Capitalism Doesn’t Work [Archive]

Fisherking

04-16-2014, 12:44

I have not read the book and don't intend to because I think you can find enough arguments to support such a 'broad' statement if you look hard enough. If you look hard enough, you can also find enough arguments against the statement.

Have you read the book? Is there a proposed solution? Is the solution free of all problems?

The solution proposed in one of the articles is to reinstate the 80% tax bracket on the ultra rich and tax inheritance, among other things. Taxes on money making money. It sounds much like the old arguments from the left but perhaps there is more to it.

It is mostly about the upper levels of income which the average individual, even those who feel they are rather successful, will never see.

Currently, I believe the figure is that 140 odd corporations own 80% of the worlds wealth and resources. Most of these firms are interconnected.

Of course you can bet that governments will mostly ignore it or tax the population but still leave the loopholes for the ultra rich as they always have.

Sp4

04-16-2014, 12:51

It would have to happen everywhere. I guess we could talk about it again when the planet has one government and I don't think it is unlikely, that if that ever happens, the corporations owning 80% of the wealth have something to do with it.

Rhyfelwyr

04-16-2014, 15:06

It is true, capitalism is creating an increasingly wide economic gap between the rich and poor, and everything in between. Everybody lazily buys into the narrative that life is, for the most part, getting better. The reality is that it is not. There is a massive underclass, especially in the UK, which live in such a state of economic helplessness, political apathy, social collapse and general hopelessness, that has not been witnessed since the advent of industrialisation.

What is remarkable about this current situation is the lack of awareness that such an underclass exists, at least on the scale that it does. We're talking about 33% of households in Scotland's biggest city where not a single person is working (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-most-unemployed-households-uk-2251237). Try telling them that capitalism is working. Or maybe the people in parts of Glasgow who can expect to live to 54 (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jan/21/health.politics). People are unaware of these things because the Thatcherite consensus of recent decades has completely eradicated all traces of the working-classes from civil society, from politics, from media representation. Thus, all political debate, whether you are a liberal-lefty Guardian reader or a UKIP Daily Mail type, is based on certain axioms that only hold true from those in the middle-classes or the working working-classes that actually have any stake in society. No party feels the need to tailor its policies to protect the poorest in society, because these people are so isolated from the political system and from civic society in general that they do not engage in it.

Capitalists of all shades are just as guilty of supporting this system - I do not care if you are neoliberal or social democrat; I am aware of nuance but when it comes to the bigger picture you are all the same to me. Hence why even though I hate Westminster, I have no sympathy for the social democratic platform of the SNP and such (English equivalent would be Lid Dems I guess). They get a lot of support from the sort of 'working-class who made it in life' types (which I believe are a new sort of 'Essex Man'), who are so drunk on their own success and their confidence in civic society and their narrative of social progress, that they thought it would be a bit of riveting, light-hearted fun to demolish several blocks of the most deprived housing areas to open the Commonwealth Games (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26857816). Yes, truly showing a care and compassion towards those at the bottom - and these are the people who think they stick up for the poor against the Tory establishment, and who ramble on about how Scotland's sense of social justice makes it different from England, LOL!

This is the vision of the new, bold, confident Scotland - where you are told you are a problem and the destruction of your life is reduced to entertainment for the sort of middle-class young Turks that can afford to attend the live screening and work themselves into a drunken frenzy as your life is blown apart in front of them.

OK I got a bit off topic but apply the above to social democracy and you get my point. Capitalism of all shades isn't working.

HopAlongBunny

04-16-2014, 15:19

But, but...what about "trickle down" economics and the "shower of gold" from the top of the fountain!?

Sarmatian

04-16-2014, 15:30

But, but...what about "trickle down" economics and the "shower of gold" from the top of the fountain!?

You know you invite peeing jokes, right?

Must... control... the... urge...

Ahhhh, what the heck

12782

Fisherking

04-16-2014, 15:36

But, but...what about "trickle down" economics and the "shower of gold" from the top of the fountain!?

Obviously there is a serious plumbing problem. And the :daisy: is getting pretty deep.

Strike For The South

04-16-2014, 15:43

The idea that any economic system will save is stupid

Greyblades

04-16-2014, 17:42

A theory: is the end result of unrestricted capitalism; feudalism?

Montmorency

04-16-2014, 19:14

Feudalism? Maybe something like it, but only transitionally.

Transitionally between our contemporary way of life, and the disintegration of our civilization into fragmented high-tech enclaves and scattered subsistence-level villages.

But there are other (apocalyptic) factors at work, so we won't see that happen, I don't think.

Ironside

04-16-2014, 19:15

A theory: is the end result of unrestricted capitalism; feudalism?

No. Neo-Feudalism would require that the goverment gives up the monopoly of violence to the companies (that creates their own fiefdoms). That can happen (look up early industrialism), but it's not a default. Feudalism also that the companies are formally obliged to the goverment/supercompany/whatever that are higher up. Companies taxing their workers and paying the company tax to the higher ups would be a sort of neo-feudalism, but there's no drive for that structure.

Capitalism as a concept wasn't even invented until after feudalism had became obsolete. Many concepts only survive for a limited time.

Montmorency

04-16-2014, 19:18

First of all, shoutout to drone for posting that study.

Capitalism as a concept wasn't even invented until after feudalism had became obsolete.

Well, modern rationalized capitalism, yes. But capitalism in the sense of the exchange of goods has existed since even before agriculture.

Kadagar_AV

04-16-2014, 23:02

I, for one, do not believe future history books will see mildly on the apathy going on today.

naut

04-17-2014, 00:34

[...] tax inheritance [...]
Inheritance tax shouldn't exist, the effect it intends is perfectly manageable by income tax as covered under capital gains. I.e., my father dies and leaves me 400,000 Woolongs, thus putting me into a tax bracket of 40% for every ₩1 above ₩60,000. The inheritance is still effectively taxed this way, no?

I feel we are in a sense approaching, or maybe already in, that stage of a Monopoly game where 1 player holds all the property and the remaining few sweat their way around with 3 mortgaged properties and $42 in the pocket. All the while only picking up their $200, praying for a break on that next roll, hoping to avoid another big bill. And what happens if they keep playing after they've sold off the last of their land? And been placed in jail? The one with all the property wins of course! But, what does he do now? Everyone who could keep passing him wealth is in jail and he has no way of increasing his wealth. No one to sell his wares to. I suppose he changes the rules. Makes it so the other players have just enough to make it round with enough for beer and only the occasional scrape with the law.

Nah... what am I blabbering about, just a fairy tale, made-up, not happening, Māyā.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-18-2014, 14:55

Inheritance tax shouldn't exist, the effect it intends is perfectly manageable by income tax as covered under capital gains. I.e., my father dies and leaves me 400,000 Woolongs, thus putting me into a tax bracket of 40% for every ₩1 above ₩60,000. The inheritance is still effectively taxed this way, no?

I feel we are in a sense approaching, or maybe already in, that stage of a Monopoly game where 1 player holds all the property and the remaining few sweat their way around with 3 mortgaged properties and $42 in the pocket. All the while only picking up their $200, praying for a break on that next roll, hoping to avoid another big bill. And what happens if they keep playing after they've sold off the last of their land? And been placed in jail? The one with all the property wins of course! But, what does he do now? Everyone who could keep passing him wealth is in jail and he has no way of increasing his wealth. No one to sell his wares to. I suppose he changes the rules. Makes it so the other players have just enough to make it round with enough for beer and only the occasional scrape with the law.

Nah... what am I blabbering about, just a fairy tale, made-up, not happening, Māyā.

I mislike income taxes and loathe the progressive income tax. The PIT is always bandied about as a panacea for the redistribution of wealth but it usually serves to impede the progress of those in the working and middle class.

You're framing things better in that you aren't exempting capital gains (though taxing capital gains equally will have a chilling effect on investment), cutting out some of the shenanigans, but the issue is not income but wealth.

If you believe that wealth is the core of the problem, then tax it -- efforts to tax wealth indirectly via income will always result in dodging and loophole efforts while putting an obstacle in the path of the middle and working classes bettering themselves. Loopholes, dodging, (and criminal avoidance) will occur in whatever system is imposed, so make it direct to what you seek to curtail and don't catch other people in the backlash.

Beskar

04-18-2014, 15:14

Seamus Fermanagh

04-18-2014, 15:46

I don't see how progressive taxation harms the Working and Middle classes, as the thresholds are far higher than what they earn.

For example, in the UK, up to £10k is not taxed. A minimum wage job working 37.5 hours a week is £13k, National average is £26k, professionals such as a Doctor earn £37k-70k, Consultants earn £75k-101k. Teachers earn between £21k-65k (depending on area and experience). The Prime Minister earns £142k.

So here are some figures of wages of professionals (middle class) and the working class.

Progressive taxation starts at £150k.

In short: It doesn't affect the working and middle class at all. It only affects rich people.

Your first income band is taxed at 20% rate; your first "progressive" band starts at 31,866 and is taxed at 40%, and the highest band (150k plus) is 45% only a 1/8th increase above the rate of those at 31.9k; moreover, this is over and above a Value added tax levied on all consumers and an inheritance tax on anything above 325k. While the latter does seem to be aimed at wealth, the 32-150 band rates do not seem to conform to your "only the rich" mantra -- aren't the folks in that 32-150 band the small business owners, new start ups, etc.? In short, the very people you would want to encourage more of so as to employ more and grow the economy? So why should they be taxed higher than that Nat'l average worker? Taxation always has a chilling effect on what is taxed.

Beskar

04-18-2014, 16:01

aren't the folks in that 32-150 band the small business owners, new start ups, etc.?
No they are not. Start-ups are running at a loss and many people are in negative income, it is when they have produced a viable business, they start taking a wage and income from it.

Then they start employing other staff to help them then they gradually start to increase their own incomes. When they start earning over the 30k mark, it is that their businesses are earning sufficiently enough to pay it.

I have seen enough start-up stories, Dragon's Dens, Business renovations, experiences via family and the like the know about this. As for Family experience, my Uncle and Aunty started their own business with just the two of them in Manchester and now they are head of an operation which has outposts covering three different areas in the UK. Their main gripe is corporation tax, but that is a whole different story.

So why should they be taxed higher than that Nat'l average worker?

Because they earn more? They are still receiving a higher income and the taxation is only applied to money earned over the bracket. Would you say you would turn down a pay-rise which increases your money in real value even though you may pay more in tax? The whole argument is very silly to suggest you would want to receive less money.

150k used to be the 50% tax bracket, I forgot that it was decreased under the Tories.

Ironside

04-19-2014, 08:58

You're framing things better in that you aren't exempting capital gains (though taxing capital gains equally will have a chilling effect on investment), cutting out some of the shenanigans, but the issue is not income but wealth.

Is that's the excuse for the blatant regressive tax system for any rich person with half a brain? Aka "let's run with 15% tax rate on capital gains and wonder why every rich man in Amercia pays less taxes than the average American".

I'll counter with that capital gains are the largest wealth accumulation system and that to have any profits from wealth, you'll need to invest anyway.

HopAlongBunny

05-25-2014, 11:57

Mayhap the pursuit of profit in the age of oligarchic supply and "too big to fail" is cheapening life.

For example: is Big Pharma out to kill us?:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/25/prescriptions-drugs-more-deadly-than-car-accidents-guns-and-suicide.html

HopAlongBunny

06-25-2014, 10:53

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 12:54

As always, Capitalism only "doesn't work" relative to the problem that it is meant to solve. If the goal was to harvest workers for decreasing amounts of pay and to re-institute indentured servitude, further entrenching oligarchy, voila.

The American worker is like a Turkey. The American Capitalist is like a farmer.
Every day, when the Farmer comes in to feed the Turkey, the Turkey is further cemented into the belief that farming exists to support Turkeys and feed them so that they can grow. They realize on the day before Thanksgiving that their ideas couldn't have been further from the truth.

I have always viewed financial crisis as the culling time of capitalism. Not an unexpected occurrence that is anomalous to the system, but the culmination of greed and crushing boot-on-neck that the system is built for. A bank robber could notice that nobody would put their money in a bank if they robbed it daily, which would also be a tremendous workload and personal peril for the robber. Better for the robber to encourage stability for a long time to consolidate all of the efforts of people so that, maybe just once per year they could come in for the harvest.

People are the chaff; that their byproducts exist at all is the reason, like the proliferation of cows, that our masters allow us to exist all all. The day that robots can produce at a level that adequately serves the obermench, is the day that they will begin to purge us off of this earth.

So, yea - Capitalism works just fine.

Tellos Athenaios

06-25-2014, 14:15

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

B-ark, right?

Montmorency

06-25-2014, 14:17

People are the chaff; that their byproducts exist at all is the reason, like the proliferation of cows, that our masters allow us to exist all all. The day that robots can produce at a level that adequately serves the obermench, is the day that they will begin to purge us off of this earth.

How melodramatic.

But there's no reason to suspect this level of conspiracy, or even the capacity to fulfill it were it to exist.

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 14:36

How melodramatic.

But there's no reason to suspect this level of conspiracy, or even the capacity to fulfill it were it to exist.

No conspiracy alleged. That would be like saying that there is a conspiracy of gravity to hold you down. What I'm alleging is a force of nature. What is the value of individuals, how is it valued and why? The answer is more subjective than is comfortable.

Strike For The South

06-25-2014, 21:49

The problem is we've spent the last half century perfecting production to the point where we have massively cut the number of hours of labor (both physical and mental) requried. Less labor=more profit which general doesn't (to use a cliche) trickle down. I don't think this is some grand conspiracy, no one is that smart or that organized. I do, however, think it's at least partially for the reason of the 1% and the breaking of regulations built up during the industrial age.

People with money realize they can increase their profits without having to rely on labor like they once did so they mobilize to make labor cheaper and less intrusive on their business model. I think some of them truly beilvie they will be able to "create jobs" while others are thinking about their bottom line (understandable).

The fact is we may very well be looking at a world with simply less labor to go around. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. People today (in the west) have much more stuff and live eaiser lives than their forefathers. Now, granted, the concentration of wealth (mainly property) is continuig to fall into fewer and fewer hands but on the whole I have more than my father and grandfather did before.

The problem is I have "stuff" while they had "wealth" Things like property and resources are outpacing real dollars while the price of stuff continues to fall, perhaps giving us the illusion of plenty

IDK this is cutting into beer time

As always, kill the rich

Strike For The South

06-25-2014, 22:08

The social problem is that we still peddle this American dream to people, who by their 20's are either hopelessly misled or totally disillusioned, depending on their level of cynicism. We need to elect people who understand that there is a psychological component to all this, and that the morale of the people is the most precious resource a country has. I don't think you need to "kill the rich" or even redistribute wealth (too much) to achieve that. We just need to give people a sense of purpose that isn't dependent on stuff or false ideals of limitless meritocratic advancement that they will never be able to live up to.

The economic problem is actually a lot easier than the morale problem in the short term, IMO. Just raise the minimum wage. But that's the other thread. :creep:

I can't agree with that. Every mainstream media outlet has been peddling the "lost generation thing" since the crash. I think many young Americans are quite aware of what is happening and are simply dealing with it. I don't think we are where we are due to some shawdoy cabal. This the pinch of rapid technological advancement and deindustrialization. The "labor" is simply shrinking.

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:08

We need to elect people who understand that there is a psychological component to all this, and that the morale of the people is the most precious resource a country has.

This is only important if the labor and productivity of people are important. If their labor and productivity have become unnecessary relics of the past, then so has the value of their morale or any interest in securing or protecting it or our lives.

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:13

Monetarily, perhaps. Its not that easy to do away with the poor, if they're backed into a corner. I don't think the situation is quite that dire, though--this recession is prolonged by bad ideology that takes trickle-down to an extreme. Bad economic policy is something we've internalized as a nation, at least in the middle-class. Things are bad, but fixable. IMO.

History has shown us that it is remarkably easy for powerful people to do away with people en-mass

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:16

Only when the middle-class is complicit.

Or when we refuse to punish the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations.

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:22

Syria is your example? The poor in Syria are still there. In fact, there's more of them than ever and those that aren't refugees are forced to pick sides in the fighting. Assad enjoys the support of the Alawite bourgeoisie, though. :shrug:

The only modern example is Nazi Germany, and had the average middle-class German not been cowed into buying into the Nazis lies (and they often even knew it was lies), the removal of "undesirable elements" in that horrid nation might not have worked at all.

It is probably a better life for the impoverished to fight their government with arms than it is to toil under it in squalor.

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:25

So it seems, until you're 3 years into a civil war, and you're secular resistance has been co-opted by groups that would make life just as bad as any dictator, should you win. The Arab spring is a good lesson in why armchair revolution is stupid. What do you do when all the well-intentioned people are dead? You'll get weapons and support form whoever is available, and they will stab you in the back as soon as you let your guard down.

I feel like a lot of fighting Syrians are having the time of their miserable lives. The ones who preferred not to be in combat have mostly left, been killed, or are still living under Assad. We have failed miserably there because good people had no intention of lending assistance while horrible people were drawn to it like moths to a flame.

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:27

That's a hell of a presumption.

Maybe, but people adapt and I believe that most males secretly love combat in spite of themselves and how objectively terrible it is. Males in nearly every species are almost as weird as females.

Strike For The South

06-25-2014, 23:41

Maybe, but people adapt and I believe that most males secretly love combat in spite of themselves and how objectively terrible it is. Males in nearly every species are almost as weird as females.

LOL says someone who has probably never even been as much as a fistfight.

EVERYONE IS SECRETLY FIGHT CLUB

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:52

Most people enjoy adrenaline packed situations that allow them to live purely in the moment, but only from a distance and in part. I highly doubt the fighters in Syria, starving in bombed out basements and desert hideouts, forced to play nice with groups like ISIS, having not seen their family nor any semblance of civilian life since the war broke out, wondering if western aid (should it ever come) would include bombing them as well as Assad, living in their own filth because the sewage doesn't work and rivers of shit flow down the streets (Iraq had this problem too, still does in many urban areas), wondering if the next barrel bomb is the one.. well I'm sure they're not having a good time at all. To be sure, they're accumulating war stories, and those can be fun to tell, but unlike American soldiers who get to go off to foreign countries and experience war on their land, these dudes are fighting among the wreckage of their own homes, often against people they used to get along with to some degree. I wouldn't envy them at all, no matter how much of a freedom-boner you have.

People have lived horribly for hundreds of thousands of years, but they keep thinking that it is a good idea to do it. Clearly our position is dramatically better, but still - I'm the one trying to assist them in overthrowing their government using the resources of ours. It has been a very upsetting failure to convince the American public and its leaders that we should be helping certain groups in Syria. It is one of the few things that Federal funds should go towards. Killing and overthrowing abusive governments. It is what the government is best at. Occupation? Not so much.

One of my least favorite things about the war in Iraq is that the government lied or misled people on WMD's. It has made it so much harder to convince people to go to war since then, which is what we are best at and what certain populations could use the most. Can you make an argument that people would be worse off in Syria if we had intervened when we first had casus belli?

ICantSpellDawg

06-25-2014, 23:58

Or... instead of giving that money to the companies that make the bombs, supply the planes with fuel, the international groups that distribute the aid, and so forth... we could spend that money at home. Making the impoverished a little less miserable.

Why does the middle class have such compassion for the rest of the world, and such disdain for the American poor? Is it because you don't want to acknowledge that it could be you on the street, but for circumstance? We have far more power to help the poor and fix our conditions in America than we ever will to socially engineer foreign countries.

I don't believe in American poor. They are a dead weight. It is as simple as that. It believe in international poor, because they haven't been presented with as many opportunities and small amounts of money makes a monumental difference.

Beyond skepticism that they even exist, relative to those in poverty throughout the world - their cause is less through lack of opportunity and more through failure to make good choices and/or mental retardation. International poor are poor because of geography, disease and circumstance.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:04

So you're on a diet of 100% bullshit then?

*Skepticism that they exist? Holy shit, we're done here. Come to Oregon some time, I'll show you fucking poor.

Where do they live? I look for them and cannot see them. If you are talking about homeless people who refuse to go to a shelter, take a bath or wear presentable clothing that is offered to them for free, then it proves my point. How much does a toothbrush cost? brush your damn teeth in the water that forms on leaves for Christ's sake.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:07

We unload huge amounts of money on affordable housing, welfare payments, free emergency care, police response. It is wholly different from the Central African Republic. 91% of adults in the US own cellphones. You cannot cure stupid no matter how sorry you feel for it, and evidently no matter how much money or legislative policy you throw at it.

I despise the American poor. I can't help it. I feel nothing but sorrow and eagerness to help the poor around the globe.

You asked, didn't you?

Why does the middle class have such compassion for the rest of the world, and such disdain for the American poor?

Strike For The South

06-26-2014, 00:09

So people love war and the poor are a dead weight?

I think I hear mum calling you for supper.

And the worst part is I know you're doing this to get peoples goat

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:12

That's fucking ignorant man. You give a homeless man in America $5 and he can eat one decent meal, if he's lucky. He sure can't afford rent. I'm not going to debate the existance of the poor in America with you, just so your delusions can be humored.

What does "poor" mean to you? Can you explain it?

It seems like everyone you meet came from "such poor beginnings" Horsecrap. Poverty means bathing in a sewer and working 7 days a week, 16 hour days just to buy white rice and die young. No education, no healthcare if you are dying in the street. The poor in NY have cellphones and cable tv and can sit in air conditioned subway cars.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:17

Orphans in the US today are afforded healthcare and free education until they are 18. People with not 1 person who cares about them.

Listen, if someone is mentally retarded, we should help them because they, through no failure of their own, are unable to keep up.

Greyblades

06-26-2014, 00:19

Yes, because at age 18 people's problems magically dissapear.

And the worst part is I know you're doing this to get peoples goat

Considering that there are 4 year olds with less ignorant views of the world, I am inclined to agree.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:21

And the worst part is I know you're doing this to get peoples goat

eh, maybe.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:27

Ya whatever, I'm done with your garbage. Even totally impoverished Lakota's on Pine Ridge Reservation, where Radon comes out of everyone's basement and the life expectancy is 53, have satellite TV. In America, the poor have trinkets and that's it. How is a homeless guy supposed to get an apartment when he has no rental history? How does he get a job without a place of residence? How does he get a car without credit? If you're off the grid for so much as a year in today's economy, you might as well check into your local prison and never leave. I know you're trolling and I'm still disgusted.

Well, when you have to resort to American Natives to prove the existence of poverty in the US... Listen, that is an example of an ongoing abuse that is beyond the power of an individual. I empathise. Likewise, odds which are nearly insurmountable to even intelligent and hardworking individuals need to be remedied. My argument is against those who actively contribute to their own miserable lives. I have contempt for them.

Hey, I'm never running for office, why shouldn't I say what I feel. I don't totally lack compassion, I just reserve it for those who will use it to objective benefit. American poor generally fail that test.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:32

You have contempt for something that doesn't exist, and you have absolutely no understanding of what the daily life of a truly impoverished American is like. I bring up the reservation because I lived there for a few years when I was younger, and it was quite possibly the most impoverished place I've ever lived in America or elsewhere. In fact, a lot of the guys I know who tried to escape that place are now homeless in cities across America, or in jail, or dead from Suicide (the leading cause of death on Pine Ridge reservation).

Hey listen, if you can make an argument that something in the system encourages the despicable nature of people, chances are I'm with you for reforming it. I dont want to punish these contemptible people, I just don't want to be dragged into their downward spiral. You'd probably find that if I really believed that someone could use my help I would drop more than most to help them, selflessly even.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:36

The only reason you don't support measures that actually would help (spending money on the poor) is because of your bigoted belief system. Don't twist it like there aren't good solutions out there.

This is one of the reasons that I don't come down hard on Immigrants. They are doing something to better their situations in life. Would I prefer that they put enough grit into it to reform their own systems? Absolutely, but constructive growth by the bushel and constructive growth by the basket isn't drug addiction and violent crime. Would I have the tenacity to stay and fix if it were me? I would bet on no

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 00:44

Again, you know so much about the motivations of poor people from your comfy chair! You make such generalizations, with so little knowledge! I really hope you come visit Oregon some time. One less ignorant :daisy: in the world makes us all better off, even if I have to drop you off in the middle of a homeless shelter, throw a bunch of alcohol on your clothes, and run away with your ID so you can get beat by the cops and thrown in jail for being a no-good stinky alcoholic hobo with an out-of-town accent. :creep:

I kid, I kid. I think you'd get the idea from a simple walk-around. What amazes me is that you will probably never take it upon yourself to visit the local poor in your own area, or to understand them at all.

It's fun to argue with you. Eh, I've tried to feed homeless vets at the VA and used to give 40 bucks a month to Catholic Relief Services (I should update my credit card info because I believe in their mission) for years.

a completely inoffensive name

06-26-2014, 04:04

The one thing about political trolling is that your laughs is at the expense of your dignity. Getting a rise out of someone by calling poor people dead weight is worse than actually believing it, blind ideology is understandable but doing it for entertainment purposes makes me pity you and your state of mind.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 04:40

Blah blah blah. I almost fell asleep reading that. Stop taking things so seriously.

a completely inoffensive name

06-26-2014, 04:52

Blah blah blah. I almost fell asleep reading that. Stop taking things so seriously.

I can't, I actually care about people that are poor.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 04:58

Give me a break and go marry one of them already. I like the international poor better. They are just normal people in crappy circumstances. American poor are like morbidly obese people (whom I also just cannot with) - they made themselves that way through addiction, bad lifestyle choices, with a bit of mental illness sprinkled on top. You focus on the ones you feel empathy for, I'll focus on the ones that I feel empathy for.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 05:02

Beh. I have respect for international poor generally and view their situation as mostly external circumstance. I see myself in them.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 05:05

Surely you understand the idea of a right-wing middle-class American whose definition of "caring" about the international poor includes lots of armed intervention, on top of your stated beliefs regarding the poor, makes you a rather impressive caricature? You should consider a Colbert-esque career path. :shrug:

I know that it makes you feel good to say nice things. I cede the good guy argument to you. I don't care about being a good guy on the internet, this is just a really intense description of how I often feel about people who frustrate me, ie: fat people, self perpetuated poor, drug addicts.

I have a tiny, icy heart and a save space in it for people who aren't intentionally wretched. Hey, sometimes my emotion gets the better of me and I give them some money, but you know, we all have our weaknesses.

The important thing to note is that they are still technically human beings and I would never support a policy that made their lives worse, unless it retracted the endless handout arm of other peoples money to negligible social benefit. There are plenty of people who would love to personally support them, like yourself and acin. Spend the money on increasing the quality of education to their kids, encouraging their professional development, etc

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 05:16

That's fine, there's no point in blunting your opinions. I actually think overall in this thread i've been more vitriolic than you, so I don't think anyone is making a claim that you're being politically incorrect or whatever. If those are your beliefs, then I think you're a fascist. Not even the kind of fascist that has fun with it either, but the sort of useful idiot who toils away for his master as long as his diet for reactionary sentiment and a good witch hunt is satisfied. America is not so much more advanced than the rest of the world, you know. We're not Africa or anything, but the totally indigent in America are worse off than most of the industrialized world. The working poor are worse off than most of the western world. To be poor in America means having less in a country where everything costs far more. And people like you keep it going.

But whether you're serious, or joking, or just don't give a shit, its all the same to me. This is the Backroom, and I'm happy to have a discussion with you no matter how much you offend me. Which really isn't that much. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink.

How am I making it worse? What have you proposed that would elevate them from their condition. You are just giving a dying man morphine in an attempt at charity. Only they aren't mortally wounded, they are just con artists who care more about getting you to keep giving them the needle than they care about their own dignity.

I don't think it is inappropriate in this thread for you to propose your idea of a good policy and see if I oppose it. I would like to legalize nearly all drugs. I believe that our policies harm these ner'do-wells and would prefer not to duplicate the severity with which they destroy their own lives. I believe in funding organizations that assist the mentally Ill to lead productive & fulfilling lives. I believe in technologically advanced educational standards for impoverished children and high quality preventative healthcare for them. In real work training programs as a requirement for handouts. Nothing would make me happier than to see no more filthy bums on the street and gypsies stealing from people. Even the worst people would love nothing more than for these wretches to reform themselves and stop dragging us down with them.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 05:33

Well, according to some pretty well-understood economics, increasing the minimum wage would have huge benefits. There's a whole school of economics founded on the idea that giving the poor more purchasing power, and bringing them up to the middle class, has benefits to society as a whole. Whether or not you agree with that has more to do with whether or not you think that's a viable economic strategy than anything else. Note that it's a short-term strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynsian), but our economy is like a severed limb--you must stop the bleeding.

However, I'm not an economics major, I'm a political science and sociology major. The most vulnerable in society do not have the benefit of looking at long-term solutions. There is a critical period in every person's life where they either find their place in society, or decide they no longer have a place for it or in it. Our society is failing people who need it, because people like you believe shitty arguments put forth by people who just want to get the government out of the way so they can screw you better.

I am fine with raised minimum wages. I just dont think that it will do what you believe it will do. Minimum wage for people working 40 hours per week would be just under 22500 per year, way above the poverty line. But go ahead, I wouldn't vote for it, but I wouldn't vote against it. If anything, it would force an employer to really think whether the position was that necessary. If it was, then shame on him for not paying commensurate wages from the start. If it isn't, it will encourage the employer to fire the useless employee and instead automate the process. Win/Win longer term.

You can't make people more valuable by increasing the minimum wage, but you can make a crappy worker overpaid. Test away, just do it in your state first. I'm not opposed if my own Democratic State wanted to try. They won't, even though they control all branches of government here. They would much rather use it against Republicans than enact such a lukewarm policy that will drive jobs from the State. But I hate NY, so move all the jobs out so that we can get them in another State. Who needs a 350k starter house with average national salary for a college grad.

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 05:38

Well, you can't do it as long as companies are artificially restricting hours to avoid paying anyone a living wage, or benefits. But that's cartel-like behavior, and we should put people in jail for that. :shrug:

So now you aren't talking about a minimum wage, you are talking about a minimum workday/workweek. People should be jailed for trying to maximize productivity and minimize unnecessary expenses? This is why everyone wants to shed workers and automate or outsource. Or should that be outlawed too?

What business owner can be bothered to deal with this crap?

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 05:50

Not explicitly. But definitely a clamp-down on labor-pool-manipulation that winds up costing everybody--the worker, the taxpayer, everybody except the major shareholders--a little bit of pie. The right to profit does not mean the right to subvert government, the right to restructure entire local economies behind closed doors, or the right to ignore--in spirit--the laws that are on the books. We wouldn't pass laws saying people should get paid a certain amount or that they are entitled to certain benefits if we wanted corporations to then find a way around those laws. This is a social justice issue, a consumer rights issue, and only then an economic issue. Though it is all three.

Listen, I understand that you want to defend people who work, I totally empathise with that and I am way less hostile to the idea that people should have dignity especially if they are putting real effort into to building a better life for themselves, but I hate forced action. I don't believe that it works to actualize those stated goals and I don't believe that it is ethical. You are trying to reinvent the wheel in a command economy. Those ideas worked for a little while and then failed. They worked when labor was needed, now employees have to force employers not to eliminate technologically redundant jobs. It doesn't make sense. All trends are to fire workers and you want to make employing them not only more unprofitable, but now irrevocable and micromanaged. It doesn't add up, we need new solutions.

Forced laboring doesn't work and isn't ethical, why would forced employing be?

ICantSpellDawg

06-26-2014, 12:50

Not once did I say anything about forced employment or a command economy. If putting a microscope on corporate labor-pool manipulation is antithetical to you, then it is not I who has explaining to do. What I propose is short-term economic bandages mixed with empowering the government (and therefore, the people) with the tools to weed out the bad apples. Right now these practices are rampant, unimpeded, and run totally counter to the spirit of US Law and good capitalism for that matter.

Okay. Should there be tighter requirements for the use of contractors? Yes; ie contractors should be free to work for the competition, companies should have reduced rights to direct access of their contractors to discourage the use of contractors to simply skirt wages, retirement and health insurance. This might encourage this relationship to grow fruit. Stricter scrutiny can be paid to overtime hours.

I think it is noble of you to be interested in the plight of hardworking Americans who can't seem to get out of the whole that they live in. I am open to your suggestions and have a similar goal - BUT I am also interested in the experience of the employer. Most of these abusive policies are their attempt to keep their businesses afloat. Most small businesses close because they are run by people who are just not that good at stuff. Wages are a killer, prices are too competitive, etc. These people didn't get into business to create jobs for us, but to control their lives and make money for their families. We don't even factor into it and we only shouldn't if they are outright abusing us. Some employers actually really want to help their employees grow, but these are rare.

Long story short, I just wish that more punitive measure were used on companies with the most abusive track records, with local small businesses getting a free pass for a long time. Maybe requiring a profit sharing requirement? This would probably help if done right.

Strike For The South

06-26-2014, 15:54

Middle class white guy sees more of himself in the international poor.

Where is that article...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/6day-visit-to-rural-african-village-completely-cha,35083/

Fisherking

06-26-2014, 22:00

There are some flaws in Piketty’s take on the problems with Capitalism. The major one being that it depicts Crony capitalism, which is government intervention on behalf of some companies in the markets. And this more than any other factor is the problem with the system and leads to gross inequities. But governments will hail the book from the rooftops because his fix is to raise taxes.

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/04/thomas-pikettys-sensational-new-book/

a completely inoffensive name

06-27-2014, 05:34

Fisherking

06-27-2014, 06:41

Fisherking

06-27-2014, 07:11

Well thats a nice unsupported and horribly biased opinion you have there. What is your exact problem with Keynesian economics? Bearing in mind that its not a system of doing things, but a well established formula for easing the burden on the poor and empowering the middle class during a recession. Your opposition to the minimum wage is equally unconvincing.

It is a supported opinion. Not just mine. Why do you think the mainstream has gone to macroeconomics?

Do your own research. Holding an uninformed opinion is not the best of ideas.

I won’t have time until Monday to point you in any direction.

Husar

06-27-2014, 10:26

Nah, its the other way around. Crony democracy. I don't really have a take on Piketty, but the notion of Keynsian economics having a positive effect during an economic crisis is not a new one. The argument is older than I am. :shrug: Raising the minimum wage isn't a tax anyway. The big taxes are going to come from the climate change problem, but really that doesn't bother me. These corporations got fabulously rich and powerful by ruining the global ecosystem. That they should bear the brunt of fixing it (or mitigating the damage, in any case) seems right.

But can you actually find the money in the corporations? If you force them to sell parts of their business, people may lose their jobs again and the rest of their profits usually goes to investors. The investors who get the most are usually the filthy rich ones who have set up their investments so that their money actually works for them and they can't be blamed for anything. That's where I see the real problem.

How many situations do you know where the money actually flows from a rich well-established investor to someone else where the investor will not get a net return that is higher than at least the rate of inflation? That's also the problem with trickle down, that the people with the money make sure the trickle down is smaller than the trickle up because they are looking out for their own gains only. It doesn't matter how many jobs someone creates if he only creates them with the intention to get a bigger share of the country's entire wealth in the end.
Yes, there are failures, but for a good investor the successes will usually net them more money than they lose in the failures.
I also understand that this is a fun way to live and a logical thing to do for the investor, but that doesn't mean it solves poverty.

Fisherking

06-29-2014, 21:10

That's a questionable usage of the word mainstream. Your personal bias doesn't invalidate the body of evidence that supports my position. Neither of us is any more qualified to settle this debate than the actual economists still having it. So, barring that silly idea that we can settle the Growth vs. Austerity argument here in this thread I'll go back to the notion that my position is just. It would improve conditions in the short term, perhaps giving everyone the time to come up with better solutions than "Stop funding everything!" That's the farthest possible thing from a controversial statement, I feel. :shrug:

Macroeconomics is the mainstream school. It contains many Keynesian elements. The main difference in these and the more free market schools is that they believe that government should manage the economy and take it for granted that that management will have a positive effect. Believe me I was not sharing any personnel bias in saying that Keynesian economics is a failed school. It is one of the main reasons that we have such a crony capitalist elite along with an unresponsive government.

If people, particularly those on the left, bothered to educate themselves in the working of the market they would never have gotten away with it for so long. But when you have the left swallowing the bunk that the Republicans were telling them and only wanted some feel good measures that didn’t work to dress it up as their own, well, what do you expect?

Despite what you may believe, Republicans are not and never were free traders. Hell, when the Democrats were still for the people they were the free traders.

Your biggest mistake, and one you continue to make, is listening to politicians and believing them without looking at what they are actually doing to you.

Fisherking

06-29-2014, 21:59

Macro-economics might be the mainstream school, but it acknowledges that keynesian economics can be an effective recipe for fixing a recession. The GOP believes austerity alone is the best recipe for fixing a recession. :shrug: I don't think Republicans are free traders and I never have. But, the Republicans claim to be. A lot of their supporters believe that claim. The dems have never pretended to be that in any way that I can remember. Consumer rights, sure, but ardent capitalists? Nah. The dems are all about effective government, and the only reason they're so sloppy is because there's no competition. If the Republicans had a real platform to stand on, the entire system would benefit from the competition. The Cantor loss reminds us all that votes still matter more than dollars, for now.

But noo, the answer must be to tear it all down. Silly. :no:

There you go again. Listening to the politicians!

Look into whether you think the government has really had a positive effect in economic intervention.

It didn’t work when FDR did it and it hasn’t worked any other time. The government can’t spend its way out of a recession. Now before you say it always works you had best look again! You are sure to be surprised, but they lied. Don’t they always.

The only thing they want from you is everything you’ve got in return for voting them into office.

What it takes is for people to be informed and to look at what government is doing, not saying.

It doesn’t mean everything has to be trashed, it just means that putting people in office that serve the people not just more government and their corrupt friends.

If people don’t care, don’t know, and don’t pay attention it will never get better, only worse.

Fisherking

06-29-2014, 23:27

Learn the difference between HISTOICAL FACT and opinion.

Before you dismiss something as tinfoil it is best to be informed.

What conspiracy? Jerks lying and furthering their self interest? It looks to me like you are the crackpot.

You talk about things with less than a vague idea about how they work but your opinions and biases don’t allow you to look at the facts?

I wouldn’t talk about any group and bigotry in your shoes. It has a broader definition than just racial prejudice.

FDR continued most of the policies of his Republican predecessor. Their goals were to increase prices and inflate their way out of the depression. Unemployment went up. They paid farmers not to plant so food prices would go up. They backed labor unions to increase wages. Wages went up but so did unemployment. They raised taxes and tariffs and unemployment went up.

Politically they used it to revamp the Democratic party. They asked for campaign donations from businesses to get contracts. They required people to register as Democrats to get government jobs. They spent money in areas to influence the vote rather than relive suffering. The hardest hit area of the country was the rural south, where they paid farmers not to plant. What do you think happened to farm workers. But they were already Democrats. No need to spend money there.

The war may have ended the unemployment problem but it didn’t end the depression.

You are spouting dogma. You don’t know if it works or how it works but someone convinced you that you should take it on faith.

Well, your faith is misplaced if you put it in the hands of someone who plans on getting rich off your vote.

You are still being played as a pawn.

Fisherking

06-29-2014, 23:32

:strawman1:

Read the history.

Read the statistics.

Read! Learn! Become informed!

Not just a mouth that has no idea what it is saying.

Fisherking

06-30-2014, 00:13

What you're saying is that FDR carpet-bagged the South in order to get us out of the depression. The numbers could reflect that, or they could simply reflect the fact that the south is and has always been run by corrupt good-old-boys. Nearly a million blacks didn't head west for the jobs alone, you know. Even today, the south runs around with its "right to work" states and its highly "conservative" leaders who talk about being the only sensible solution while presiding over states that just suck. Economically, socially, medically, most of these states are in awful shape. But you'd probably blame that on Obama, huh?

Come back with an argument when you know what you are talking about.

There are book on the topic. I wouldn’t accuse FDR directly in corruption. Congress appropriated the money to who and where they wanted it. Congress has a lot more opportunity and motivation for corruption than most presidents do. Parties you can blame easy enough from the actions of their adherents.

And quit putting words in my mouth. You bring up fallacies, distortions, and falsehoods to color your position at my expense. I just want you to look into the history, statistics, and functional operations.

I am telling you to check the facts. You need not take anyone’s word for it. Look for your self with a critical eye. Look at both sides and find the middle ground to develop your opinions.

We often give politicians too much credit for good intent rather than positive outcome. They don’t deserve it if they make things worse. Most wind up on the negative side of the ledger using such a scale, regardless of party.