#241  
Old 11-19-2012, 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I would like you to come up with a better system than the failed one now. Why always be negative about things you do not agree with. What is wrong with trying it small scale and test the theory?
Uh, end the drug war and don't use prisoners for slave labor?
  #242  
Old 11-19-2012, 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Basic law of economics. How are the capitalist class going to get profit unless they siphon off the labor value laborers create
You act as if only one party only benefits over the other. Its a mutual benefit as long as no one is forced to do business with the other party.

Quote:
Says who? A business only exists at the behest of a) consumers, b) laborers. Labor is the superior of capital because capital only exists with labor.
OK so someone with no knowlege of the economics of a particular business gets to set wages or wage caps or price fixing. It seems you have no problem with complete strangers stepping in and forcing people to obey and succumb to numbers they pulled out of a hat.
  #243  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
You act as if only one party only benefits over the other. Its a mutual benefit as long as no one is forced to do business with the other party.
How is it a mutual benefit?

Quote:
OK so someone with no knowlege of the economics of a particular business gets to set wages or wage caps or price fixing. It seems you have no problem with complete strangers stepping in and forcing people to obey and succumb to numbers they pulled out of a hat.
Then the business collapses. No, I am for workplace/economic democracy and worker ownership. Even IWW workshops have managers. Or Mondragon.
  #244  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Yes, they promoted the war, they practically cheerleaded it. Only once things turned sour and it was clear it was going to be a long, ugly insurgency did they realize, "Hey, wait a minute...". Of course they bend to their shareholders' beliefs. Take a look at CBS in the 90s and get back to me. You don't see why promoting an imperialist war is contradictory to left-wing, anti-capitalist principle?
Well if you're going to use one of millions of issues that a news entity promotes by giving one example from 10+ years ago then congratulations by proving all news organizations have the occasional counter balancing story/issue they promote to look less bias then they really are. You're completely ignoring the fact that most people who work in news media are vastly left leaning. Hell its even been exposed that editors have made comments that side with what I'm saying. But you still have to look at the whole picture. What stories they decide to run with, various political pundits they choose to decide to run on their shows, etc. You're taking one issue from over 10 years ago and telling me they're biased towards the right? Ok...

Quote:
Only for the means of capitalism. And even then, it's not like right-wing ideals aren't supported just as much. You're right, what sells is what is published. That is capitalist.

I don't consider most Republicans or self-described conservatives "conservative". They are more like reactionaries. The right-wing of the Democratic Party and the shrinking moderate wing of the Republican Party are conservative. Conservative is status quo. Reactionary is wanting to erode the status quo for a glorious return to the past.
Well it all depends on what 'conservative' means. Does it mean conserving the Constitution, property rights, our freedoms etc? If it means conserving the status quo then that's different and mostly all Democrats and Republicans are conservative then.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-19-2012 at 10:56 PM..
  #245  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
No, he's wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There's nothing that stops private prison industries from contributing to campaign finance, or from being associated with think tanks that craft local, state and federal laws to prison more people (and they do both of these things). There's nothing to stop the private prison industry from being linked to the military-industrial complex libertarians claim to hate so much (but still voted for Gary Johnson, who supported private prisons in NM that did just this).

And there is nothing stopping Hitler from being cloned, coming back and opening a successful chain of yogurt stores.

Back in reality however it would be scrutinized and a third party monitoring group would be enough to stop all of the evils of the world you speak of. Like I said it would be easy enough to limit the amount of prisoners per prison allowed to work. I am aware that not all prisoners will be able to earn their way but a good chunk of them can and that is relief enough. What good does packing a prison with 10x the prisoners if only a limited number of them are allowed to work. There are tons of regulations that can be put in place to make it work.

That or how about we get our congressmen to allow liberals like yourself to cover the conservative part of the prisoner tax burden since you are so against them having to use their itty bitty murdering hands to work off their debt? That way it is a win win. You can adopt a prisoner, like a little fly covered Ethiopian. You will get a picture, a letter once a month and your hundreds of dollars will go towards the cost of newports, vending machine snacks, and trips to the infirmary after a shanking.
  #246  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
don't use prisoners for slave labor?


You still have not explained how it would be slave labor if they are paying off their debts? Their food, medical care, and housing is not free. Get that through your head.
  #247  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
And there is nothing stopping Hitler from being cloned, coming back and opening a successful chain of yogurt stores.

Back in reality however it would be scrutinized and a third party monitoring group would be enough to stop all of the evils of the world you speak of. Like I said it would be easy enough to limit the amount of prisoners per prison allowed to work. I am aware that not all prisoners will be able to earn their way but a good chunk of them can and that is relief enough. What good does packing a prison with 10x the prisoners if only a limited number of them are allowed to work. There are tons of regulations that can be put in place to make it work.

That or how about we get our congressmen to allow liberals like yourself to cover the conservative part of the prisoner tax burden since you are so against them having to use their itty bitty murdering hands to work off their debt? That way it is a win win. You can adopt a prisoner, like a little fly covered Ethiopian. You will get a picture, a letter once a month and your hundreds of dollars will go towards the cost of newports, vending machine snacks, and trips to the infirmary after a shanking.
Why not eliminate the drug wars and bring industry back into the US? It's certainly quite a bit less...questionable than your excusing slavery.
  #248  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
You still have not explained how it would be slave labor if they are paying off their debts? Their food, medical care, and housing is not free. Get that through your head.
Debt slavery isn't legal, you know. Get that through your head.
  #249  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Well if you're going to use one of millions of issues that a news entity promotes by giving one example from 10+ years ago then congratulations by proving all news organizations have the occasional counter balancing story/issue they promote to look less bias then they really are. You're completely ignoring the fact that most people who work in news media are vastly left leaning. Hell its even been exposed that editors have made comments that side with what I'm saying. But you still have to look at the whole picture. What stories they decide to run with, various political pundits they choose to decide to run on their shows, etc. You're taking one issue from over 10 years ago and telling me they're biased towards the right? Ok...



Well it all depends on what 'conservative' means. Does it mean conserving the Constitution, property rights, our freedoms etc? If it means conserving the status quo then that's different mostly all Democrats and Republicans are conservative then.
You have only proven that most or a plurality of journalists are self-described "liberals". Which isn't shocking...nor does it mean "left-leaning", really. Let us also realize that the "liberal" class supports a president whose policies are to the right of Nixon's.
  #250  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Stave off what inevitable? The removal of the wage cap would eliminate any issues with retirement.
The inevitability of the system collapsing on itself. The removal would eliminate issues for a very short time but then it would just encourage government to spread it to other areas and keep making more and more IOUs. You of course realize a lot of social security isn't spent on what it was originally intended for? What ever makes you believe government is responsible with money?

Government has a poor record (putting it nicely) with 'managing' people's money. There's zero accountability and when shit hits the fan its the average taxpayer that foots the bill. Social Security checks to old folks are paid directly by younger workers. It's a pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme or whatever you want to call it but the bottom line is your money isn't held in some special account saved for you. It's spent directly on others under the assumption that one day, younger people will then be taxed for you. Of course with people living longer and longer lives, that gameplan becomes harder and harder to sustain.

Quote:
There is no capitalism without government regulation. It doesn't exist.
But it can exist. The United States Constitution gives no specific protections (unless I'm missing something) for property rights. At the current moment, the government can tax incomes at any rates that it chooses up to and including 100%. it can tax wealth (eg. estate taxes) at any rate that it chooses up to and including 100%. The only protections that anyone has are these:
a) The government can't treat people in the same income class differently (this doesn't prevent a socialistic redistribution)
b) It's counter to the best interest of the majority to raise taxes to the point that people have no incentives (In 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated proving that attacking Pearl Harbor was a bad idea. People sometimes do stupid, counter-productive things. A protection that is only based on the other side doing what's rational is a very weak protection. it's not a right.)

When the Constitution was written, and for decades after it was written, the protection of private property was not an issue. It could be safely assumed that Americans were laissez-faire capitalists. It could certainly be assumed that the political leadership was. That's no longer the case, and it hasn't been for a long time. I don't trust Obama. A century of incrementalism tells me that they're going to keep giving those who create jobs paper cuts until we bleed to death. However, I do admit that I could be wrong about them. There's an easy way to get to the truth. Why doesn't the Democratic Party articulate what "not socialist" means? Why not have an amendment to the Constitution that specifically defines what the government can (and more importantly) can't do with respect to private property? If people like those who create jobs are needlessly upset, if they're alarmists, if they oppose the president without good cause, why not give them the specifics they need to feel comfortable?

My last point is some free advice that will help those of you who agree with me as well as those who don't. From what I've learned about negotiating if you're ever trying to get the guy across the table to agree to define your rights and his obligations and constraints, and he continually responds with a gentle smile and a soft spoken, "trust me," know that you're getting bent over and fucked. A person who means you no harm, a person who is dealing off the top of the deck, a person who is legitimate, will specify your rights. He will specify his constraints. "Just trust me; I'll only take what's fair as determined by me in my sole discretion" is no right at all.

Quote:
Except no. Once again. Look at how FICA taxes actually operate. Raise the cap. The privatized system in Chile hasn't worked in the slightest.
The poverty rate is somewhere between 11% and 15%. Let's say that on average it's 12 or 13% ( http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news...come/index.htm ). Some of those people are receiving benefits under (b) above. If 85 to 88% of Americans are paying enough into FICA to cover or more than cover (c), then why are the programs going broke? They're going broke because the majority of people who can afford to pay more towards their own retirements are paying in inadequate taxes to cover the benefits they receive. That's why Democrats are so adamantly opposed to any kind of privatization. Why shouldn't people save for their own retirements? Because we want people to have retirement benefits that are outsized relative to what they paid for them. Why, because they're too poor to pay more? No, because we don't want to cut into American consumerism. The entitlements don't exist in their current state to protect the poor from starvation. They exist to protect middle class consumerism from the realities of economics.
  #251  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
You have only proven that most or a plurality of journalists are self-described "liberals". Which isn't shocking...nor does it mean "left-leaning", really. Let us also realize that the "liberal" class supports a president whose policies are to the right of Nixon's.
Well with that last part I would consider Obama a corporatist if I had to label him but most liberals don't know that they only support him for what he says he stands for. And as for at least acknowledging that journalists label themselves as liberals at least means they put more of the negative focus on Republicans while ignoring a lot of things from the Democrats. That's the nature of the majority of the mainstream media.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-19-2012 at 10:53 PM..
  #252  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
How is it a mutual benefit?
I can't think of how it is not unless its forced labor. That's your burden to prove why its not.

Quote:
Then the business collapses. No, I am for workplace/economic democracy and worker ownership. Even IWW workshops have managers. Or Mondragon.
What do those terms even mean?
  #253  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
The inevitability of the system collapsing on itself. The removal would eliminate issues for a very short time but then it would just encourage government to spread it to other areas and keep making more and more IOUs. You of course realize a lot of social security isn't spent on what it was originally intended for? What ever makes you believe government is responsible with money?

Government has a poor record (putting it nicely) with 'managing' people's money. There's zero accountability and when shit hits the fan its the average taxpayer that foots the bill. Social Security checks to old folks are paid directly by younger workers. It's a pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme or whatever you want to call it but the bottom line is your money isn't held in some special account saved for you. It's spent directly on others under the assumption that one day, younger people will then be taxed for you. Of course with people living longer and longer lives, that gameplan becomes harder and harder to sustain.



But it can exist. The United States Constitution gives no specific protections (unless I'm missing something) for property rights. At the current moment, the government can tax incomes at any rates that it chooses up to and including 100%. it can tax wealth (eg. estate taxes) at any rate that it chooses up to and including 100%. The only protections that anyone has are these:
a) The government can't treat people in the same income class differently (this doesn't prevent a socialistic redistribution)
b) It's counter to the best interest of the majority to raise taxes to the point that people have no incentives (In 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated proving that attacking Pearl Harbor was a bad idea. People sometimes do stupid, counter-productive things. A protection that is only based on the other side doing what's rational is a very weak protection. it's not a right.)

When the Constitution was written, and for decades after it was written, the protection of private property was not an issue. It could be safely assumed that Americans were laissez-faire capitalists. It could certainly be assumed that the political leadership was. That's no longer the case, and it hasn't been for a long time. I don't trust Obama. A century of incrementalism tells me that they're going to keep giving those who create jobs paper cuts until we bleed to death. However, I do admit that I could be wrong about them. There's an easy way to get to the truth. Why doesn't the Democratic Party articulate what "not socialist" means? Why not have an amendment to the Constitution that specifically defines what the government can (and more importantly) can't do with respect to private property? If people like those who create jobs are needlessly upset, if they're alarmists, if they oppose the president without good cause, why not give them the specifics they need to feel comfortable?

My last point is some free advice that will help those of you who agree with me as well as those who don't. From what I've learned about negotiating if you're ever trying to get the guy across the table to agree to define your rights and his obligations and constraints, and he continually responds with a gentle smile and a soft spoken, "trust me," know that you're getting bent over and fucked. A person who means you no harm, a person who is dealing off the top of the deck, a person who is legitimate, will specify your rights. He will specify his constraints. "Just trust me; I'll only take what's fair as determined by me in my sole discretion" is no right at all.



The poverty rate is somewhere between 11% and 15%. Let's say that on average it's 12 or 13% ( http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news...come/index.htm ). Some of those people are receiving benefits under (b) above. If 85 to 88% of Americans are paying enough into FICA to cover or more than cover (c), then why are the programs going broke? They're going broke because the majority of people who can afford to pay more towards their own retirements are paying in inadequate taxes to cover the benefits they receive. That's why Democrats are so adamantly opposed to any kind of privatization. Why shouldn't people save for their own retirements? Because we want people to have retirement benefits that are outsized relative to what they paid for them. Why, because they're too poor to pay more? No, because we don't want to cut into American consumerism. The entitlements don't exist in their current state to protect the poor from starvation. They exist to protect middle class consumerism from the realities of economics.
Ahem. Social Security is fully funded until 2037. The CBO says a 2% increase in payroll taxes would fully fund it through 2083. Your alarmism is disingenuous.
  #254  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:15 PM
*EDIT*

Last edited by Gordon; 11-21-2012 at 08:57 PM..
  #255  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
I can't think of how it is not unless its forced labor. That's your burden to prove why its not.
Receiving a wage is not a net benefit. You're getting screwed out of your labor value.

Quote:
What do those terms even mean?
Precisely what they seem to: managers, bosses and workplace hierarchy and structure are elected by, recalled by and answer to employees. All employees hold shares in the company.
  #256  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
I don't think you understand economics, or why I was mentioning profit. Here are two facts: the rate of profit is what drives capitalism. The rate of profit tends to decline over time, by about 0.3% per annum. This means capitalism that has a strong middle class is inherently unstable. The middle class only became a majority in this country through the aberration of WWII and the post-war years. Since the rate of profit in the post-war world peaked in 1963, and since Japanese, British and German capital became competitive again, what are they going to do?
I understand economics from both an educational and real world practical sense. I fear you only understand it from an educational sense, which would explain why you pretty much think like the links below. If this is the case, we can no longer debate this issue. You will not concede anything or be honest with real world results.

http://lrp-cofi.org/book/chapter1_1.html
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/chapter1_2.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Yes, I would say having others make money for you is wrong, but in a systematic sense. And of course, investment is not productive labor. The only realistic way you can just live off shuffling around money is by taking other people's labor value. And yes, most people thought the wage system was degrading in the 19th century because they are NOT getting the full value of their labor. Systematic changes and the second industrial revolution made choice pretty difficult for most though.
This is like one of those Matt Damon Good Will Hunting moments. Only you are the guy with the pony tail. You just want to disagree with the base basic truths that almost everyone knows as truth. I am into interested in debating you if you won't agree on truth and have a narrow view of words.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Not really. There's a reason the Kochs and Thiel fund them.
LOL What? WOW!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
No, he's wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There's nothing that stops private prison industries from contributing to campaign finance, or from being associated with think tanks that craft local, state and federal laws to prison more people (and they do both of these things). There's nothing to stop the private prison industry from being linked to the military-industrial complex libertarians claim to hate so much (but still voted for Gary Johnson, who supported private prisons in NM that did just this).
LOL!
  #257  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
And here I felt like we had gotten past explaining why it's pretty unconstitutional and unconscionable to allow the state to hold people captive and force them to labor for the preservation of their life.
Well, actually, the 13th amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
  #258  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I understand economics from both an educational and real world practical sense. I fear you only understand it from an educational sense, which would explain why you pretty much think like the links below. If this is the case, we can no longer debate this issue. You will not concede anything or be honest with real world results.

http://lrp-cofi.org/book/chapter1_1.html
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/book/chapter1_2.html
I'm not appreciative of Bolshevism, but you're not saying anything.

Quote:
This is like one of those Matt Damon Good Will Hunting moments. Only you are the guy with the pony tail. You just want to disagree with the base basic truths that almost everyone knows as truth. I am into interested in debating you if you won't agree on truth and have a narrow view of words.
Again, not saying anything

Quote:
LOL What? WOW!
Again, not saying anything.

Quote:
LOL!
Again, not saying anything.
  #259  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
How is it a mutual benefit?

Then the business collapses. No, I am for workplace/economic democracy and worker ownership. Even IWW workshops have managers. Or Mondragon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Uh, end the drug war and don't use prisoners for slave labor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Why not eliminate the drug wars and bring industry back into the US? It's certainly quite a bit less...questionable than your excusing slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Debt slavery isn't legal, you know. Get that through your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
You have only proven that most or a plurality of journalists are self-described "liberals". Which isn't shocking...nor does it mean "left-leaning", really. Let us also realize that the "liberal" class supports a president whose policies are to the right of Nixon's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Ahem. Social Security is fully funded until 2037. The CBO says a 2% increase in payroll taxes would fully fund it through 2083. Your alarmism is disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Receiving a wage is not a net benefit. You're getting screwed out of your labor value.



Precisely what they seem to: managers, bosses and workplace hierarchy and structure are elected by, recalled by and answer to employees. All employees hold shares in the company.


You to not agree with anything anyone says. I would like to know what your qualifications. Real world experience. Please tell me you are the great grandson of Karl Marx himself. Do I kneel or bow?
  #260  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Well, actually, the 13th amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
And if the prisoners are volunteers? then what?
  #261  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
I'm not appreciative of Bolshevism, but you're not saying anything.
.
You might not be appreciative, but what you said is almost word for word what it means. I do not need to say anything else. Compromise is not part of your vocab. We are done here. Have a nice day comrade
  #262  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:55 PM
I forgot to respond to this bit. Forgive me.

Quote:
But it can exist.
No, it really can't. Unless you're a mutualist. The means of production has to be seized by force. Capitalism is always started through primitive accumulation. It was only possible through land enclosures and legal shenanigans that benefited the aristocracy and merchant class versus farmers. This inherently forms a disadvantage that results in monopoly capitalism, skewed competition and cronyism. Read your Adam Smith again, he goes into a lot of this.

Quote:
The United States Constitution gives no specific protections (unless I'm missing something) for property rights. At the current moment, the government can tax incomes at any rates that it chooses up to and including 100%. it can tax wealth (eg. estate taxes) at any rate that it chooses up to and including 100%. The only protections that anyone has are these:
a) The government can't treat people in the same income class differently (this doesn't prevent a socialistic redistribution)
b) It's counter to the best interest of the majority to raise taxes to the point that people have no incentives (In 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated proving that attacking Pearl Harbor was a bad idea. People sometimes do stupid, counter-productive things. A protection that is only based on the other side doing what's rational is a very weak protection. it's not a right.)

When the Constitution was written, and for decades after it was written, the protection of private property was not an issue.
That last line is really, really not true. Private property has *ALWAYS* been an issue in this country. The Constitution was *very* controversial at the time and even then was criticized as elitist and beneficial mainly to the American elite.

Quote:
It could be safely assumed that Americans were laissez-faire capitalists.
Other than there being no such thing except in abstraction, you're abusing and stretching the term of laissez-faire capitalism. The South was rather pre-capitalist. Early Americans backed highly protective tariffs (NOT laissez-faire capitalism). Early (and later) Americans backed infrastructure projects.

Quote:
It could certainly be assumed that the political leadership was.
Again, no. Jefferson was an agrarian with both populist and elitist tendencies. The Founding Fathers were HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS of early capitalist institutions. The earliest form of corporations HAD to deliver clear public goods with obvious social-economic benefits and were given certain privileges to facilitate this. This is clearly NOT applicable to today. They were only given real private rights in the US starting around 1820 (I think the SCOTUS case involved Dartmouth College).

Quote:
That's no longer the case, and it hasn't been for a long time. I don't trust Obama. A century of incrementalism tells me that they're going to keep giving those who create jobs paper cuts until we bleed to death.
Uh...Obama is clearly beholden to capitalists. I don't know what "incrementalism" means in this case. And I'm certainly not sure why people who are elected with capitalist finance and for the benefit of capitalism want to give them "paper cuts" (although you made the mistake of calling them "job creators", this is not what they are here for).

Quote:
Why doesn't the Democratic Party articulate what "not socialist" means?
Uh...why should they?

Quote:
Why not have an amendment to the Constitution that specifically defines what the government can (and more importantly) can't do with respect to private property?
Because passing an Amendment is seriously tough and capital in this country *likes* the political status quo.

Quote:
If people like those who create jobs are needlessly upset, if they're alarmists, if they oppose the president without good cause, why not give them the specifics they need to feel comfortable?
They are? The "job creators" elected Obama in 2008. Some definitely hate him, but that's gonna happen no matter what. It's usually the extraction industry and parts of the restaurant industry that are highly reactionary. And from what I recall, both had pretty heavy funding from the capitalist class. They may have preferred Romney because he's one of them. Doesn't mean Obama didn't appoint plenty of Timothy Geithners.

Quote:
My last point is some free advice that will help those of you who agree with me as well as those who don't. From what I've learned about negotiating if you're ever trying to get the guy across the table to agree to define your rights and his obligations and constraints, and he continually responds with a gentle smile and a soft spoken, "trust me," know that you're getting bent over and fucked. A person who means you no harm, a person who is dealing off the top of the deck, a person who is legitimate, will specify your rights. He will specify his constraints. "Just trust me; I'll only take what's fair as determined by me in my sole discretion" is no right at all.
Isn't that what any boss does?
  #263  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You might not be appreciative, but what you said is almost word for word what it means. I do not need to say anything else. Compromise is not part of your vocab. We are done here. Have a nice day comrade
No. Unlike Lenin, I don't believe an elite has to replace the current elite in lieu of the working class. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
  #264  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You to not agree with anything anyone says. I would like to know what your qualifications. Real world experience. Please tell me you are the great grandson of Karl Marx himself. Do I kneel or bow?
None of your business.
  #265  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
And if the prisoners are volunteers? then what?
Then there's nothing wrong with it.
  #266  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
No. Unlike Lenin, I don't believe an elite has to replace the current elite in lieu of the working class. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
I said Marx. You said Lenin. There is a difference. Just you saying the term working class speak volumes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
None of your business.
Hmm. That is what I thought. If you are going to come off like an expert, you should...... nevermind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Then there's nothing wrong with it.
I am happy knowing you can agree to something. I was fully expecting a different answer. Thank you.
  #267  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
No, it really can't. Unless you're a mutualist. The means of production has to be seized by force. Capitalism is always started through primitive accumulation. It was only possible through land enclosures and legal shenanigans that benefited the aristocracy and merchant class versus farmers. This inherently forms a disadvantage that results in monopoly capitalism, skewed competition and cronyism. Read your Adam Smith again, he goes into a lot of this.



That last line is really, really not true. Private property has *ALWAYS* been an issue in this country. The Constitution was *very* controversial at the time and even then was criticized as elitist and beneficial mainly to the American elite.



Other than there being no such thing except in abstraction, you're abusing and stretching the term of laissez-faire capitalism. The South was rather pre-capitalist. Early Americans backed highly protective tariffs (NOT laissez-faire capitalism). Early (and later) Americans backed infrastructure projects.



Again, no. Jefferson was an agrarian with both populist and elitist tendencies. The Founding Fathers were HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS of early capitalist institutions. The earliest form of corporations HAD to deliver clear public goods with obvious social-economic benefits and were given certain privileges to facilitate this. This is clearly NOT applicable to today. They were only given real private rights in the US starting around 1820 (I think the SCOTUS case involved Dartmouth College).



Uh...Obama is clearly beholden to capitalists. I don't know what "incrementalism" means in this case. And I'm certainly not sure why people who are elected with capitalist finance and for the benefit of capitalism want to give them "paper cuts" (although you made the mistake of calling them "job creators", this is not what they are here for).



Uh...why should they?



Because passing an Amendment is seriously tough and capital in this country *likes* the political status quo.



They are? The "job creators" elected Obama in 2008. Some definitely hate him, but that's gonna happen no matter what. It's usually the extraction industry and parts of the restaurant industry that are highly reactionary. And from what I recall, both had pretty heavy funding from the capitalist class. They may have preferred Romney because he's one of them. Doesn't mean Obama didn't appoint plenty of Timothy Geithners.



Isn't that what any boss does?
Please re read what you write. You come off a certain way and it is not good.
  #268  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I said Marx. You said Lenin. There is a difference. Just you saying the term working class speak volumes.
Uh...you were sending links from a Trotskyist site. "Oh, it was going so well until Stalin fucked it up!" Bolshies annoy me. Marx is cool though. Though I have serious issues with historical materialism.

What's wrong with saying the working class? It used to be a popular term. Working class. Working class. Working class.

Quote:
Hmm. That is what I thought. If you are going to come off like an expert, you should...... nevermind.
It's irrelevant.
  #269  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Please re read what you write. You come off a certain way and it is not good.
I'm not as energetic a debater as Quentin, I know.
  #270  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
I'm not as energetic a debater as Quentin, I know.
I dont recall debating with him, but energetic was not the word I was hinted at.


So Obama won huh? My wife's friend saw Obama play basketball in Thailand this week. He mentioned a weak cross over. This coming from a pasty white man who is 35 and looks 50. I question why he is on this trip so soon after the election and leaving the country with all that is going on in the middle east and at home. I am also interested if he will really address the almost 50% of voters that did not vote for him.
  #271  
Old 11-20-2012, 01:45 AM
He's going to cut a "grand bargain" to slash SS, Medicare and Medicaid, in exchange for tax increases.
  #272  
Old 11-20-2012, 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Receiving a wage is not a net benefit. You're getting screwed out of your labor value.
Oh 'net' benefit (or whatever that means)... well grown adults should be able to make grown up decisions in life including negotiating their salaries/wages to how they see fit. Its rhetoric like that that is only used to get a voting base fired up. Nobody has a right to another man's property unless they come to a mutual agreement or contract. Who are these third party holy omniscience angels who can place an exact figure on the value of labor they have no experience with? My position is that any contract (including employment contracts) should be freely negotiated between two consenting adults. I am in no position to comment on how much anybody should or should not make for a given job. And contrary to the know-it-all, tell-everybody-what-do mentality of some, neither is anybody else here.

If not knowing what other people make is a dealbreaker for you, you're welcome to decline the job offer. Maybe you could ask around what others are making. If you can't find out and don't like not knowing, you're welcome to decline the job offer. If you do find out and you don't like the idea that others are making more, you're welcome to decline the job offer. At no point is anybody putting a gun to your head forcing you to take a particular job.

What wage should a person be making for a given job? Again how are you (or I for that matter) even remotely in the same neighborhood of the ballpark of being smart and knowledgeable enough to determine who should me making what for each job? What level of hubris does it take to make such an assumption? Who determines that level and why?

Slogans like "equal pay for equal performance" sounds great and totally fair until you stop to ask who is evaluating equal performance. Is it the person who's paying for the performance? Who is better able to determine if he's getting the benefit of the bargain than the person paying? Human beings are not machine parts. Determining equal performance involves a lot of subjectivity, and it should be left to those with skin in the game. That doesn't mean that nobody is ever under-compensated, but that's what head hunters are for. Many people out there want to categorize people into groups like so many faceless cogs in a machine and assign different "rights" to each group (often based upon a groups perceived "victim" status).

I'm pretty sure you're suggesting that people are not capable of negotiating their salaries/wages so you want to take away that freedom and pass it on to some third party. I'm still not sure how restricting freedom equals more freedom yet that's exactly what I think you're suggesting here. I think your notion of "freedom" is very different from mine. My view of freedom is very simple and easy to define. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Yet your notion of freedom is very different. It seems to be not really freedom in the traditional sense of freedom from restriction or freedom from active harm by another but rather freedom to you seems to be an undefinable right to a certain level of comfort - a right to have certain amount and quality of things in life that perpetually evolves over time. And unlike my notion of freedom, your notion of freedom can only be achieved by sacrificing the rights of others - taking freedom (or even outright property) from one man and transferring a perpetually evolving bill of goods to another. You value equality of outcome above all else. I value freedom. There are costs and benefits to each of those value systems and freedom always outweighs the other in at least the long term.

I know many have no problem using government force to achieve a desired equality of outcome. In fact, many routinely advocate all variety of laws that restrict freedom - laws that force people to do X or refrain from Y - in an effort to achieve that equality of outcome. I can really see are those 1984 slogans - War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

So if I am indeed missing how more restrictions on freedom in the name of equality or fairness of outcome equals greater freedom, perhaps you could do me the service of explaining it to me. Thank you.

Quote:
Precisely what they seem to: managers, bosses and workplace hierarchy and structure are elected by, recalled by and answer to employees. All employees hold shares in the company.
If someone wants to buy shares in any given company (not just the one they work in) they feel fit they are more than free to. Shares are your property and you should have sense enough to know that the money invested to buy those shares can be spent in all variety of ways. If you don't like the way a company spends their money (including the one you work at), don't buy their shares. If you already own shares, sell them. It's not hard. Why this basic, individual choice would merit (which I think you're suggesting) a one-size-fits-all decision from a political chamber in Washington, DC, I'm not sure. It's just individual choice. You don't like it, don't buy it.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-20-2012 at 05:13 AM..
  #273  
Old 11-20-2012, 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Ahem. Social Security is fully funded until 2037. The CBO says a 2% increase in payroll taxes would fully fund it through 2083. Your alarmism is disingenuous.
No it isn't. The CBO can't predict the future and common sense says otherwise.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-20-2012 at 04:09 AM..
  #274  
Old 11-20-2012, 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
I forgot to respond to this bit. Forgive me.



No, it really can't. Unless you're a mutualist. The means of production has to be seized by force. Capitalism is always started through primitive accumulation. It was only possible through land enclosures and legal shenanigans that benefited the aristocracy and merchant class versus farmers. This inherently forms a disadvantage that results in monopoly capitalism, skewed competition and cronyism. Read your Adam Smith again, he goes into a lot of this.
It's not as if I consider Smith a God and all of his words the gospel. Even the smartest of the smart make mistakes. Even Einstein rejected his own "cosmological constant" hypothesis calling it his "biggest blunder."

If the end result are monopoly free market capitalism so what? Monopolies generally result in slower innovation and higher prices and they're usually temporary (so long as they're not the result of laws that end up artificially boosting the reigning company or discouraging competition) but there is nothing inherently unjust about creating a product and selling it for as much money as you can get even if you're the only one selling it.

Competition will also play a factor. Other people want to get in on a lucrative market and make money. If there's no way in, they end up creating a completely new product that makes the old one obsolete. Of course, here I'm talking about a natural monopoly, not the government supported one. If you're suggesting a crony government supported monopoly then that's regulation.

Anyway I think you'll find though that in the long-term monopolies don't last because: a) companies get way too big and become less efficient at responding to changing market dynamics and/or b) technology evolves and instead of beating them, competitors simply go around them. A company has a monopoly on horseshoes? Invent the car. Now a horseshoe monopoly doesn't really matter.

Quote:
That last line is really, really not true. Private property has *ALWAYS* been an issue in this country. The Constitution was *very* controversial at the time and even then was criticized as elitist and beneficial mainly to the American elite.
But private property redistribution has been a bigger issue. And it was falsely criticized because giving equal freedom to all is anything but elitist. If anything it made all Americans elite over the rest of the world.

Quote:
Again, no. Jefferson was an agrarian with both populist and elitist tendencies. The Founding Fathers were HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS of early capitalist institutions. The earliest form of corporations HAD to deliver clear public goods with obvious social-economic benefits and were given certain privileges to facilitate this. This is clearly NOT applicable to today. They were only given real private rights in the US starting around 1820 (I think the SCOTUS case involved Dartmouth College).
Well Jefferson didn't count as the entire leadership as a whole. But naturally they would be uneasy about such a revolutionary institution being developed. But I wouldn't use the word suspicious.


Quote:
Uh...Obama is clearly beholden to capitalists. I don't know what "incrementalism" means in this case. And I'm certainly not sure why people who are elected with capitalist finance and for the benefit of capitalism want to give them "paper cuts" (although you made the mistake of calling them "job creators", this is not what they are here for).
What I mean by incrementalism is for example a congressional budget decision has to be made in where the usual questions considered about a given (existing) agency might typically range from whether to cut 4 or 5 percent from its budget to whether to tack on a 5 or 10% increase. Congress very seldom stops to think seriously about whether the agency ought to be abolished entirely as unnecessary or harmful to the public interest or whether its responsibilities would be better performed in some entirely different manner by another agency. So spending never gets cut like it should. This has been going on for about century and the tax burden has been passed onto businesses and hindering potentially emerging businesses that would otherwise efficiently create jobs that fit much more properly into market demands. Like I said small paper cuts.

Again you're talking about different capitalism than I am. If you're supporting some capitalist institutions over others (like he is with health insurance providers) then you're only beholding to certain capitalist enterprises. He's not beholden to free market capitalism he's beholden to corporatism.

Yes they are job creators because that's a wonderful side effect of growing businesses. If something has a side effect then it creates that side effect. In this case businesses do create jobs and just because its not the central function doesn't make it not so.

Quote:
Uh...why should they?
Perhaps they should define what sets them apart from socialism and why sometimes they get so offended by such a label but I digress I'm not going to turn this into another argument about an 'ism'.


Quote:
Because passing an Amendment is seriously tough and capital in this country *likes* the political status quo.
Yes of course its tough as it should be. It still hasn't stopped them from passing and tearing the Constitution to shreds. It would just be nice for a change to set a standard or draw a line for them to point out exactly what the limits are as far as what government can do with property rights.


Quote:
They are? The "job creators" elected Obama in 2008. Some definitely hate him, but that's gonna happen no matter what. It's usually the extraction industry and parts of the restaurant industry that are highly reactionary. And from what I recall, both had pretty heavy funding from the capitalist class. They may have preferred Romney because he's one of them. Doesn't mean Obama didn't appoint plenty of Timothy Geithners.
The job creators didn't elect Obama the majority of voters did.

Quote:
Isn't that what any boss does?
Not really.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-20-2012 at 07:15 AM..
  #275  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:20 AM
the phrase "job creator" is absurd

like what the fuck


do people really say that? good grief
  #276  
Old 11-20-2012, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Oh 'net' benefit (or whatever that means)... well grown adults should be able to make grown up decisions in life including negotiating their salaries/wages to how they see fit. Its rhetoric like that that is only used to get a voting base fired up. Nobody has a right to another man's property unless they come to a mutual agreement or contract. Who are these third party holy omniscience angels who can place an exact figure on the value of labor they have no experience with? My position is that any contract (including employment contracts) should be freely negotiated between two consenting adults. I am in no position to comment on how much anybody should or should not make for a given job. And contrary to the know-it-all, tell-everybody-what-do mentality of some, neither is anybody else here.
Except this isn't about individual problems. This is about systematic issues. People didn't WANT the wage system to become predominant in American society. Problem is, it did.

Quote:
If not knowing what other people make is a dealbreaker for you, you're welcome to decline the job offer. Maybe you could ask around what others are making. If you can't find out and don't like not knowing, you're welcome to decline the job offer. If you do find out and you don't like the idea that others are making more, you're welcome to decline the job offer. At no point is anybody putting a gun to your head forcing you to take a particular job.
Um...you can make more than others in a co-op. Just nothing like making 300:1 compared to another worker.

Quote:
What wage should a person be making for a given job? Again how are you (or I for that matter) even remotely in the same neighborhood of the ballpark of being smart and knowledgeable enough to determine who should me making what for each job? What level of hubris does it take to make such an assumption? Who determines that level and why?
This should be decided by workplace vote. They can delegate the power if they wish, it's not up to me unless I work there or any bureaucrat.

Quote:
Slogans like "equal pay for equal performance" sounds great and totally fair until you stop to ask who is evaluating equal performance. Is it the person who's paying for the performance? Who is better able to determine if he's getting the benefit of the bargain than the person paying? Human beings are not machine parts. Determining equal performance involves a lot of subjectivity, and it should be left to those with skin in the game. That doesn't mean that nobody is ever under-compensated, but that's what head hunters are for. Many people out there want to categorize people into groups like so many faceless cogs in a machine and assign different "rights" to each group (often based upon a groups perceived "victim" status).
I like how workers don't have skin in the game, apparently.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure you're suggesting that people are not capable of negotiating their salaries/wages so you want to take away that freedom and pass it on to some third party. I'm still not sure how restricting freedom equals more freedom yet that's exactly what I think you're suggesting here. I think your notion of "freedom" is very different from mine. My view of freedom is very simple and easy to define. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Yet your notion of freedom is very different. It seems to be not really freedom in the traditional sense of freedom from restriction or freedom from active harm by another but rather freedom to you seems to be an undefinable right to a certain level of comfort - a right to have certain amount and quality of things in life that perpetually evolves over time. And unlike my notion of freedom, your notion of freedom can only be achieved by sacrificing the rights of others - taking freedom (or even outright property) from one man and transferring a perpetually evolving bill of goods to another. You value equality of outcome above all else. I value freedom. There are costs and benefits to each of those value systems and freedom always outweighs the other in at least the long term.
On their own, employees DO NOT HAVE THE BARGAINING POWER of employers. This is simply a fact. I am not advocating passing it to a third party. I am advocating equalizing bargaining power for all. They may be able to achieve parity for some time through unions, but it's simply not enough.

Quote:
I know many have no problem using government force to achieve a desired equality of outcome. In fact, many routinely advocate all variety of laws that restrict freedom - laws that force people to do X or refrain from Y - in an effort to achieve that equality of outcome. I can really see are those 1984 slogans - War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Orwell was a socialist who fought in the Spanish Civil War, partly on the side of anarcho-communists in Catalonia. I'm sure he would not want to be used for excuses for capitalism.

Quote:
So if I am indeed missing how more restrictions on freedom in the name of equality or fairness of outcome equals greater freedom, perhaps you could do me the service of explaining it to me. Thank you.
Restrictions on freedom for whom: workers or bosses?

Quote:
If someone wants to buy shares in any given company (not just the one they work in) they feel fit they are more than free to. Shares are your property and you should have sense enough to know that the money invested to buy those shares can be spent in all variety of ways. If you don't like the way a company spends their money (including the one you work at), don't buy their shares. If you already own shares, sell them. It's not hard. Why this basic, individual choice would merit (which I think you're suggesting) a one-size-fits-all decision from a political chamber in Washington, DC, I'm not sure. It's just individual choice. You don't like it, don't buy it.
Grassroots socialism is worker-determined, not bureaucrat-determined. Of course, buying enough shares in a company you work for can be impossible. And you once again miss that political economy is about systematic issues, not just individual ones. If most workers cannot buy shares in their company, how can they get a stake in it?

Last edited by Jon Lyrik; 11-20-2012 at 01:43 PM..
  #277  
Old 11-20-2012, 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
No it isn't. The CBO can't predict the future and common sense says otherwise.
Okay, I should just rely on the gut of Paul Ryan types just because.
  #278  
Old 11-20-2012, 01:36 PM
I'll get to the post starting on Smith in a bit.
  #279  
Old 11-20-2012, 01:59 PM
It is really funny to read this economic debate. Neither one of you is 100% right. Creekin at least has an open mind. Jon, dude, you are not right. You are not wrong either. I don't know where you learned all you learned, but the first thing whoever taught you should have said that economics is by no means an exact science and NO theory is EVER 100% correct and NO theory has ever worked 100%. You might want to open your mind and see the merits of other ideas, because like most things in life the best way is somewhere in the middle. Most of your words read like they are right out of a text book with little to no real world thought.

Quote:
On their own, employees DO NOT HAVE THE BARGAINING POWER of employers. This is simply a fact. I am not advocating passing it to a third party. I am advocating equalizing bargaining power for all. They may be able to achieve parity for some time through unions, but it's simply not enough
You have no idea what the real world is like. Employees have all kinds of bargaining power. They have it before they start working. They have it in a full employment economy, like we had several years ago.
Parity through unions????? Don't you see this system hurts business. It allows weaker employees in any industry to do well when they don't deserve it and prevents true gifted employees to grow. They are all held down by the power of their union. I can site numberous examples. But you are not stating true facts at all. You are stating text book theory.

In my opinion, Unions had their place a 100 years ago when the businesses had all the power and now they are part of the problem, not the solution. Government controls and regs have taken the place of what unions used to do. There are certain elements about unions that I like, but in general unions are bad for business and bad for the people as they only serve their own best interest and not the true interests of the business and by extension the employees. The most important thing to read about my opinion about Unions is that I am open and like some of the good elements they can and do offer. It is up to you to understand the bad elements and damage they do.
  #280  
Old 11-20-2012, 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Of course, buying enough shares in a company you work for can be impossible. And you once again miss that political economy is about systematic issues, not just individual ones. If most workers cannot buy shares in their company, how can they get a stake in it?
Are you kidding or just messing around here?
You are 95% wrong.
Public companies are openly traded. You can buy as much as you can afford. Shareholders get voting rights unless you own preferred stock.
Private company: Hard to own a stake in the company, but in many type of work you can work towards being a partner. Meaning if your work is a great value to the company, the company will cut you in on the profits like a partner. Or you are always welcome to start your own company.
Many companies have profit sharing as well and other income related bonuses that are determined many different ways.


I work for a privately owned company. I have zero shot at any sort of partnership. I do have great chances to take part in profit sharing positions if I move up. I also can make performance bonuses. Or I can do the soundly American concept of open up my own shop. Either way, my success or failure is up to me and how hard I am willing to work at something. What is wrong with that?
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump