Jump to content
Bluenami

The defamation of socialism

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, jbander said:

What a hoot you are.

 

On 3/21/2019 at 3:59 PM, jbander said:

Nonsense. Total complete nonsense.    - snip-    hell your as bad as the right wing is in doing that crap.

 

Just a small caution: ---  Material like this is entirely gratuitous and does nothing to help make your points, however exemplary they may, or may not be.    In the LO Room, one's points should stand on their own, without the aid of personal attacks.  So far, your opponent has desisted from retaliating ...  Which is why I have cautioned you and not him.  Thanks, in advance, for your cooperation.

 

Rules for LO


×

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing  in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 1:50 PM, Bluenami said:

 

Why will there always be scarcity?  We have the technology right now to eliminate scarcity, but it's not good for business.

 

There is no technology that eliminates scarcity.  Just because you have the technology to build a space ship, that doesn't mean you can build a space ship for every human being on Earth.  Therefore rides in space will remain scarce.

 

Even with infinite production capacity, which we do not have, we would continue to have scarce natural resources, scarce space, scarce water, and countless other limitations.  There can't be unlimited seats on the front row of a concert.  There will never be unlimited top tier works of art.  Only one person gets the parking space closest to the entrance.   7 billion people can't live in Aspen.  

 

Even for commodities, even if you had infinite production, challenges with transportation, storage and distribution would continue create scarcity.    Scarcity isn't only about having enough of something.  It's also about not having too much and getting it when you need it.   

 

There will always be more demand than supply.  If you, with a magic wand, were able to meet every single need and want of every single human being on the planet today, they would have new needs and new wants tomorrow, some of which would be in direct contradiction of what they told you yesterday. 

 

Who get's satisfied first?  Even if your magic wand can grant everything for everyone, there's still scarcity in who get's to be at the front of the line.  

 

Scarcity isn't a physical restraint that can be overcome with 'more stuff'.  It's a psychological creation of the human mind.  Have you ever watched children play?  Give two kids a hundred toys to play with and they'll fight over just one.  Give them both identical toys and one kid will want both.  Or, they'll find some microscopic difference between the two and fight over that.  Adults have the same impulses, we just handle it (a little) better.

 

So, I think your definition of the 'end of scarcity' must be different from mine.  That's why I asked the question.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

From their website: " While it is undeniable that we need a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code, nothing significant is going to get done in the current political environment. However, there are some small actions we can take: eliminating the most egregious tax loopholes, increasing the number of tax brackets, defending the estate tax, and repatriating overseas assets. "

 

Although I can't argue with their  proposals, it seems a bit anemic to me. I am not a fan of brackets. It is inherently unfair to those at the bottom of each bracket, and  is an open invitation for tax avoidance. Not enough details to take them seriously.

 

Would you prefer they take the opposite stance?  The point is that they don't play into the narrative of rich oppression.

 

14 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

 

An evil genius, maybe. The idea that if we throw, shovel, bulldoze enough $$$ to the 'job creators' it would trickle down has been proven to be a failure for all but the top x%. It ignores the demand side.

 

Did Friedman advocate bulldozing money to job creators?  Sounds like government intervention to me.

 

I don't think we're going to make headway by calling genii stupid.  It's better to recognize their points and provide counterpoint. 

 

14 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

 

Consequently:

  • 40% of Americans don’t have the cash to pay for an emergency expense
  • 11% of American adults simply could not come up with $400 at all, not with family, not with credit cards - nothing - unless they used money that they were already using to pay other bills like rent.
  • 25% have no retirement or pension savings

This wealth inequality is the result of Friedman's supply side economics. If people cannot afford to buy things, it does not matter how much money you shovel to the top x%. It just makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer. The overall economy suffers.

 

I don't think Friedman advocated supply-side economics.  Is there evidence that he did?  I find no mention of it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

 

And the only reference to Friedman here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

 

Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits

 

I don't think Friedman was such a fan of supply-side, mainly because it's nonsense and Friedman was smarter than that.

 

During 1940, Friedman was appointed an assistant professor teaching Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but encountered antisemitism in the Economics department and decided to return to government service.[35][36] From 1941 to 1943 Friedman worked on wartime tax policy for the federal government, as an advisor to senior officials of the United States Department of the Treasury. As a Treasury spokesman during 1942 he advocated a Keynesian policy of taxation. He helped to invent the payroll withholding tax system, since the federal government badly needed money in order to fight the war.[37] He later said, "I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn't found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now."[38]

 

14 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

IMHO, the Keynesian economic principles that FDR used 90 years ago have a much better track record, than Friedman / Laffer /Reagon / Ryan trickle down, supply side scam perpetrated on our economy since the 80's.

 

It seems Friedman is catching flack for what he didn't do.  Laffer was laughable and Reagan was a traitor.

 

14 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

 

The opposite of supply side economics is demand side economics.

Demand side economics is all about increasing demand in the consumer...

Raising minimum wages, reducing healthcare costs, lower/ middle class tax credits or tax cuts are ways to increase discretionary funds to drive consumer spending.

 

Well that's too sensible lol

 

14 hours ago, ExPDXer said:

 

Yes. An ideal,  fair, and progressive tax system would be a upwardly sloping line (no bracket 'steps'), from $0  to $xxx billion in income

I described this idea in my prior posts on the subject, where I analyzed IRS data, and census data to compare different tax policies...

 

the-equation-for-economic-justice
redistribute wealth:tax the rich 2.0

 

So far, no presidential candidate has embraced the idea of combining flat tax (regressive), with generous tax credits (progressive).

 

I see the flat aspect as merely a talking point to lure conservatives.  There really is no reason to have a flat tax if the purpose of taxation is redistribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jbander said:

There is a definition of socialism I gave it to you , you went shopping for someone who agreed with what you think socialism is , that's not how it works.Your goofy to suggest that Chomsky is the last word on socialism. That a hoot. Here is the definition SOCIALISM

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

 

You appeal to Webster as your authority for a definition of an economic system.

 

I appeal to a distinguished intellectual for mine.

 

Why do you consider Webster to have superior understanding of economics than Chomsky?

 

Quote

BY the way why would you even consider Chomsky's opinion considering he is a libertarian socialist  a sympathizer of anarcho-syndocolism.  He is the last person in the world to define socialism. What a hoot you are.

 

I think that demonstrates that you don't understand what those terms mean.

 

Libertarian socialism (also known as socialist libertarianism)[1] is a group of anti-authoritarian[2] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects the conception of socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy.[3] Libertarian socialism is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism[4][5]and criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[6] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[7] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10]

 

Libertarian socialism often rejects the state itself[7] and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarianinstitutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[12][13] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[14][15] and voluntary human relationships[16] through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] As such, libertarian socialism seeks to distinguish itself from both Leninism/Bolshevism and social democracy.[25][26]

 

 

Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism)[1] is a theory of anarchism that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and with that control influence in broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.

 

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. The end goal of syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement.[2]

 

Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defense of private property, and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, denying most of its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy that springs from it.[3] Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism is centred around the idea that power corrupts and that any hierarchy that cannot be ethically justified must either be dismantled or replaced by decentralized egalitarian control.[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bludog said:

So far, your opponent has desisted from retaliating 

 

Glad you stepped in because I wasn't sure how much longer I could hold out lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

There is no technology that eliminates scarcity.  Just because you have the technology to build a space ship, that doesn't mean you can build a space ship for every human being on Earth.  Therefore rides in space will remain scarce.

 

Even with infinite production capacity, which we do not have, we would continue to have scarce natural resources, scarce space, scarce water, and countless other limitations.  There can't be unlimited seats on the front row of a concert.  There will never be unlimited top tier works of art.  Only one person gets the parking space closest to the entrance.   7 billion people can't live in Aspen.  

 

Even for commodities, even if you had infinite production, challenges with transportation, storage and distribution would continue create scarcity.    Scarcity isn't only about having enough of something.  It's also about not having too much and getting it when you need it.   

 

There will always be more demand than supply.  If you, with a magic wand, were able to meet every single need and want of every single human being on the planet today, they would have new needs and new wants tomorrow, some of which would be in direct contradiction of what they told you yesterday. 

 

Who get's satisfied first?  Even if your magic wand can grant everything for everyone, there's still scarcity in who get's to be at the front of the line.  

 

Scarcity isn't a physical restraint that can be overcome with 'more stuff'.  It's a psychological creation of the human mind.  Have you ever watched children play?  Give two kids a hundred toys to play with and they'll fight over just one.  Give them both identical toys and one kid will want both.  Or, they'll find some microscopic difference between the two and fight over that.  Adults have the same impulses, we just handle it (a little) better.

 

So, I think your definition of the 'end of scarcity' must be different from mine.  That's why I asked the question.   

 

Yes, a lot of those are the same arguments I gave the guys at the zeitgeist forum, such as who gets the prime real estate and what if two people want the same plot of land.  Some things can't be replicated and maybe there will always be some scarcity, but not everyone needs a ride in a spaceship to survive. 

 

I don't know how those things will be sorted out, but as time goes on we're increasing the efficiency of production and eliminating jobs which requires the government to handout money, and when the point comes that money is handed to just about everyone for free, then it becomes silly to issue money at all and money itself becomes an inefficiency where it costs more to charge someone for something than not.  That is the point that scarcity has been eliminated.

 

But what about spaceship rides and who gets first place in line?  I don't know how that will be sorted out, but it doesn't require issuance of money and forcing people to dig holes only to refill them as a mechanism to determine who gets what.  Perhaps it would be a meritocracy system based on societal contributions placing the value on empathy and intelligence.  Maybe someone like Chomsky would get first place in line.  I don't know and as far as I can tell, no one does.

 

And I don't see natural resources as scarce, which is especially true in the context of increasing efficiency, recycling, and population reduction as a consequence of prosperity.

 

The way kids are is an artifact of how their parents are and I expect our genetics will change over time.  I've witnessed animals sharing food and have seen Labs just about starve themselves letting the other dogs eat first, who then eats all the food.  Nature is random and what exist is what's selected for, so in a jungle, the Lab wouldn't do too well, but in society, the Lab is favored and the selfish mutt meets adversity; it just depends on the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bluenami said:

 

You appeal to Webster as your authority for a definition of an economic system.

 

I appeal to a distinguished intellectual for mine.

 

Why do you consider Webster to have superior understanding of economics than Chomsky?

 

 

I think that demonstrates that you don't understand what those terms mean.

 

Libertarian socialism (also known as socialist libertarianism)[1] is a group of anti-authoritarian[2] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects the conception of socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy.[3] Libertarian socialism is close to and overlaps with left-libertarianism[4][5]and criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[6] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[7] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10]

 

Libertarian socialism often rejects the state itself[7] and asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarianinstitutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[12][13] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[14][15] and voluntary human relationships[16] through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] As such, libertarian socialism seeks to distinguish itself from both Leninism/Bolshevism and social democracy.[25][26]

 

 

Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism)[1] is a theory of anarchism that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and with that control influence in broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.

 

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. The end goal of syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory therefore generally focuses on the labour movement.[2]

 

Anarcho-syndicalists view the primary purpose of the state as being the defense of private property, and therefore of economic, social and political privilege, denying most of its citizens the ability to enjoy material independence and the social autonomy that springs from it.[3] Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism is centred around the idea that power corrupts and that any hierarchy that cannot be ethically justified must either be dismantled or replaced by decentralized egalitarian control.[3]

What a hoot , Webster isn't a good source but this garbage is somehow. If anyone wants to make up their own definition of socialism, you can find a sight that supports your make believe definition. Yes Websters is a better source then Chomsky on just about every subject that Chomsky talks about. He is not the last answer on anything he talks about, I love Chomsky but he goes off in every direction imaginable and has many detractor's  as he should , he is way out there on many of his opinions. Obviously you live and die by what Chomsky says, I would suggest you widen your sources . You don't get to make up your own definition of socialism to fit within your beliefs  , It has one already. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jbander said:

What a hoot , Webster isn't a good source but this garbage is somehow. If anyone wants to make up their own definition of socialism, you can find a sight that supports your make believe definition. Yes Websters is a better source then Chomsky on just about every subject that Chomsky talks about. He is not the last answer on anything he talks about, I love Chomsky but he goes off in every direction imaginable and has many detractor's  as he should , he is way out there on many of his opinions. Obviously you live and die by what Chomsky says, I would suggest you widen your sources . You don't get to make up your own definition of socialism to fit within your beliefs  , It has one already. Simple as that.

 

Kicking and screaming noted.

 

If the state owns your production facility, what control do you have?  Zero.  <--- Refute that point please

 

If you cannot refute that point, then your definition has no merit and state ownership therefore is not social.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bluenami said:

Would you prefer they take the opposite stance?  The point is that they don't play into the narrative of rich oppression.

I do not have any disagreement with this organization.

I already stated what I would prefer: A more detailed set of policies outlining their plan for tax fairness.

 

'Narrative' of rich oppression? Please expand. It sounds as if you are dismissing of the obvious, inordinate inequities the wealthy enjoy in the areas of taxation, criminal justice, and political influence.

 

The exact same website you linked seems to be engaging in this 'narrative'....

 

An Ultra-Millionaire Tax Will Make New York Better. Why Is Cuomo Resisting?

 

It’s Time to Address the Growing Concentration of Wealth

<snip>

Whether Congress institutes Sen. Warren’s millionaires tax, follows through on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% top marginal rate, or revamps the estate tax as Sen. Sanders suggested, there are at least some lawmakers who believe something must be done to undo the growing concentration of wealth that is crippling this country.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Bluenami said:

I don't think Friedman advocated supply-side economics. 

 

4 hours ago, Bluenami said:

It seems Friedman is catching flack for what he didn't do.  Laffer was laughable and Reagan was a traitor. 

I may have been too harsh lumping Friedman in with Laffer, et al.

An overstatement on my part.  My critique of Friedman is his  'tight' monetarism, which spawned a whole group of 'small-government' politicians.

Many of the supply siders have used Friedman's work as  justification for tax cuts for corporations, and the wealthy.

My beef is not with individuals, but with inequitable policies that continue to widen the wealth gap.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ExPDXer said:

I do not have any disagreement with this organization.

I already stated what I would prefer: A more detailed set of policies outlining their plan for tax fairness.

 

'Narrative' of rich oppression? Please expand. It sounds as if you are dismissing of the obvious, inordinate inequities the wealthy enjoy in the areas of taxation, criminal justice, and political influence.

 

The reason I brought up the Patriotic Millionaires is because I am challenging the idea that the rich are controlling the population for their own benefit and instead I'm suggesting they are merely preaching to the choir and making a profit in doing so.  If the choir changes, so will the preaching.  If Fox News didn't have an audience, they would change their entertainment strategy since they're in the business to make money.  The problem is the audience, not the preachers.  A whole generation of people is completely immune to anything Fox says, so they are reliant upon a brainwashed audience before the propaganda becomes applicable.

 

So whether or not the Patriotic Millionaires are really patriotic is beside the point.  The fact remains that they are rich and are not seeking to oppress anyone in order to remain rich.  Google potentially affecting the 2018 election is another example of the rich not seeking to oppress the people.  Conservative censorship by our corporate overlords is another example.  The real problem, as I see, are those like Duck, Bigsky, BlueDrivel, Golfball, et al who formerly made up a huge chunk of the voting block.

 

All of this stems from my mentioning Milton Friedman claiming that monopolies have a way of regulating themselves, so I theorized that perhaps the plutocrats become benevolent as a result of their opulence and that may be a freemarket mechanism that Friedman may or may not have noticed.

 

1 minute ago, ExPDXer said:

I may have been too harsh lumping Friedman in with Laffer, et al.

An overstatement on my part.  My critique of Friedman is his  'tight' monetarism, which spawned a whole group of 'small-government' politicians.

Many of the supply siders have used Friedman's work as  justification for tax cuts for corporations, and the wealthy.

My beef is not with individuals, but with inequitable policies that continue to widen the wealth gap.

 

I definitely share your crusade concerning the wealth gap, but Friedman's ideas have been twisted, though I'm sure he wasn't correct about everything, as he himself admitted.  But he was a brilliant economist nonetheless and it's probably in our best interests to go ahead and admit that, if not champion it, because it takes sting from the stinger of anyone wishing to use Friedman against us.

 

Adam Smith is another one twisted out of context by conservatives, which Chomsky has pointed out many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bluenami said:

 

Kicking and screaming noted.

 

If the state owns your production facility, what control do you have?  Zero.  <--- Refute that point please

 

If you cannot refute that point, then your definition has no merit and state ownership therefore is not social.

Refute what, it won't help you it doesn't allow you to make up your own definition of socialist, you simply have no clue at all what it means obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 10:12 AM, Bluenami said:

And I don't see natural resources as scarce, which is especially true in the context of increasing efficiency, recycling, and population reduction as a consequence of prosperity.

 

Today's reality is so far from this, it's like another plane of existence.  It doesn't matter if you're building a spaceship or recycling an aluminum can...just because you can do it once, or a thousand times, that doesn't mean you can do it an unlimited number of times.  If resources weren't scarce, they wouldn't be expensive.  

 

On 3/23/2019 at 10:12 AM, Bluenami said:

when the point comes that money is handed to just about everyone for free, then it becomes silly to issue money at all and money itself becomes an inefficiency where it costs more to charge someone for something than not.  That is the point that scarcity has been eliminated.

 

And that point is nowhere in sight (and just barely within the realm of imagination).  Is this 'end of scarcity' something you see humanity striving for?  Or do you believe it's something we're capable of achieving today?  If it's the former, cool.  If it's the latter, I don't think you're looking at the same world I am.

 

On 3/23/2019 at 10:12 AM, Bluenami said:

I don't know how that will be sorted out, but it doesn't require issuance of money and forcing people to dig holes only to refill them as a mechanism to determine who gets what. 

 

Who's digging holes and refilling them?  I don't understand the reference.  Only a government would pay someone to do something useless like that.

 

On 3/23/2019 at 10:12 AM, Bluenami said:

Perhaps it would be a meritocracy system based on societal contributions placing the value on empathy and intelligence. 

 

Actually, we already have a a meritocracy system.  You do something I like, I give you money.  I do something you like, you give me money.  When it's properly implemented, it works awesomely well.

 

There might be an issue with 'placing the value on empathy and intelligence'.  See, that's your value...not mine.  I get to place my value where I want.  I might choose to value something higher than empathy or intelligence.  This is where I get touchy about socialism.  Who gets to decide where we place the value?  When it's a 'top down' decision, I don't like it. 

 

When wealth disparity isn't too great, capitalism does a great job of giving everyone a voice in resource allocation.  Even when the disparity is large, I still get a voice...just not very much.  I see a completely socialist economy having a very difficult time balancing the allocation of resources (yes, scarcity is still ubiquitous) against all needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you call it, and to whatever degree you have it, the success of social organization depends largely on the ability of the population to navigate the mechanisms by which you activate its benefits.

 

Examples:

1. If you need a fixed permanent address in order to get welfare or Medicaid, then a homeless person who lives on the street cannot access those benefits.

2. If forms for low interest government sponsored low interest loans are too complicated, people with small businesses that have a literacy problem will never be able to get those loans. (Think of people like roofers, gardeners, nail salon owners, and other businesses that don't demand high literacy skills.)

 

What happens when a large portion of the population, say 60% to 70%, is either too dumb, too uneducated, or to lazy to fulfill the bureaucratic requirements to benefit from a government program? I'll tell you: they distrust government and resent social programs for which they have to pay but from which they're unable benefit.

 

And then, you get the failure of social programs and the antipathy toward them.

 

Medicare in Canada works really well and people like it. The reason: they don't have to do much to use it. They fill out a form once to get their card, present it at the doctor's office ... and done. And they can get help filling out the form if they have literacy or language problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jbander said:

Refute what, it won't help you it doesn't allow you to make up your own definition of socialist, you simply have no clue at all what it means obviously.

 

If there is anyone here who takes jbander seriously, speak up and I'll address your concerns, but I'm writing him off as hopeless and intent on wasting my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

 

Today's reality is so far from this, it's like another plane of existence.  It doesn't matter if you're building a spaceship or recycling an aluminum can...just because you can do it once, or a thousand times, that doesn't mean you can do it an unlimited number of times.  If resources weren't scarce, they wouldn't be expensive.  

 

It's a function of the cost of energy; once energy is free, then robots work for free.  $0 x infinity = $0.

 

Resources are only scarce because the energy required to go get them is scarce.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

And that point is nowhere in sight (and just barely within the realm of imagination).  Is this 'end of scarcity' something you see humanity striving for?  Or do you believe it's something we're capable of achieving today?  If it's the former, cool.  If it's the latter, I don't think you're looking at the same world I am.

 

It could have been accomplished in the 70s according to Jacque Fresco

 

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

Who's digging holes and refilling them?  I don't understand the reference.  Only a government would pay someone to do something useless like that.

 

Refer back to 

 

 

Now what happens then when you introduce technology into production, you produce enormous quantities of goods by technological methods, but at the same time you put people out of work.  You can say "oh but it always creates more jobs; there'll always be more jobs."  Yes, but lots of them will be futile jobs.  They will be jobs making every kind of frippery and unnecessary contraption and one will also at the same time have to beguile the public into feeling that they need and want these completely unnecessary things that aren't even beautiful.  And therefore an enormous amount of nonsense employment and busy work, bureaucratic and otherwise, has to be created in order to keep people working. 

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

Actually, we already have a a meritocracy system.  You do something I like, I give you money.  I do something you like, you give me money.  When it's properly implemented, it works awesomely well.

 

A meritocracy would demand those with the most merit be in charge, but that isn't the case.  In fact, those with the least merit are often in charge, or the only skill they have is ripping people off.

 

Wealth is only 16% correlated with intelligence.  http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

There might be an issue with 'placing the value on empathy and intelligence'.  See, that's your value...not mine.  I get to place my value where I want.  I might choose to value something higher than empathy or intelligence.  This is where I get touchy about socialism.  Who gets to decide where we place the value?  When it's a 'top down' decision, I don't like it. 

 

What's higher than empathy or intelligence?

 

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

When wealth disparity isn't too great, capitalism does a great job of giving everyone a voice in resource allocation.  Even when the disparity is large, I still get a voice...just not very much.  I see a completely socialist economy having a very difficult time balancing the allocation of resources (yes, scarcity is still ubiquitous) against all needs.

 

Socialism doesn't mean "no free market".  A worker co-op can compete in a free market just fine, but it eliminates worker exploitation.

 

A free market often does a good job at predicting what people want, but too often what gets offered is what makes the most profit, like the cheap plastic crap they peddle at walmart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, laripu said:

Whatever you call it, and to whatever degree you have it, the success of social organization depends largely on the ability of the population to navigate the mechanisms by which you activate its benefits.

 

Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's yet another illustration of zerohedge (supposed conservative propaganda site) swinging both ways by painting Trump as a fool:

 

The White House Declared Victory Over ISIS 15 Times Since December

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-23/white-house-declared-victory-over-isis-15-times-december

 

This goes to show that they're gauging their audience and giving them what they want to see and not simply propagandizing, but trying to make money.  If the audience changes, they will be the biggest Trump trashers out there.  The audience is the problem.

 

If enough of us go there and downvote the right comments consistently and over time, we could potentially convert the site to a progressive site.  All zerohedge cares about is money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bluenami said:

 

If there is anyone here who takes jbander seriously, speak up and I'll address your concerns, but I'm writing him off as hopeless and intent on wasting my time.

Oh good God, must of got under his skin a wee bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bluenami said:

 

If there is anyone here who takes jbander seriously, speak up and I'll address your concerns, but I'm writing him off as hopeless and intent on wasting my time.

I think it's time to put this into perspective. This guy said in socialism the means of production aren't ever in the hands of the government but by only the people , Which of course he can't back up. Can you blue guy. A quote from Blue guy "I think that definition is a perverted definition of communism where the government owns the means of production and the people supposedly own the government (but they never do).  Socialism is where the people own the means of production, so it's a worker co-op where every employee is a co-owner of the company and paid a share of the profits.  That's it. " Now that's where it started , I simply said he was wrong and that was to much for the big guy. What a hoot. Then he went off in all different directions trying to get around the fact that he was just simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bluenami said:

It's a function of the cost of energy; once energy is free, then robots work for free.  $0 x infinity = $0.

 

Resources are only scarce because the energy required to go get them is scarce.

 

You're a dreamer.  The world needs dreamers.  You should write a book.  It would be very interesting.

 

But, you oversimplify everything.  Robots do not work for free.  Someday...maybe...  But not today.  They need to be built, programmed, maintained, housed, fed (not just energy, but parts also), and managed.  Resources are not only extracted by energy.  You should spend a day in the oilfield and maybe you'd have a different point of view.

 

16 hours ago, Bluenami said:

Now what happens then when you introduce technology into production, you produce enormous quantities of goods by technological methods, but at the same time you put people out of work.  You can say "oh but it always creates more jobs; there'll always be more jobs."  Yes, but lots of them will be futile jobs.  They will be jobs making every kind of frippery and unnecessary contraption and one will also at the same time have to beguile the public into feeling that they need and want these completely unnecessary things that aren't even beautiful.  And therefore an enormous amount of nonsense employment and busy work, bureaucratic and otherwise, has to be created in order to keep people working. 

 

Just because you don't want these 'unnecessary things', that doesn't mean someone else doesn't want them.  Just because you don't think they're beautiful, doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a different opinion.  The fact that people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on these 'unnecessary things' means that that they have value.  Sure, my cell phone is unnecessary.  I can live just fine without it.  But, I'm very thankful to have it.  The people who build cellphones are not digging and refilling holes.

 

If we concentrated only on food, shelter, clothing, warmth and basic medicine, we might be able to supply those things to things to everyone on earth.  But, I actually appreciate having unnecessary things like this computer I'm typing on.  The production of this computer was not unnecessary work.

 

17 hours ago, Bluenami said:

A meritocracy would demand those with the most merit be in charge, but that isn't the case.  In fact, those with the least merit are often in charge, or the only skill they have is ripping people off.

 

Wealth is only 16% correlated with intelligence.  http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf

 

I think your issue is that you disagree with how others define merit.  Who says wealth should correlate with intelligence?  What about creativity, hard work, and an infinitely long list of other positive human attributes?  Do they have no merit?  In what proportion should they be rewarded?   A well-functioning market makes these decisions in a very democratic manner.  I'm not comfortable letting you decide what is merit and what is not.

 

17 hours ago, Bluenami said:

A free market often does a good job at predicting what people want, but too often what gets offered is what makes the most profit, like the cheap plastic crap they peddle at walmart.

 

That which  "makes the most profit" is that which produces the most value with the least input.  That is then by definition the most efficient use of the scarce input resources available.   Now I see why you're so anxious to assume scarcity can be eliminated.  With no scarcity, you don't need a market to allocate scarce resources. 

 

But, wishing it doesn't make it real.  At least, not today.   We can get there gradually.  As more and more is produced, we have introduced socialist programs piecemeal.  I think that will continue in the future.  Someday (and I mean maybe a thousand years from now...if we don't regress) maybe we can get to 'the end of scarcity' and go full socialist.  But, you can't rush it.  Capitalist markets drive economic progress.  They're instrumental in developing the technology and capacity you need to end scarcity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jbander said:

Oh good God, must of got under his skin a wee bit.

 

Let's step outside to NHB, punk, and we'll see who gets under whose skin.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

You're a dreamer.  The world needs dreamers.  You should write a book.  It would be very interesting.

 

People have already written books on the subject as well as having made a whole string of movies as well as starting a couple movements.  One is the Venus Project and the other is the Zeitgeist Movement.

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

But, you oversimplify everything.  Robots do not work for free.  Someday...maybe...  But not today.  They need to be built, programmed, maintained, housed, fed (not just energy, but parts also), and managed.  Resources are not only extracted by energy.  You should spend a day in the oilfield and maybe you'd have a different point of view.

 

The sun blasts us with free energy, we just need to harness it... and we will eventually.  Robots can build and repair themselves.

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

Just because you don't want these 'unnecessary things', that doesn't mean someone else doesn't want them.

 

Sure, but you can't compel people to work to build those unnecessary things in order to buy necessary things.  If people want to voluntarily build those unnecessary things and possibly receive some benefit from doing so, then fine.

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

The people who build cellphones are not digging and refilling holes.

 

Is the complexity of the tax code requiring lots of employment in the tax industry something you support?  Or is that digging holes and refilling them to justify a paycheck?

 

Is Google paying someone to change their logo periodically to reflect holiday themes a productive use of time?  Or is that just to justify a paycheck?

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

If we concentrated only on food, shelter, clothing, warmth and basic medicine, we might be able to supply those things to things to everyone on earth.  But, I actually appreciate having unnecessary things like this computer I'm typing on.  The production of this computer was not unnecessary work.

 

Computers, cellphones, tvs, and anything you can think of can be mass-produced by robots with free energy from the sun.  They could potentially fill your property with Ferraris piled a mile high.

 

There are only a few things that can't be replicated en masse, like: particular plots of land, sentimental things, and pets and people (friends, kids, etc).  Pretty much everything else can be made ad nauseam.

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

I think your issue is that you disagree with how others define merit.  Who says wealth should correlate with intelligence?  What about creativity, hard work, and an infinitely long list of other positive human attributes?  Do they have no merit?  In what proportion should they be rewarded?   A well-functioning market makes these decisions in a very democratic manner.  I'm not comfortable letting you decide what is merit and what is not.

 

Hard work will be antiquated with machines, so it's not a merit.  Creativity is a subset of intelligence.  So what are superior to intelligence and empathy?

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

That which  "makes the most profit" is that which produces the most value with the least input.  That is then by definition the most efficient use of the scarce input resources available.   Now I see why you're so anxious to assume scarcity can be eliminated.  With no scarcity, you don't need a market to allocate scarce resources. 

 

Plastic garden hose nozzles make the most profit because they can be mass-produced cheaply and sold for high profit margins, but that doesn't mean it's what the consumer wants.  If I need a garden nozzle, I have to take what's offered or do without.  I get no say in what's offered.

 

Sometimes the free market works and sometimes it doesn't.

 

7 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

But, wishing it doesn't make it real.  At least, not today.   We can get there gradually.  As more and more is produced, we have introduced socialist programs piecemeal.  I think that will continue in the future.  Someday (and I mean maybe a thousand years from now...if we don't regress) maybe we can get to 'the end of scarcity' and go full socialist.  But, you can't rush it.  Capitalist markets drive economic progress.  They're instrumental in developing the technology and capacity you need to end scarcity.

 

Sure, that's why Marx described the heirarchy

 

The-six-stages-of-Marxs-theory-of-histor

 

We're just debating whether or not communism will ever be realized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bluenami said:

 

Let's step outside to NHB, punk, and we'll see who gets under whose skin.  

 

Ya dam right , except I have no idea what NHB is, Are we getting down to threats now. Must have got under your skin a bit .

 

Blue guy said, in socialism the means of production aren't ever in the hands of the government but by the hands of only the people , Which of course he can't back up. Can you blue guy. A quote from Blue guy "I think that definition is a perverted definition of communism where the government owns the means of production and the people supposedly own the government (but they never do).  Socialism is where the people own the means of production, so it's a worker co-op where every employee is a co-owner of the company and paid a share of the profits.  That's it. " Now that's where it started , I simply said he was wrong and that was to much for the big guy. What a hoot. Then he went off in all different directions trying to get around the fact that he was just simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bluenami said:

Let's step outside to NHB, punk, and we'll see who gets under whose skin.

 

No Holds Barred is the place to have it out.  Not the Liberal's Only Room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×