I wish I was in charge and could just implement fixes to all these things.
???
Of course safety net programs are at high levels. We still have a struggling economy, and wealth inequality is continuing to soar. We still have high unemployment after five years. Labor participation is a 63.2%, the lowest since 1978.
Our safety net programs are supposed to be kicking in at this time. That's why we have them in the first place. You're not supposed to be like "People are struggling? Oh dear lord, we should stop helping them!" And why are you talking about "sustainable"? We're not supposed to be in this situation in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
