|
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 January 24 2014 00:40 Velr wrote:
I don't know if it was in this or another tread that someone linked a Video but some Professor had a ted talk about his studies which basically said:
People in more equal countries/communities tend to be happier on average, this affects the poor a lot more but even the rich people are a bit happier in a more equal Society.
A fun extra "fact" is that it doesn't seem to matter how "rich" the people on average actually were when compared between diffrent countries/societys, it only matters how big the spread is in the same country/community.
It also didn't matter how "equality" was created... Scandinavia was high up in "happyness" (high taxes) and so was Japan (a culture that does not show income inequality as clearly as others and iirc not that big of a diffrence in earnings to start with).
The US sits at rock bottom in these studies, followed by the UK... Anglosaxon neoliberalism... Its awesome at generating huge numbers but poor at actually helping its citizens :p.
We see the same effects on growth (in the US) with policies that promote equal growth. When growth is distributed more evenly, the economy grows even more. When growth is shifted to the wealthier among us, overall growth isn't as good. In both scenarios, the rich get richer, but only in the second do they increase the gap in their wealth compared to the poor.
As a side note, Japan actually does have some rather high tax rates.
|
On January 24 2014 00:45 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 15:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 15:41 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 15:22 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 15:08 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 15:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 14:20 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 14:01 Danglars wrote:
[quote]If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself.
I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him.
When you say,
[quote],
a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all. Well don't get me wrong, the "little guy" isn't the sole cause of profits/produce, of course the directors and management form an integral part of the company. But the current system heavily favours and entrenches the upper levels. I see why some would take my arguments as Marxist, but I don't intend them to (or at least I didn't just come back from book club reading das kapital). Marx (from your interpretation at least) has a good empirical point here; the worker is the one directly interacting with the market, and is the closest one in the company to the transfer of money from, say, the customer, to said company. Thus, he has control, in fact the greatest amount of control, in whether or not that money gets into the company. Since he controls the flow of value to the company, he has that responsibility and deserves proper recognition for it, and proportional power in the company. I do think there's a good point that you can't deny here (and it's worth some rambling thoughts) - that your basic assumption that the market dictates what companies do - actually hinges on the fact that workers are the baseline of production for the company. In fact, if you took this notion to heart, you would bring the system closer to that market dictating ideal! But instead for some strange reason you rely on the notion that the market dictates what directors do, who are so far removed from the process. As I briefly mentioned earlier, it would be better if all members of the syndicate (err I mean company!  ) could vote on who manages, directs, executes, etc.. And it would be mostly a worker driven process, workers electing workers to become managers, etc... But they need this in legislation because it is their property rights at stake. Yes, I believe their property to be taken away as if they were taxed - except the taxman is in front of the cashier intercepting their income and delivers it to the king (or a group of Oligarchs) who later distributes it as he wishes. And don't get me wrong again, I'm not arguing for everyone making the same wage, or management making less than workers. Sounds like fantasizing about what *could be* ... How are you going to have a company without traditional equity? What fills that void? You can't remove something without describing the replacement! I'm sorry, by traditional equity what exactly do you mean? (so we can get our definitions in line) It may seem like fantasy, but you seem to be deeply entrenched in the system, so any change is bound to cause shivers up your spine. Well, at least I don't see the fantastical aspect of it.. Capital contribution that represents the residual claimant. Why should that change? If they don't have ownership rights, they have no means for ensuring payback. I don't remember arguing they shouldn't have ownership rights So they're going to have shared rights? So a German corporation? Edit: what are you changing? You've gone on about workers being owners, and now it's shareholders will still be owners... It's just so confusing! It has to be either black or white...it's...it's just too confusing, give me my excel sheets 
Har har.
So... can you answer the question?
|
Either there's a revolution (Marx's solution) or manual labour is replaced by technology (which is utopian). Or you have an innovative system where you employ less workers but pay them more while also considerately reducing management pay which depends on manager to worker ratio.
The latter could work if you employ humanitarians :D
|
The same arguments are coming up again and again so maybe it makes more sense to go through them piece by piece:
1: "Freedom, whooo!It's every companies private right to do whatever they want" Seriously, I don't buy it. As I said before companies rely on public schools, infrastructure, subsidies, hospitals, fire departments,a functioning legal system.. and so on. So society has a thing to say in what a company can't and can do. If companies don't like it they're free to move to Greenland or into the Russian arctic or whatever and build their own society.
2: "whatever the market does is right" Besides the fact that empirical evidence suggest the markets are idiots (we are coming out of a ridiculous financial crisis at the moment) and that our markets are heavily skewed in favor of big businesses, even logically this is basically just a tautology. "Hey the markets are working great you know, because however it is right now, that's how it should be! You know, because free markets!"
3: The Marxist hate that is going on here. I really don't know if it's an American Truman doctrine thing or something, but in general the argumentation sounds pretty reasonable to me. Why is it so good that a person is granted ownership of a company, so that they can harvest the 'surplus value' of their workers, like a feudal landlord?
The problem I have with Marxism isn't the construct of ideas itself, but the fact that it's a view held by an intellectual minority rather than broad public opinion and every public implementation has ended as a disaster.
At least it's worth a discussion, and to use the idea itself as an insult is ridiculously stupid.
@Drumz: The latter would also be a reasonable compromise, which Americans seem incapable off 
|
On January 24 2014 01:33 Nyxisto wrote:The same arguments are coming up again and again so maybe it makes more sense to go through them piece by piece: 1: "Freedom, whooo!It's every companies private right to do whatever they want" Seriously, I don't buy it. As I said before companies rely on public schools, infrastructure, subsidies, hospitals, fire departments,a functioning legal system.. and so on. So society has a thing to say in what a company can't and can do. If companies don't like it they're free to move to Greenland or into the Russian arctic or whatever and build their own society. 2: "whatever the market does is right" Besides the fact that empirical evidence suggest the markets are idiots (we are coming out of a ridiculous financial crisis at the moment) and that our markets are heavily skewed in favor of big businesses, even logically this is basically just a tautology. "Hey the markets are working great you know, because however it is right now, that's how it should be! You know, because free markets!" 3: The Marxist hate that is going on here. I really don't know if it's an American Truman doctrine thing or something, but in general the argumentation sounds pretty reasonable to me. Why is it so good that a person is granted ownership of a company, so that they can harvest the 'surplus value' of their workers, like a feudal landlord? The problem I have with Marxism isn't the construct of ideas itself, but the fact that it's a view held by an intellectual minority rather than broad public opinion and every public implementation has ended as a disaster. At least it's worth a discussion, and to use the idea itself as an insult is ridiculously stupid. @Drumz: The latter would also be a reasonable compromise, which Americans seem incapable off
Markets are the quickest and easiest way to determine the most efficient and economically beneficial way to distribute resources. It seems to be the case that it is best to let markets do what they will do, and to use non-market forms of power to correct/avoid the life endangering market movements. This includes social safety nets and regulations.
Imagine a country as a race car doing a time trial. The goal is to get to the finish line as fast as possible. The most direct way to do that is to keep your foot on the accelerator all the time and go straight. However, if you do that, you'll undoubtedly crash at the first turn. The first thing you would learn to do is to steer, keeping the accelerator down, but turning the wheels to go around corners. This slows you down a bit, but works quite well in most scenarios. However, those hairpin turns will still get you if you stick on that accelerator, so you learn to ease off on the accelerator on those special turns, and even use the brakes on occasion. What you have now is a strategy that uses the accelerator as much as possible, except when it becomes perilous to do so.
Markets are the accelerator, and the various tools at the government's disposal steer and slow down the economy so it doesn't crash (and burn).
As for the Marxist hate, it mostly comes from the same angle as the Austrian hate. Both require a situation that is highly idealized and far from where any country currently is to begin to be considered as a viable policy path. We'd hate on somebody just as much if they came into a climate change debate stating the solution is just to leave Earth on spaceships.
|
United States43989 Posts
Marxist problems with optimal resource and labour allocation without a profit incentive to find the correct routes could potentially be solved at some point by computing. It's not like the free market is especially efficient at it at present, there are plenty of overlapping competing businesses with supply beyond the saturation point of the market pursuing inefficient policies such as advertising to squeeze each other's market share. The free market is more efficient than a Soviet commissar, and certainly more innovative, but that's a fairly low benchmark. Individual businesses are themselves relying on computer models and profiling to plan their supply and logistics networks, it's not unreasonable to picture a future in which a sufficiently integrated computer with enough information could plan an entire economy.
Of course to many that would be a dystopian takeover by the machines but still, the free market is no longer the only mechanism for resource allocation and is likely to become increasingly dependent upon computer models anyway.
|
On January 24 2014 02:54 KwarK wrote:
Marxist problems with optimal resource and labour allocation without a profit incentive to find the correct routes could potentially be solved at some point by computing. It's not like the free market is especially efficient at it at present, there are plenty of overlapping competing businesses with supply beyond the saturation point of the market pursuing inefficient policies such as advertising to squeeze each other's market share. The free market is more efficient than a Soviet commissar, and certainly more innovative, but that's a fairly low benchmark. Individual businesses are themselves relying on computer models and profiling to plan their supply and logistics networks, it's not unreasonable to picture a future in which a sufficiently integrated computer with enough information could plan an entire economy.
Of course to many that would be a dystopian takeover by the machines but still, the free market is no longer the only mechanism for resource allocation and is likely to become increasingly dependent upon computer models anyway.
Computer models aren't separate from the market - they're part of it. And afaik you need market data to make them work.
Edit: in the future it could be different for sure. Like that ending in Deus Ex (my favorite!)
|
I've played Fallout 3 KwarK , that's not a good idea
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the ceo salary discussion is a bit of a distraction from the real issue i feel. from a marginal productivity standpoint, you'll find that ceo salaries are more or less proportional to the size of the company, and the type of pay is probably in the form of shares and performance bonuses. aside from boards voting themselves the money, if you see management as just another type ofworker, their highly leveraged and critical position makes that payscale at least understandable, assuming we need a centralized authority figure in charge of every company. if we are talking about a big real economy company, the ceo is criticially important to the future of the company and rewarding that work is fine.
the problem issue that i think is neglected is the way modern management specialists make the biggest concentration of money also the smartest money. this used to be true when the most money also had the most technologically advanced and scaled machinery, but modern day it is more true in finance, and this is new.
high concentration of leveraged financial speculation is largely not productive to the real economy and instead threatens it with risk. the high pay of financial managers is a reflection of the volume of money in their management, and this is in turn a reflection of the desire for absentee ownership while collecting returns by world capital. pension funds asides, it'd be a good idea ot find some policy solution to goad this specific pile of idle money into the real economy while limiting the rent extracting power of big finance. but i feel common solutions such as introducing inflation will just push this money into real estate or w/e other areas of speculation. it's a hard problem
|
On January 24 2014 06:44 oneofthem wrote:
you'll find that ceo salaries are more or less proportional to the size of the company
Does this hold true across countries? i.e. does the average European CEO make less than the average American CEO because American companies are that much bigger on average? I've always thought it was explained by cultural differences myself.
|
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) said that the government shouldn't help women who can't control their "libido or their reproductive system" by providing co-pay-free birth control and that Democrats are encouraging women to be "victims of their gender."
Huckabee made the comments during a speech at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting on Thursday.
"If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government then so be it! Let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be," Huckabee said.
Huckabee argued that Democrats "think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication."
Huckabee also argued that his party is not waging a war on women.
Source
|
Oh socially conservative Republicans, please never change. The world would be a lot less fun without your nonsense.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 24 2014 07:40 Cheren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2014 06:44 oneofthem wrote:
you'll find that ceo salaries are more or less proportional to the size of the company Does this hold true across countries? i.e. does the average European CEO make less than the average American CEO because American companies are that much bigger on average? I've always thought it was explained by cultural differences myself.
not sure about hthis but i'd think that culture does play a role. however, this is not really true in finance where it's internationalized, so firm size is king there
|
On January 24 2014 08:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) said that the government shouldn't help women who can't control their "libido or their reproductive system" by providing co-pay-free birth control and that Democrats are encouraging women to be "victims of their gender."
Huckabee made the comments during a speech at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting on Thursday.
"If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government then so be it! Let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be," Huckabee said.
Huckabee argued that Democrats "think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication."
Huckabee also argued that his party is not waging a war on women. Source
Its fine. we dont want those women voters anyway
|
On January 24 2014 08:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) said that the government shouldn't help women who can't control their "libido or their reproductive system" by providing co-pay-free birth control and that Democrats are encouraging women to be "victims of their gender."
Huckabee made the comments during a speech at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting on Thursday.
"If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government then so be it! Let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be," Huckabee said.
Huckabee argued that Democrats "think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication."
Huckabee also argued that his party is not waging a war on women. Source
amazing hahahahhaha
|
First of all, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant.
Second, I think he's got a point. What was one of the Democrats main talking points last election cycle? Not the coming Obamacare disaster, not the stagnant economy, not the weakening of American influence around the world...it was (A) how horrible Romney was as a person and (B) how the Republicans hated women because they insist that if women are going to partake in sexual activity of their own free will that they can pay for it, of their own free will.
It's ideologically consistent with the whole "small government thing." It's not necessarily a social issue like abortion or what have you. If it losses women voters than fine. Better that than to be a prostitute to political correctness.
But his comments are meaningless. I feel like by the time the election roles around some of our issues will be so big and glaring that diversions are going to work only so well.
Edit: Also, it was hardly anti women- he was stating that the things he listed are what the Dem's want them to believe, not that it was true. Just for clarification, since that's the type of nuance that many here will fail to grasp.
|
On January 24 2014 10:50 Introvert wrote:
First of all, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant.
Second, I think he's got a point. What was one of the Democrats main talking points last election cycle? Not the coming Obamacare disaster, not the stagnant economy, not the weakening of American influence around the world...it was (A) how horrible Romney was as a person and (B) how the Republicans hated women because they insist that if women are going to partake in sexual activity of their own free will that they can pay for it, of their own free will.
It's ideologically consistent with the whole "small government thing." It's not necessarily a social issue like abortion or what have you. If it losses women voters than fine. Better that than to be a prostitute to political correctness.
But his comments are meaningless. I feel like by the time the election roles around some of our issues will be so big and glaring that diversions are going to work only so well.
How is this man irrelevant if his specific constituency, evangelical Christians, are consisting of a quite a lot of people. What he says HAS meaning to these people.
The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 28.9% of population or 91.76 million, less than a quarter of the world figure.
Wikipedia Link
//edit: LOL at hardly anti-women. I would say it was hardly pro-women.
|
On January 24 2014 11:02 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2014 10:50 Introvert wrote:
First of all, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant.
Second, I think he's got a point. What was one of the Democrats main talking points last election cycle? Not the coming Obamacare disaster, not the stagnant economy, not the weakening of American influence around the world...it was (A) how horrible Romney was as a person and (B) how the Republicans hated women because they insist that if women are going to partake in sexual activity of their own free will that they can pay for it, of their own free will.
It's ideologically consistent with the whole "small government thing." It's not necessarily a social issue like abortion or what have you. If it losses women voters than fine. Better that than to be a prostitute to political correctness.
But his comments are meaningless. I feel like by the time the election roles around some of our issues will be so big and glaring that diversions are going to work only so well. How is this man irrelevant if his specific constituency, evangelical Christians, are consisting of a quite a lot of people. What he says HAS meaning to these people. Show nested quote +The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 28.9% of population or 91.76 million, less than a quarter of the world figure. Wikipedia Link
Thanks for link, like I didn't know that this is a very Christian nation.
I'm saying he has no sway. When was the last time Huckabee said anything anyone cared about? Every once in a while he says something like this, and no one cares. he's certainly not treading new ground. The only reason this shows up is because lefty sites like TPM will post it and make a big deal about. I have not heard nor read anyone quote MH on ANYTHING in several years.
The only reason I've heard his name in the past month before this is because he said that we should stop using the term "RINO." Of course he said that because he's an establishment Repub.
Just because someone is somewhat of a national figure and happens to be part of the largest religious group doesn't make them relevant.
Edit: It was more pro-women than anti to me. Like I said, I think he actually has a point here. Giving out free stuff is not the same as being caring or compassionate, nor does opposing it make you a hater of a particular group.
|
On January 24 2014 11:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2014 11:02 Doublemint wrote:On January 24 2014 10:50 Introvert wrote:
First of all, Mike Huckabee is irrelevant.
Second, I think he's got a point. What was one of the Democrats main talking points last election cycle? Not the coming Obamacare disaster, not the stagnant economy, not the weakening of American influence around the world...it was (A) how horrible Romney was as a person and (B) how the Republicans hated women because they insist that if women are going to partake in sexual activity of their own free will that they can pay for it, of their own free will.
It's ideologically consistent with the whole "small government thing." It's not necessarily a social issue like abortion or what have you. If it losses women voters than fine. Better that than to be a prostitute to political correctness.
But his comments are meaningless. I feel like by the time the election roles around some of our issues will be so big and glaring that diversions are going to work only so well. How is this man irrelevant if his specific constituency, evangelical Christians, are consisting of a quite a lot of people. What he says HAS meaning to these people. The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 28.9% of population or 91.76 million, less than a quarter of the world figure. Wikipedia Link Thanks for link, like I didn't know that this is a very Christian nation. I'm saying he has no sway. When was the last time Huckabee said anything anyone cared about? Every once in a while he says something like this, and no one cares. he's certainly not treading new ground. The only reason this shows up is because lefty sites like TPM will post it and make a big deal about. I have not heard nor read anyone quote MH on ANYTHING in several years. The only reason I've heard his name in the past month before this is because he said that we should stop using the term "RINO." Of course he said that because he's an establishment Repub. Just because someone is somewhat of a national figure and happens to be part of the largest religious group doesn't make them relevant. Edit: It was more pro-women than anti to me. Like I said, I think he actually has a point here. Giving out free stuff is not the same as being caring or compassionate, nor does opposing it make you a hater of a particular group.
Helping out wherever I can, especially helpful to people I feel miss critical points.
Huckabee has a show on Fox News. Fox News is an insanely profitable business, meaning they don't give him a show for shits and giggles - he is hardly irrelevant or he would be off the air.
And it's not giving out FREE stuff. It is being paid for by people pooling resources and the ones in need are going to get what their pay covers.
Only because you don't give two shits about him does not mean you are right.
Looking at this statement, what exactly is empowering?
"The fact is the Republicans don't have a war on women, they have a war for women, to empower them to be something other than victims of their gender," Huckabee said.
It's from that lefty link posted earlier.
//edit: good point with RNC speaker, another good argument for him being far from irrelevant.
//edit2: at least within the RNC/Republican party that is.
|
Conservative author Dinesh D'Souza has been indicted on federal charges of violating campaign finance laws, the the U.S attorney in Manhattan announced on Thursday.
The indictment accused D'Souza of participating in a straw donation scheme to funnel money to an unnamed Senate campaign. He was charged with one count of making more than $10,000 of contributions in the names of others and one count of causing false statements.
The indictment alleged D'Souza "knowingly made and caused to be made" contributions "in the names of others" during 2012. According to the indictment, D'Souza then "reimbursed others with whom he was associated and who he had directed to contribute a total of $20,000 to the campaign."
Though the Senate candidate that received the alleged donations was not named, TPM has learned the campaign in question was that of Wendy Long, a Republican attorney who in 2012 lost to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). The indictment said the campaign was unaware of D'Souza's activities.
In a written statement released on Thursday, D’Souza's attorney, Benjamin Brafman, argued that "at worst, this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza."
"It is important to note that the Indictment does not allege a corrupt relationship between Mr. D'Souza and the candidate," Brafman said. "There was never a corrupt agreement of any kind, nor was there any request made that the candidate take any action or refrain from taking any action as a candidate, or as a US Senator if her political campaign were to have been successful. […] Simply put, there was no 'quid pro quo' in this case, nor was there even any knowledge by the candidate that Campaign Finance Rules may have been violated. Mr. D'Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever. He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and at worst, this was an act of misguided friendship by D'Souza."
Long did not immediately respond to a call for comment. D'Souza forwarded a copy of his attorney's statement by email but did not respond to questions.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
