Collective wealth leads to collective well-being

[BrokeLoser]

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society

Serving the "public good" is something corporations abandoned around the time of the Robber Barons.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary (Chp. 9)

"We need a new economic principle that says that public companies have a responsibility to the public good.

"We had this once upon a time at our founding as a nation, when corporations were chartered by individual states only to serve the public good.

"This tradition was gradually eroded by the courts right around the time of the Robber Barrons.

"The original intention behind the corporation in America’s early years, however, was definitely serving the public good – the 'polar star' of the American Revolution.

"Shareholder primacy emerged out of common law in the mid-nineteenth century, right around the same time stockholders’ agents developed our modern financial statements as a way to keep tabs on how well their principles’ investments were doing.

"These reports were never intended to represent the corporations overall performance.

"They were simply the slice that stockholders cared about – and that’s the part that we are stuck with today, and something all companies are legally required to produce on an ongoing basis."

I simply just meant that companies and corporations would pay much more in taxes and that the money would also contribute to the services for all.

Private enterprise exists and benefits because of collective effort; roads, mail, police, etc. Those who benefit disproportionately from collective effort naturally have a bigger debt.

Are you saying that those using a disproportionate amount of public services and welfare have a bigger debt to society?

 

[BrokeLoser]

In order to FORCE the CEO to pay into the same system, the central authority would have to control the means of production - i.e. socialism. You can put all the lipstick you like on that pig, but it's still a pig.

In the case of healthcare I would have our government run it yes and it would be funded through taxation, however, that CEO would invest into that system, the company itself would invest into that system, and the employees would all invest into that system. All invest in that system and use that system and all have equal interest in seeing it succeed.

When there is a gun to your head, it isn't investment.


America has the most advance health care system in the world, you're dedicated to changing that...

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

In the case of healthcare I would have our government run it yes and it would be funded through taxation, however, that CEO would invest into that system, the company itself would invest into that system, and the employees would all invest into that system. All invest in that system and use that system and all have equal interest in seeing it succeed.

When there is a gun to your head, it isn't investment.


America has the most advance health care system in the world, you're dedicated to changing that...

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

Well Comrade, 4 billion years of evolution crafted that drive for survival and self reliance, so good luck changing it.

Grace clearly lacks wisdom...or she’s being extremely disingenuous...I have a hunch that she is in cahoots with those 57 genders, drag queens and wetbacks whom all need and are begging for a commie-lite version of America that allows them to burrow deeper into evil whiteys wallet.

 

[BrokeLoser]

In order to FORCE the CEO to pay into the same system, the central authority would have to control the means of production - i.e. socialism. You can put all the lipstick you like on that pig, but it's still a pig.

In the case of healthcare I would have our government run it yes and it would be funded through taxation, however, that CEO would invest into that system, the company itself would invest into that system, and the employees would all invest into that system. All invest in that system and use that system and all have equal interest in seeing it succeed.

When there is a gun to your head, it isn't investment.


America has the most advance health care system in the world, you're dedicated to changing that...

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

I almost have to admire all the angles, crafty spinning and repackaging...The many ways people are able to beg shamelessly for other people’s shit.

 

[there4eyeM]

At the bottom of every discussion/argument about Socialism/Collective versus Freedom/Free Markets is the main difference between you and me... You believe in ASSURING a "zero risk" life for everyone at the expense of others. You said exactly that in your Opening Post.

If you say capitalism and free markets together, we don't have such a system in America.

We already a zero risk life scenario for special interests at the expense of the working class.

See my Central Banking Is Socialism thread from today.

The way that money volume is handled is not socialism.. Money NEEDS to be injected into the financial institutions when the economy speeds up.. Just like it's taken away when it's not.. If ya got an increasing GDP, the money needs to be there. And Unk Sam can't just drop it from black helicopters...

As "socialism" means government ownership and control of supply, "money" as described in the above post definitely fits the 'bill' (pun intended).
Social programs are not synonymous with socialism.

Seeing as how "coinage" is one of the FEW APPROVED duties of the Federal govt in the Constitution, I don't stay up nights pondering some monstrous socialist experiment is happening... The problem happened when the govt TOOK THE POWER to value that coinage away from precious metal equivalents. And even then, I don't lose a lot of sleep over that..

I DO lose a lot of sleep about "quantitative easing" and OTHER schemes to control the VALUE of our DEBT and money thru basically "lying" about it...

No disagreement from me. It was merely pointed out that on occasion 'socialist" really doesn't mean much, or surely doesn't mean "hatched in hell".
We need eclecticism, not pure ideology.

 

[there4eyeM]

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society

Serving the "public good" is something corporations abandoned around the time of the Robber Barons.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary (Chp. 9)

"We need a new economic principle that says that public companies have a responsibility to the public good.

"We had this once upon a time at our founding as a nation, when corporations were chartered by individual states only to serve the public good.

"This tradition was gradually eroded by the courts right around the time of the Robber Barrons.

"The original intention behind the corporation in America’s early years, however, was definitely serving the public good – the 'polar star' of the American Revolution.

"Shareholder primacy emerged out of common law in the mid-nineteenth century, right around the same time stockholders’ agents developed our modern financial statements as a way to keep tabs on how well their principles’ investments were doing.

"These reports were never intended to represent the corporations overall performance.

"They were simply the slice that stockholders cared about – and that’s the part that we are stuck with today, and something all companies are legally required to produce on an ongoing basis."

I simply just meant that companies and corporations would pay much more in taxes and that the money would also contribute to the services for all.

Private enterprise exists and benefits because of collective effort; roads, mail, police, etc. Those who benefit disproportionately from collective effort naturally have a bigger debt.

Are you saying that those using a disproportionate amount of public services and welfare have a bigger debt to society?

To a degree, though not a financial one.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

north korea and cuba already doing the "collective"

 

[Mac-7]

To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

The problem with labels especially emotionally-charged labels is they're used as slurs and flung like turds, without stopping to define what they actually mean. The Cult of Ignorance is required to simply accept that these are "BAD" but can never explain why. Even though the public library, public parks and museums, the military, the communications infrastructure, the highway system, the water supply, the fire department, the agencies that keep planes from flying into each other, broadcast stations from bleeding into each other and unsafe drugs from producing Thalidomide babies, Social Security, Medicare, the postal service -- is ALL Socialism.

You obviously dont know what socialism is

an example: the military is not a form of socialism

we should do things collectively that cannot be done individually

and defense is one of those things

However involuntary taking of money from people who earn it and giving the money to deadbeats who didnt earn it is a form of socialism

 

[DustyInfinity]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

At the bottom of every discussion/argument about Socialism/Collective versus Freedom/Free Markets is the main difference between you and me... You believe in ASSURING a "zero risk" life for everyone at the expense of others. You said exactly that in your Opening Post.

Nothing is "free".. And YOUR freedom/liberties are as much damaged by taking away your economic choices as they are by restricting your Civil Liberties.. You believe that HUGE govt has the wisdom, compassion, dedication to do even MORE than they've already failed at...

"Democratic Socialism" is what it ALWAYS starts out as.. In Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and all the other "progressive revolutions"... What happens when the economy crashes, we LOSE our lead in innovation, research and products -- and the people start to "collectively slide" to the bottom of standards of world living?

These "do-gooders" need to take more choices and powers from you.. Maybe start to control speech, round up dissidents. AND SOON -- your choices and freedom are no more...

You want everyone else to "lift up" a person who maybe break-danced or tokked their way thru HS and quit at the 11th grade to a RISK FREE life. OR worse, depend on monstrous, inept, and slow-moving govt to make this happen.. Or even a college grad that chose Music History as a major rather than a profession that is MORE VALUED by society with concomitant increased financial security as society rewards them for what they can contribute, not what "bureaucrats" can do for them..

Most of the time, the folks who BELIEVE this also have a bloated view of what government is capable of. A govt that has MISMANAGED EVERY "UNIVERSAL" program, should NEVER be trusted with MORE "universal" programs.. A government that could not produce a "Marketplace Health Insurance" website for less than a $Bill and MONTHS late IS NOT your "technology benchmark" for success..

I've got some experience with the ACA Obamacare program.. It is the MOST INTRUSIVE and LEAST transparent way of CHOOSING your healthcare.. In fact, there are FEW choices that even make sense. And the plans get WORSE EVERY YEAR... And let's not make that about "political stunts" and party wars.. The FACT IS --- Americans cannot count on their govt to even FUNCTION anymore...

AND YOU WANT MORE OF THIS???? Are you CRAZY????

I’m not a socialist or a communist though and I am supportive of free markets. What I am saying is to use the success of the free market and the wealth gained through capitalism to be partnered with a increased societal effort to reduce inequity, reduce some the negative aspects of individualism by considering the collective good in what we do as a country, and make it so that all citizens regardless of their income contribute to the systems that we all will equally use. Its capitalism but a more compassionate capitalism in my opinion.

I will say that I failed in my first post to mention the cultural change and the mindset change that would be necessary for this to work. As we are right now in this country with the deep divides and conflicting ideas of what is “American” or not it would be unrealistic unfortunately in my opinion. The key change would have to be a new mindset that values the good of the many over the success of the individual. Let me be clear im not talking about shared misery but instead creating a much larger middle class by closing income gaps and having everyone invest into the shared systems. If we are all invested and using the same systems we all have a more equal motivation to have it succeed in my opinion.

Any time you remove the individual in the name of common good, you are going against human nature. The results are horrific. I respect your intentions, but a society that keys on individualism is required for maximized well being. You can't socially engineer a middle class. Shared systems lead to the opposite of any motivation. The only way to change the 'mindset' towards collectivism is authoritarianism and crushing the individual.

 

[Mac-7]

[

I appreciate that but I’m not necessarily talking about Medicare For All in the way that it’s currently used and thought of being used by people like Sanders. I’m talking about changing the whole system along with culture.

You're talking about Communism, as is Sanders. Pogo lied about socialism earlier, the provision of government services are not socialist, the party has just decided to run a campaign of blatant lies in hopes of confusing people so they will more easily accept actual socialism. But what you're proposing is REAL socialism, control of the means of production by the state or central authority. A town or community providing a fire department is a cooperative civic effort. It is not controlled by the state or federal government. But the idea that the federal government run the healthcare system is actual socialism. It will bankrupt us and will provide substandard care.

No i'm really not talking about communism, and Bernie Sanders vision centers on punishing the wealthy in order to achieve his goals, i'm not. I am also not against private property and i'm not calling for the ending of private property. I'm not calling for the government to take over industry. I'm talking about changing our culture in way that sees social welfare programs as an investment that we all benefit from equally. For example, if a CEO pays into the same healthcare system as their front line employee does and they both use that service then there is an equal interest in that program working.

In order to FORCE the CEO to pay into the same system, the central authority would have to control the means of production - i.e. socialism. You can put all the lipstick you like on that pig, but it's still a pig.

[

I appreciate that but I’m not necessarily talking about Medicare For All in the way that it’s currently used and thought of being used by people like Sanders. I’m talking about changing the whole system along with culture.

You're talking about Communism, as is Sanders. Pogo lied about socialism earlier, the provision of government services are not socialist, the party has just decided to run a campaign of blatant lies in hopes of confusing people so they will more easily accept actual socialism. But what you're proposing is REAL socialism, control of the means of production by the state or central authority. A town or community providing a fire department is a cooperative civic effort. It is not controlled by the state or federal government. But the idea that the federal government run the healthcare system is actual socialism. It will bankrupt us and will provide substandard care.

No i'm really not talking about communism, and Bernie Sanders vision centers on punishing the wealthy in order to achieve his goals, i'm not. I am also not against private property and i'm not calling for the ending of private property. I'm not calling for the government to take over industry. I'm talking about changing our culture in way that sees social welfare programs as an investment that we all benefit from equally. For example, if a CEO pays into the same healthcare system as their front line employee does and they both use that service then there is an equal interest in that program working.

In order to FORCE the CEO to pay into the same system, the central authority would have to control the means of production - i.e. socialism. You can put all the lipstick you like on that pig, but it's still a pig.

In the case of healthcare I would have our government run it yes and it would be funded through taxation, however, that CEO would invest into that system, the company itself would invest into that system, and the employees would all invest into that system. All invest in that system and use that system and all have equal interest in seeing it succeed.

you paint a rosy picture of wealth confiscation and redistribution when it is often a very ugly affair

Its ok if everyone is a socialist and gladly gives their money away to others

But are you prepared to put people in prison who dont share your dream?

Even kill them?

you paint a rosy picture of wealth confiscation and redistribution when it is often a very ugly affair

Its ok if everyone is a socialist and gladly gives their money away to others

But are you prepared to put people in prison who dont share your dream?

Even kill them?

 

[DustyInfinity]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

Grace, I'm going to ask you the same question I ask all people who advocate collectivism. Why not let the individual be free and succeed and target aid to those who cannot help themselves? Instead of putting the government in charge of everything, and having everyone in social programs, why not specifically target those who actually need help? I get that you are going for a compassionate society, but allowing individuals to succeed in no way means that we can not help those who need it. Individualism does not mean society cannot be compassionate. It actually creates the means to help more people than collectivism could ever dream of.

 

[there4eyeM]

Collectivism is not synonymous with with general welfare and and social programs, period. Resorting to scare tactics and vocabulary is not necessary to an intelligent discussion. The US has resources enough for it's citizens to have a safe and healthy life. Of course we need to develop individual responsibility.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The man in Iowa who questioned Elizabeth Warren keeps coming to mind. She had to explain to him that saving and living within your means to put your kids through college didn't matter. Making good choices didn't matter.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Collectivism is not synonymous with with general welfare and and social programs, period. Resorting to scare tactics and vocabulary is not necessary to an intelligent discussion. The US has resources enough for it's citizens to have a safe and healthy life. Of course we need to develop individual responsibility.

So the common good isn't the collective good? I'm not saying social programs are not needed, but the OP is trying to change an entire mindset against individualism. I think you are deflecting from the question. Why create universal programs instead of targeting specific people who actually need help? I honestly want to know.

 

[there4eyeM]

Collectivism is not synonymous with with general welfare and and social programs, period. Resorting to scare tactics and vocabulary is not necessary to an intelligent discussion. The US has resources enough for it's citizens to have a safe and healthy life. Of course we need to develop individual responsibility.

So the common good isn't the collective good? I'm not saying social programs are not needed, but the OP is trying to change an entire mindset against individualism. I think you are deflecting from the question. Why create universal programs instead of targeting specific people who actually need help? I honestly want to know.

Individual responsibility is supremely important. The problem of society has always been that it works against that principle as if by necessity. That means our concepts of social living need fundamental revision, especially in light of current knowledge about psychology and brain function.
Deflection is resorting to scare tactics that prevent re-examination of ideas.
It would be perfect to target precisely those in need. Where have you seen "perfect" in action?

 

[there4eyeM]

north korea and cuba already doing the "collective"

"A" collective of a very poor sort.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Collectivism is not synonymous with with general welfare and and social programs, period. Resorting to scare tactics and vocabulary is not necessary to an intelligent discussion. The US has resources enough for it's citizens to have a safe and healthy life. Of course we need to develop individual responsibility.

I must also point out the actual title of the thread. Collective is used twice. Trying to dance around that particular word seems unnecessary. While we are a wealthy nation, attempting to do what the OP suggests is obviously not possible. No matter how you redistribute things, you can not create a worry free society where nobody is afraid to fail.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Collectivism is not synonymous with with general welfare and and social programs, period. Resorting to scare tactics and vocabulary is not necessary to an intelligent discussion. The US has resources enough for it's citizens to have a safe and healthy life. Of course we need to develop individual responsibility.

So the common good isn't the collective good? I'm not saying social programs are not needed, but the OP is trying to change an entire mindset against individualism. I think you are deflecting from the question. Why create universal programs instead of targeting specific people who actually need help? I honestly want to know.

Individual responsibility is supremely important. The problem of society has always been that it works against that principle as if by necessity. That means our concepts of social living need fundamental revision, especially in light of current knowledge about psychology and brain function.
Deflection is resorting to scare tactics that prevent re-examination of ideas.
It would be perfect to target precisely those in need. Where have you seen "perfect" in action?

I agree with you, and I never said anything about perfect.

 

[there4eyeM]

Collectivism is not synonymous with with general welfare and and social programs, period. Resorting to scare tactics and vocabulary is not necessary to an intelligent discussion. The US has resources enough for it's citizens to have a safe and healthy life. Of course we need to develop individual responsibility.

So the common good isn't the collective good? I'm not saying social programs are not needed, but the OP is trying to change an entire mindset against individualism. I think you are deflecting from the question. Why create universal programs instead of targeting specific people who actually need help? I honestly want to know.

Individual responsibility is supremely important. The problem of society has always been that it works against that principle as if by necessity. That means our concepts of social living need fundamental revision, especially in light of current knowledge about psychology and brain function.
Deflection is resorting to scare tactics that prevent re-examination of ideas.
It would be perfect to target precisely those in need. Where have you seen "perfect" in action?

I agree with you, and I never said anything about perfect.

...and I never said you did.

 

[georgephillip]

However involuntary taking of money from people who earn it and giving the money to deadbeats who didnt earn it is a form of socialism

What do shareholders do to earn their dividend checks compared to the employees who create the profits those common-law entitlements derive from?

A Legal Theory of Shareholder Primacy

"Shareholder primacy is a foundational concept.

"The principle of profit maximization goes to the most basic question: What is the purpose of the corporation and corporate law?

"Although normative debate has persisted over many generations of economic history and academic scholarship, we are in a shareholder-centric era as a factual matter.

"Yet, remarkably, the question of whether shareholder primacy is positive law remains unresolved even today."

 

[DOTR]

Personally, I'd rather burn my money than contribute it to a collective pool and beg for some of it back because I'm needy.

View attachment 311601

Here’s the plan. (1) give us all your money (2) marvel at our generosity as we apportion it back in exchange for votes.