General politics

[Craig Arko]

 

Producers are more than just assembly line robots... As a sales guy, if my future compensation is capped or my hard earned commission is shared with others that are not producing I'm going to be upset.

Better learn all about A.I. then, my young friend.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

You miss my point. Automation has been sapping labor's influence for decades. Our slow, steady slide away from wealth equity isn't merely from tax reform. The bulk of that slide away from a strong middle class lays squarely on the shoulders of automation. What once took three middle class jobs now takes just one. Up and down industry, across various fields of work, automation is sucking the life out of the middle class.

 

For example, the old Packard plant from the 1950s took 45,000 employees to build ~150,000 cars a year.

 

Mazda (and Toyota? can't remember their partner in the deal) just built a plant that will produce ~300,000 cars a year and requires only 3,000 employees to do it.

If producers don't supply as many jobs, they have less leverage over a democratic majority.  Ergo, why socialist policies are seemingly more palatable now, where most people's jobs are related to service and not the production and distribution of goods.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You're right there's no good cognate.  Maybe Germany with it's education system (free college for foreigners? how do they manage that?); I don't know how they run their healthcare over there.

Germany has the healthcare model that is most achievable for us to emulate. It's basically private insurers that are regulated heavily by the government to provide 100% coverage for its citizens.

 

It's definitely not the best solution but it's the most reasonable system to aim for right now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If producers don't supply as many jobs, they have less leverage over a democratic majority.  Ergo, why socialist policies are seemingly more palatable now, where most people's jobs are related to service and not the production and distribution of goods.

Ding ding ding.

 

We need to stop pretending that horse and buggy solutions apply to the 21st century world. Capitalism is actually disintegrating before our eyes because labor is no longer a necessary commodity. Without the leverage of "you need me to build Thing X", the entire system starts to unravel.

 

So we can go ahead and start talking about where we go next or we can bury our heads in the sand and wait for bourgeoisie heads to start rolling around town squares.

[MMMordabito]

 

Empty threat.  As long as those producers still make profit they will do so, and if they cannot make profit, the should be replaced with someone who can.   Corporations have been making record profits.  I don't buy that Wal-Mart will suddenly close it's doors because their substantial piece of the pie got a bit smaller.

 

And really, socialism shouldn't be reduced to "paying for other people to not produce," that's just nonsense.   If we want to attach welfare with job training, and organize work for them to do, I am all about it, but that will be pricier in the long run (but welfare isn't new or even at issue in this election).   Paying for health care, education isn't paying people to not produce, in fact its an investment, and frees up a lot dollars to buy goods, which is what producers should actually want.

 

How do you feel about corporate structure and limited liability? Those are government enforced non-natural market conditions that allows debts to go unpaid (and externalities unaccounted for), or put another way it privatizes the profits of a company while socializing the risk of its business.

 

I'm not sure how it's an empty threat.  We already see movement offshore without a lot of these policies. 

 

I am not a fan of limited liability in general and would definitely listen to ideas about how to reform it.  If you take on a debt, you should pay that debt.  I'm not an economics guru or anything, so it probably isn't that simple.  That's where I start though.

 

Also, when you make statements like, "They should be replaced by someone who can,"  I hope that doesn't mean you think the government should step in and take care of that replacement.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Better learn all about A.I. then, my young friend.

This is something that just fascinates me because people don't realize the pure, unbridled ****storm that is coming our way.

 

I don't work in AI but I work(ed) in tech before I decided to stay home and raise kids for a few years. My literal job was to put other people out of work. I built websites that automated functions to displace an entire class of workers through digital automation of tasks.

 

One of my last projects was a website for a non-profit that allowed them to drop an office assistant because we took a long, complicated form application process and digitized it so applicants could just go to the website and fill out a lengthy form instead of interacting with a human being.

It took two engineers three weeks to build a site that displaced a full-time employee.

[Craig Arko]

And the thing people seem to forget about producers, is that someone needs to be able to afford to purchase their wares.

 

The domino effect here will be 'yuge.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And the thing people seem to forget about producers, is that someone needs to be able to afford to purchase their wares.

 

The domino effect here will be 'yuge.

Yep, hence my comment about bourgeoisie heads rolling through town squares. Things are going to unravel in a hurry. I think the biggest and most brutal shift will come alongside automated vehicles. That's going to punch the blue collar class right in the throat and the effect will be undeniable.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not sure how it's an empty threat.  We already see movement offshore without a lot of these policies. 

 

I am not a fan of limited liability in general and would definitely listen to ideas about how to reform it.  If you take on a debt, you should pay that debt.  I'm not an economics guru or anything, so it probably isn't that simple.  That's where I start though.

 

Also, when you make statements like, "They should be replaced by someone who can,"  I hope that doesn't mean you think the government should step in and take care of that replacement.

No, it means they should be replaced by someone who is more efficient in the market.  The government should never be in the business of producing goods/widgets. 

 

As you point out, there's already plenty of incentive for businesses to take advantage of the low-labor costs and low-regulation environment in other foreign markets.   Of course, though, there are obvious economic advantages in producing goods where they are eventually sold.  

 

As ideas to keep companies from going overseas, take away their corporate charter, ban their stock from being traded on the American markets, place a tariff on the company's goods (as opposed to the country itself).   We have more leverage over these companies then we want to believe. 

 

And glad you're consistent on the government intrusion into the market.  I often think of regulation as a necessary trade off to corporate protection and limited liability.  Our society will allow businesses to socialize some risks, so they are more likely to expand their businesses, but as a trade off, we will need to keep a more watchful eye, as the exploitation of the those risks maybe not be borne out by the people profiting from it.

[MMMordabito]

 

I don't think we should be afraid to experiment, and then abandoned a socialist project if it proves untenable.   

 

How about trading ovaries for tax credits? Is that too brutal?  

 

No, I'm not serious, but I often find myself at least entertaining thoughts like that when discussing solutions.

[ashbury]

And the thing people seem to forget about producers, is that someone needs to be able to afford to purchase their wares.

 

The domino effect here will be 'yuge.

Pure Adam Smith economics had a good run, but it's grounded in the concept of Scarcity, and is not equipped to guide the way in an era where Plenty is trending toward the norm.

 

In an extreme case where Plenty is created by the push of a button by a single all-powerful finger, the shape of economics and justice would look nothing like today.

 

I should add that pure Socialism is equally rooted in there being Scarcity.

 

The challenge is to construct an economic theory that handles the present-day inflection point, and I recall that others here have provided links to such thinkers here and there, but I still haven't seen what I'm hoping for.

 

The difference seems as vast as the break from Newtonian physics to relativistic.

[PseudoSABR]

 

How about trading ovaries for tax credits? Is that too brutal?  

 

No, I'm not serious, but I often find myself at least entertaining thoughts like that when discussing solutions.

Well, my dad and Thanos would agree with you, that if we stem overpopulation most of our problems would be solved.

[LaBombo]

 

Finland. Norway. Denmark. Britain. Germany. Japan.

 

I can keep going if you like.

 

You certainly can keep going if you like, since you are a free citizen of a capitalist democracy, just like the citizens of all the nations which you named. Congratulations!

 

But not one of the nations you named has "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Therefore none of them are socialist.

 

"Social democracy" seems to be the currently favored term for capitalist nations like the ones you mentioned, which possess a higher level of entitlement and regulation than the U.S.

 

As much as Democrats might want to use the two interchangeably, it's probably time for them to consider the possibilities that many Americans a) know the difference and b] don't want actual socialism.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You certainly can keep going if you like, since you are a free citizen of a capitalist democracy, just like the citizens of all the nations which you named. Congratulations!

 

But not one of the nations you named has "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Therefore none of them are socialist.

 

"Social democracy" seems to be the currently favored term for capitalist nations like the ones you mentioned, which possess a higher level of entitlement and regulation than the U.S.

 

As much as Democrats might want to use the two interchangeably, it's probably time for them to consider the possibilities that many Americans know the difference and don't want actual socialism.

No mainstream politician is advocating pure socialism so it's really a pointless distinction to make. Yes, there is a significant difference between socialism and democratic socialism but when industrialized nations speak of socialism, it's all the same kind (democratic).

[LaBombo]

 

Pure Adam Smith economics had a good run, but it's grounded in the concept of Scarcity, and is not equipped to guide the way in an era where Plenty is trending toward the norm.

 

In an extreme case where Plenty is created by the push of a button by a single all-powerful finger, the shape of economics and justice would look nothing like today.

 

I should add that pure Socialism is equally rooted in there being Scarcity.

 

The challenge is to construct an economic theory that handles the present-day inflection point, and I recall that others here have provided links to such thinkers here and there, but I still haven't seen what I'm hoping for.

 

The difference seems as vast as the break from Newtonian physics to relativistic.

 

Socialism has historically as often as not created its own scarcities, usually while blaming them on evil capitalist nations in the process.

 

As for the idea of Plenty being an impediment to capitalism, well... in a world poised to break the 8 billion mark in population as soon as five years from now, and being told that it must cease using its most economical and freely available source of energy in ten, I wouldn't worry too much about running out of scarcity.

[ashbury]

I wouldn't worry too much about running out of scarcity.

I'm pretty sure when I said "inflection point" I was far from asserting this.

[LaBombo]

 

No mainstream politician is advocating pure socialism so it's really a pointless distinction to make. Yes, there is a significant difference between socialism and democratic socialism but when industrialized nations speak of socialism, it's all the same kind (democratic).

 

Every Democrat who advocates for socialism is advocating for the dictionary definition of the word until the dictionary changes.

 

Pushing for the alteration of the word "socialism" to encompass capitalism with greater social spending just adds to the impression that the Sanders wing of the party is as much about hating capitalism as it is about achieving desired policy outcomes.

 

And Sanders' personal history of advocacy for actual, for-real dictionary socialism (and yes, even the terrifying totalitarian kind) does little to discourage that impression.

[LaBombo]

 

I'm pretty sure when I said "inflection point" I was far from asserting this.

 

If you're good with the rest, then I'm smiling too.

[biggentleben]

 

I find it interesting that so many of these videos have cropped up in the last couple of  years.

 

Really? Did you miss the previous few pages of discussion before this post? Republicans and their supporters have been tremendous at setting up exactly these kinds of propaganda messages over the last 30-50 years. Abortion, gun rights, welfare and other benefits for the needy, taxes, etc. The right has done an excellent job at using propaganda to create a feeling of a movement or even a majority where there is none. After enough time, the movement creates itself due to the quantity of the propaganda and the overwhelming one-sided message.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Every Democrat who advocates for socialism is advocating for the dictionary definition of the word until the dictionary changes.

You say this when the policies that are being advocated are obviously not included in Merriam-Webster's  definition.*  At some point connotation swallows denotation.  Although, I don't think it's incorrect to suggest that Democrats do seek to socialize healthcare and education, even under the dictionary definition.   (It seems you might be suggesting that by using the term socialize (instead of nationalize or whatever), the Democrats risk inviting a slippery slope argument, and I suppose that's a fair, if somewhat hyperbolic, criticism).  Socialism, even as defined in a dictionary, doesn't mandate an all-or-nothing scheme. 

 

*The definition in other sources is largely the same, but Merriam-Webster is the only one to use "goods" where another source broadens the list to include "capital, land etc" and another leaves out the direct object all together. 

 

[ewen21]

 

Really? Did you miss the previous few pages of discussion before this post? Republicans and their supporters have been tremendous at setting up exactly these kinds of propaganda messages over the last 30-50 years. Abortion, gun rights, welfare and other benefits for the needy, taxes, etc. The right has done an excellent job at using propaganda to create a feeling of a movement or even a majority where there is none. After enough time, the movement creates itself due to the quantity of the propaganda and the overwhelming one-sided message.

Essentially you're contention is these people are not genuine.  They are part of a right wing conspiracy where they have been bought off to spread this message.

[ewen21]

 

You say this when the policies that are being advocated are obviously not included in .*  At some point connotation swallows denotation.  Although, I don't think it's incorrect to suggest that Democrats do seek to socialize healthcare and education, even under the dictionary definition.   (It seems you might be suggesting that by using the term socialize (instead of nationalize or whatever), the Democrats risk inviting a slippery slope argument, and I suppose that's a fair, if somewhat hyperbolic, criticism).  Socialism, even as defined in a dictionary, doesn't mandate an all-or-nothing scheme. 

 

*The definition in other sources is largely the same, but Merriam-Webster is the only one to use "goods" where another source broadens the list to include "capital, land etc" and another leaves out the direct object all together. 

Since you use the source, Merriam-Webster's definition begins with this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

This is THE core principle of socialism.

In it's true form there is no private property or private ownership in a socialist government.

These conditions do not exist in any of the nations mentioned earlier. 

 

 

You can't label a government as being "socialist" without 

[biggentleben]

In talking with farmers, if you remove subsidies to plant certain grains, we would be back to a Smith economy in agriculture, but it would literally cause outrage among the "producers" because they'd have to pay a farmer up to 25-50 times the current price for soybeans or corn for the products that have been churned by "producers" to mass feed the lowest income in the country for years at a maximum profit for those producers. It'd be amazing how quickly green spaces and window sills would become community and building-wide gardens to produce viable food for those low-income communities, causing even more dollars to flow away from producers.

[biggentleben]

 

Essentially you're contention is these people are not genuine.  They are part of a right wing conspiracy where they have been bought off to spread this message.

 

No, my contention is that they are being pushed as more and more common in spite of a lack of evidence in any census or voting data that shows that movement. I could claim that there is a movement of Atlanta Braves fans throughout the Dakotas. I could find the few Braves fans I know in the Dakotas, set up a few meetings with them, make it appear as if we have frequent get-togethers, and publish the videos with frequent well-SEO'd titles on YouTube and blogging networks, and soon there would appear many more Braves fans in the Dakotas. It's not disingenuous for those who are part of the initial movement. The projection of their frequency in their community is absolutely disingenuous, however.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You're right there's no good cognate.  Maybe Germany with it's education system (free college for foreigners? how do they manage that?); I don't know how they run their healthcare over there.

 

I don't think we should be afraid to experiment, and then abandoned a socialist project if it proves untenable.   (If we can survive bailing out the banks, and these recent tax cuts, we can survive the cost of higher taxes over the short run to pay for even ill-fated programs).

 

Germany affords that with college because they do not let any Joe, Bob, or Sally go to college.  Their educational system steers kids to or away from college at a much younger age based on intelligence.  We have a lot of problems comparing ourselves to other countries because we are so unique.

 

All of the countries Brock listed earlier are homogenous.  When you don't have disparities of religion, race, ethnicity, etc......it's a helluva lot easier to craft social policy.

 

Europe is getting a 1% bump from the Arab world and they are losing their **** about it.  Just as one example.  So I always hesitate when I see comparisons.  Not that we can't learn from them, but we can't expect the same things to work the same way here.

[LaBombo]

 

You say this when the policies that are being advocated are obviously not included in Merriam-Webster's  definition.*  At some point connotation swallows denotation.  Although, I don't think it's incorrect to suggest that Democrats do seek to socialize healthcare and education, even under the dictionary definition.   (It seems you might be suggesting that by using the term socialize (instead of nationalize or whatever), the Democrats risk inviting a slippery slope argument, and I suppose that's a fair, if somewhat hyperbolic, criticism).

 

*The definition in other sources is largely the same, but Merriam-Webster is the only one to use "goods" where another source broadens the list to include "capital, land etc" and another leaves out the direct object all together. 

 

I'm saying that Democrats becoming indignant when people hold them to the actual meaning of their most strident voices' all-encompassing rallying cry is a pretty bad look for the party.

 

But if you want to argue that Democrats have already succeeded in diluting "socialism" to mean capitalism with MFA, for example, then you're also arguing that Americans who overwhelmingly disapprove of "socialism" in recent polling are in fact already disapproving of the lesser 'socialism lite' version of socialism implied by our existing government incorporating more traits of social democracy, like MFA.

 

And in any case there is no accepted formal definition of socialism that does not include a planned economy and other implications that are a non-starter for the vast majority of Americans.

[MMMordabito]

 

Europe is getting a 1% bump from the Arab world and they are losing their **** about it.  Just as one example.  So I always hesitate when I see comparisons.  Not that we can't learn from them, but we can't expect the same things to work the same way here.

 

And you would think they are about to implement sharia law before next Christmas (well I guess it wouldn't be Christmas anymore), if you believe all the alarmist nut jobs out there.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

And you would think they are about to implement sharia law before next Christmas (well I guess it wouldn't be Christmas anymore), if you believe all the alarmist nut jobs out there.

 

I thought the liberals won the war on Christmas, but I could be wrong. 

 

#happyholidays

[LaBombo]

 

Germany affords that with college because they do not let any Joe, Bob, or Sally go to college.  Their educational system steers kids to or away from college at a much younger age based on intelligence.  We have a lot of problems comparing ourselves to other countries because we are so unique.

 

All of the countries Brock listed earlier are homogenous.  When you don't have disparities of religion, race, ethnicity, etc......it's a helluva lot easier to craft social policy.

 

Europe is getting a 1% bump from the Arab world and they are losing their **** about it.  Just as one example.  So I always hesitate when I see comparisons.  Not that we can't learn from them, but we can't expect the same things to work the same way here.

 

Pseudo mentioned vocational education in a much earlier post and I missed the chance to tip my cap to him for bringing up an often overlooked component of the college discussion.

 

Many other nations have less of a hangup about making college/no college a binary equivalent of 'successful'/'not successful', and are better off for it. That false equivalence is still a hinderance to vocational education in the U.S. 

 

Germany is an excellent example, as over a third of their graduating secondary students immediately enter some form of government-sponsored vocational education or apprenticeships.

 

And as Levi pointed out... Ask for a half dozen person-on-the-street opinions in Western Europe about whether 'Nordic socialism' or whatever will work in the U.S., and odds are that you will hear at least one or two answers that will range from a polite mention of demographics to polite 'white nationalist' racism.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Since you use the source, Merriam-Webster's definition begins with this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

This is THE core principle of socialism.

In it's true form there is no private property or private ownership in a socialist government.

These conditions do not exist in any of the nations mentioned earlier. 

 

 

You can't label a government as being "socialist" without 

You're projecting the all or nothing proposition into that definition.  Advocating for socialistic healthcare, doesn't mean anyone seeks to socialize the production of hamburgers. 

 

Allow groups to define themselves.  If you're referring to the dictionary as the basis to demonstrate what people believe, your argument is very poor indeed.  

 

I wonder what the dictionary definition of "conservative" is? Actually, I don't care at all, because it's irrelevant to what self-identified conservatives actually believe.