|
On October 24 2011 14:24 Kiarip wrote:
Of course... TanGeng is also for ending corporatism, and removing the government created "improvements to productivity that favor the rich."
In fact there are more of those right now that favor the rich than those that favor the poor, that's why if we abolish all of them the poor will actually be in better shape.
I don't know, there's nothing in his posting history that suggests he wants to get rid of trade agreements, public roads, police, or the military. I seriously doubt he wants to get rid of limited liability laws or copyright enforcement, either.
You know, all those other artificial boosts to productivity we take for granted. Most people probably don't even think they're artificial, nowadays. Not unless they've previously lived in a "natural" society.
I don't think he's lived in a "natural" society. Almost no one but some immigrants have, in the First World.
|
On October 24 2011 14:05 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 14:00 IgnE wrote:On October 24 2011 13:56 TanGeng wrote:On October 24 2011 13:35 Darclite wrote:On October 24 2011 13:28 TanGeng wrote:
Ever think that people would want to work "slave wages" for long hours and that it might be for a decent cause like giving their children a better opportunity in life or teach their children the virtues of hard work?
Out of curiosity, would you rather have slave wages to teach your children the value of hard work or fair wages to pay their college tuition? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I just don't really understand the opposition to it unless you either: A) Are rich and therefore love the system B) Are misguided to believe every occupier wants a handout Are you defending it purely ideologically (you are a pure fiscal libertarian)? Do you believe that the system can't be improved (they're doing a lot better in Northern Europe and Canada from what I hear)? Also, some of the people don't even have the opportunity to get one of these horrible jobs, and they want one because they need it. The country has a lot of money, the system could be better than that. It is more about free will and virtue. Disadvantaged peoples are dealt a bad hand, but these people are making decisions, displaying their moral character, and making sacrifices to show where their priorities are. It's not about buying shiny things on their credit cards. That is how many immigrant workers in US behave. It'd be nice if it could artificially improve their productivity and/or their bargaining power, but you will have to tell me how to achieve it and it would eliminate the moral dilemma. The system could be better than it is, but you will have to tell me how the country has a lot of money. Are you religious? You know there is no afterlife right? You don't get to go to heaven by working your ass off for slave wages here on earth. You know the part where I talk about their children's future... Yeah. read that again.
So you are religious.
|
On October 24 2011 13:00 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains.
Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries). Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor. Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government? No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part. It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible. No you just need to have strict rules that politicians aren't allowed to break...
I asked the question for a reason, you know. And you're still pushing same line without answering it.
So here we go.
Who's role to ensure that government follows the rules and laws? It's pretty much government's own job. Current protests main theme is that US government does a bad job when it comes to this task. It's corrupt. Hell it doesn't even punish it's former politicians, who have broken not just US laws, but International laws.
In your libertarian model with volunteer taxes the quality of life of the government employees depends on the generosity of the wealthy people much more so than in current government. Therefore, your libertarian government is much more vulnerable to the corruption than the present one.
From your words, on the other hand, it seems like not only there will be less corruption, but there won't be any corruption at all. What makes you believe so?
It's especially surprising to see such believe from someone who has it's roots in SU, the country that was destroyed by it's own politicians.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Education and skilled labor isn't all that important any more. In the US, education is a commodity. The large majority of working population has a college degree. They might be of varying worthwhileness but it's nearly ubiquitous. The rest of the world is catching up there, too. Lots and lots of college graduates are coming out of the Asian nations. The result is that the bargaining position of American workers has eroded, while there is widespread complacency and sense of entitlement.
US workers are still the most productive in the world, but if US workers want to be compensate at the premium they are accustomed to they need to incorporate dynamism, creativity, and a bit of entrepreneurship into their repertoire. Some workers are. Others are being left in the dust.
On October 24 2011 14:30 acker wrote:
I don't know, there's nothing in his posting history that suggests he wants to get rid of trade agreements, public roads, police, or the military. I seriously doubt he wants to get rid of limited liability laws or copyright enforcement, either.
You know, all those other artificial boosts to productivity we take for granted. Most people probably don't even think they're artificial, nowadays. Not unless they've previously lived in a "natural" society.
I don't think he's lived in a "natural" society. Almost no one but some immigrants have, in the First World.
Let's go. What do you want to abolish? Hell, implode Washington D.C and devolve all of the power to the states and start there.
|
On October 24 2011 14:43 TanGeng wrote:
Let's go. What do you want to abolish? Hell, implode Washington D.C and devolve all of the power to the states and start there.
Why have states? You need taxes to fund states, that distorts the link between income and incentive. Taxes don't magically stop being coercive because the land is smaller.
Face it, you don't want to lose the artificial productivity gains governments impose on their citizenry.
|
On October 24 2011 14:43 TanGeng wrote:Education and skilled labor isn't all that important any more. In the US, education is a commodity. The large majority of working population has a college degree. They might be of varying worthwhileness but it's nearly ubiquitous. The rest of the world is catching up there, too. Lots and lots of college graduates are coming out of the Asian nations. The result is that the bargaining position of American workers has eroded, while there is widespread complacency and sense of entitlement. US workers are still the most productive in the world, but if US workers want to be compensate at the premium they are accustomed to they need to incorporate dynamism, creativity, and a bit of entrepreneurship into their repertoire. Some workers are. Others are being left in the dust. Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 14:30 acker wrote:
I don't know, there's nothing in his posting history that suggests he wants to get rid of trade agreements, public roads, police, or the military. I seriously doubt he wants to get rid of limited liability laws or copyright enforcement, either.
You know, all those other artificial boosts to productivity we take for granted. Most people probably don't even think they're artificial, nowadays. Not unless they've previously lived in a "natural" society.
I don't think he's lived in a "natural" society. Almost no one but some immigrants have, in the First World. Let's go. What do you want to abolish? Hell, implode Washington D.C and devolve all of the power to the states and start there.
The globalization of capitalism and the rise of the multinational corporation is the end game of capitalism. The corporate owners can wring the last capital out of the planet and leave the other 6 billion people in the world to subsist as debt slaves. The U.S. worker shouldn't have to compete against poverty wages in China, while the owners in this country continue to make EVER LARGER profits by exploiting cheap labor wherever they can find it and leaving the American worker to rot in rags.
You are truly delusional if you think that a little "dynamism" and "entrepreneurship" will bring prosperity back to the average American worker. It has little or nothing to do with the "entitlement" of the workers, and everything to do with the corrupt power structures, that are intrinsic to capitalism no less, which enable owners in this country to continue accumulating wealth at the expense of everyone else.
|
They cannot avoid doing business in the US we have a very large consumer driven market, one way or another they can make profits doing business here and paying us well the idea that we have to compete to be treated like shit is laughable, does germany do that? Sense when does competitive mean groveling at the footsteps of others.
|
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth.
|
On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 13:00 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains.
Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries). Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor. Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government? No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part. It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible. No you just need to have strict rules that politicians aren't allowed to break... I asked the question for a reason, you know. And you're still pushing same line without answering it. So here we go. Who's role to ensure that government follows the rules and laws? It's pretty much government's own job. Current protests main theme is that US government does a bad job when it comes to this task. It's corrupt. Hell it doesn't even punish it's former politicians, who have broken not just US laws, but International laws. In your libertarian model with volunteer taxes the quality of life of the government employees depends on the generosity of the wealthy people much more so than in current government. Therefore, your libertarian government is much more vulnerable to the corruption than the present one. From your words, on the other hand, it seems like not only there will be less corruption, but there won't be any corruption at all. What makes you believe so? It's especially surprising to see such believe from someone who has it's roots in SU, the country that was destroyed by it's own politicians.
What prevents the army to come in and take over our government like it happened so often in Rome? I guess nothing, I'm sure they have a lot of incentive to do so... A General could become a dictator why doesn't he do it? Seriously are we having this debate?
I can say that about anything else as well... You want regulation? Who's role is it to ensure that if the government passes regulations that work to stop corporatism they won't later be just repealed once the corporations push more money across the table?
The answer in the end is to educate the people about the importance of constitution, and about the limitations of the government power that should exist, so that when the government DOES over-step their boundaries they are met with an immediate harsh criticism from the citizens, just like what OWS is doing now, unfortunately however OWS isn't directly complaining about the government, they're just complaining, and so it's easy for politicians to step in and console those people with their campaign slogans without actually promising any real change (something that would anger their corporatist business partners.)
I think the movement would be better served to be in Washington rather than on Wall street, but at least people are out there making themselves heard, so it's something.
I don't believe in volunteer taxes... I believe in some moderately small flat tax rate, preferably consumption based that's used to sustain the government to the point that it could defend our human rights.
I don't think that there will be no corruption at all, but I think that it will make corruption easier to spot. If you have a law that the government must stay out of the economy, then when you see the government reach over to regulate the economy they can get a slap on the wrist. When you have a system, however, where the government is expected to regulate the economy, it's much easier for them to sell the people out to the corporations, because they will be able to often-times trick the people into supporting them to pass a bill that will actually result in corporatism by not bringing attention to the details they've hidden on one of the 1000 pages.
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth.
Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life?
Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage.
|
On October 24 2011 14:43 TanGeng wrote:
US workers are still the most productive in the world, but if US workers want to be compensate at the premium they are accustomed to they need to incorporate dynamism, creativity, and a bit of entrepreneurship into their repertoire. Some workers are. Others are being left in the dust.
If this were in any way true, economic mobility would be at its highest peak in decades. Unfortunately, the only people who seem to think this is the case are from the Heritage Foundation. Everyone else seems to think economic mobility in the US is almost at rock bottom.
Everyone does agree that Norway and Denmark, not the United States, have the greatest economic mobility across generations. Even the Heritage people.
It's been a while since I've taken Econ 101, but I'm fairly certain that globalization is supposed to be pareto efficient; everyone should have higher income and purchasing power over time per the standard model. I'm fairly certain that globalization in reality has not followed this model.
|
On October 24 2011 15:02 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 14:43 TanGeng wrote:
US workers are still the most productive in the world, but if US workers want to be compensate at the premium they are accustomed to they need to incorporate dynamism, creativity, and a bit of entrepreneurship into their repertoire. Some workers are. Others are being left in the dust. If this were in any way true, economic mobility would be at its highest peak in decades. Unfortunately, the only people who seem to think this is the case are from the Heritage Foundation. Everyone else seems to think economic mobility in the US is almost at rock bottom. Everyone does agree that Norway and Denmark, not the United States, has the greatest economic mobility across generations. Even the Heritage people.
We have the highest cost of employment of anywhere in the world.
Remove all the regulations that make hiring so expensive in America, then drop the wages to what they are in any other country, and you'll see that people would prefer to hire in America over most other places in the world.
Our workers are still productive enough, it's our regulations that make it hard to hire labor cost-effectively.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 14:50 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 14:43 TanGeng wrote:
Let's go. What do you want to abolish? Hell, implode Washington D.C and devolve all of the power to the states and start there. Why have states? You need taxes to fund states, that distorts the link between income and incentive. Taxes don't magically stop being coercive because the land is smaller. Face it, you don't want to lose the artificial productivity gains governments impose on their citizenry.
You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time.
Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare.
|
On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote:
You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time.
Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare.
So by "artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean "derogatory term for something you don't like".
I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear. Admittedly, your speech on the virtues of poverty just doesn't sound right with "derogatory term for something I don't like"..."Artificial" sounds much snappier. Like "Death Taxes"!
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 24 2011 15:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote:
You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time.
Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare. So by " artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean " derogatory term for something you don't like". I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear.
Umm... every civil institution is man-made, and no one I know refers to such policies as artificial productivity increases. It's called welfare and when it benefits big business, it's corporate welfare.
|
On October 24 2011 15:13 TanGeng wrote:
Umm... every civil institution is man-made, and no one I know refers to such policies as artificial productivity increases. It's called welfare and when it benefits big business, it's corporate welfare.
So, how're you defining "artificial", then? Is "artificial" your synonym for "welfare"? Tautology much?
|
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:
Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life?
Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage.
Deadly serious. I'm not out of arguments, that's why I said it was a side note.
Firstly, I can only subjectively experience the world through me. Even if my kids had a "better life" through my endless hard work and toil for slave wages, that wouldn't benefit me directly. When I die, I'm gone and cannot see my children experiencing a better life. People who believe in an afterlife either consciously of subconsciously think that a shitty life might be ok if you "do good" things, because hey, when you die you can watch the good stuff flourish when you go to heaven.
Secondly, wage slavery means there is no social mobility. It's inherent to capitalism. The winners will take all the capital and leave nothing for the losers. There is nothing to leave for your children except more wage slavery. This isn't an argument. Let's stop talking about poor people who are working hard to leave stuff for their children. No one is leaving anything. The statistics are there.
Thirdly, believing in evolution has nothing to do with how we live our lives now. We are products of evolution, not slaves to it. Stop being obtuse.
I made a more important post about the globalization of capitalism that was ignored.
|
On October 24 2011 15:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote:
You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time.
Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare. So by " artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean " derogatory term for something you don't like". I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear. Admittedly, your speech on the virtues of poverty just doesn't sound right with "derogatory term for something I don't like". "Artificial" sounds much snappier. Like "Death Taxes"!
I guess, with "corporate welfare" he meant stuff like the music industry and copyrights. Their business is practically artificial and would not exist without copyrights. So he really does not only want regulations about poverty, like lay-off protection or minimum wage or something, gone.
|
On October 24 2011 15:07 Kiarip wrote:
We have the highest cost of employment of anywhere in the world.
Remove all the regulations that make hiring so expensive in America, then drop the wages to what they are in any other country, and you'll see that people would prefer to hire in America over most other places in the world.
Our workers are still productive enough, it's our regulations that make it hard to hire labor cost-effectively.
You're actually responding to TanGeng's argument on structural income divergence, not mine. Just saying. Not that it matters much; cost of employment is directly deducted from worker wages in most economic models and should already be taken into account for worker productivity.
On October 24 2011 15:18 Ropid wrote:
I guess, with "corporate welfare" he meant stuff like the music industry and copyrights. Their business is practically artificial and would not exist without copyrights. So he really does not only want regulations about poverty, like lay-off protection or minimum wage or something, gone.
To be blunt, he's been pretty nebulous about what he thinks "artificial" is, let alone what he considers "welfare" to be. I'm starting to think he's defining "artificial" as "welfare", whatever the hell that means. I'm getting tired of mind reading here.
|
Why not make health care in American universal, make it available for everyone, so then people are more healthy on avg and thus can be more productive it also removes this cost from business, depending on how it's funded. But then again the medical lobby is quite large and would never allow that... hell they don't allow new better drugs to hit the market because they want their older drug which does a similar function 1 2 more years of profits same deal with generics and that is seen as okay. And that's the problem, those in power aren't working to better society as a whole but rather better themselves which i don't think enlightenment thinkers would so readily agree with.
|
On October 24 2011 15:27 semantics wrote:
Why not make health care in American universal, make it available for everyone, so then people are more healthy on avg and thus can be more productive it also removes this cost from business, depending on how it's funded. But then again the medical lobby is quite large and would never allow that... hell they don't allow new better drugs to hit the market because they want their older drug which does a similar function 1 2 more years of profits same deal with generics and that is seen as okay. And that's the problem, those in power aren't working to better society as a whole but rather better themselves which i don't think enlightenment thinkers would so readily agree with.
Haha. Good one semantics. America is full of religious conservative blowhards, not enlightenment thinkers. Surprising that so many debt slavers still don't get it.
If we actually had enlightenment thinkers, it might not be so easy for our corporate owners to continue exploiting us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
