CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

A euphemism party? Is official poverty invited?

Using the People's Mint to produce the Peoples' money is a form of socialism not capitalism.

While that is on a purely technical level correct.... I don't see a viable alternative.

The ideal solution, would be to return to a gold or silver standard. A commodity backed currency.

The problem there is, we'd end up with the problems that caused us to go to a fiat currency. Namely that other countries will sell us goods, and covert the currency to gold or silver, and cause monetary havoc in our economy.

Thus the only possible solution is to eliminate all foreign trade, to avoid depletion of our commodities.

But that would cause such an economic collapse, worse than the world has ever seen before. Honestly, I would bet it would spark revolution here and abroad, and WW3.

So my opinion is, socialized fiat currency is a necessary evil. It's not the ideal, but it's the best of bad options.

 

[Andylusion]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism Define Capitalism at Dictionary.com

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Where do you see the word "profit"?

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

Where do you see the word "profit"?

Profit is a natural result of capitalism, because people tend to not invest their money without making a profit as a goal. A farmer invests seed into the ground, with the profit of a large harvest. I invested money into education, with the profit of getting a hire paying job. I invested money into a car, for the profit of getting to work.

The fundamental definition of Capitalism, does not require a profit. Profit is what naturally happens when you can control your own investment.

Socialized systems have profit too. It's just a profit of the state, instead of a profit to the individual.

If a state run company makes no profit, the result is disaster. The difference is, in a capitalist system, the lack of profit for a company is a disaster for the company. In a socialized system, lack of profit is a disaster for the entire country, because the entire country pays for it. Think Fannie and Freddie as an example.

You are not countering my argument. In fact, you just proved it.

The fact that profit is a result of capitalism proves my point. The same goes for investing money: where do you think the return on investment comes from?

As I said, your definition is lacking. Try this longer one:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While you are at it, look up "capital accumulation."

The source of capital can be profit. But that is not a requirement. If profit was absolutely required, then how did man ever start the economic system?

Can you create profit without any capital to profit from?

At the start of the human race, where was no capital. Right? Nothing had been made yet.

Man created capital from his own labor, with zero profit.

A man digs for gold with his hands. Zero profit, and yet his capital is increasing.

A man builds a home from trees, stones and mud. He now has capital, but has not made any profit.

When he sells the gold, the home, or whatever he has created, then he has profit.

Where do you think my mistake in logic is?

The first man has to eat and use tools to dig for gold. That's his capital. The same goes for the man who builds a home.

Presumably, both will sell to earn a profit, which in turn will be used to expand their businesses.

There's your capitalism. The problem is that you got stuck with the initial part of the process.

You can make your own tools, and hunt for your own food. Even if he didn't sell for a profit, he could still grow his capital. That is my primary point. Profit is not an absolute requirement, to have capital, and thus capitalism.

The point isn't that you can make your own tools or hunt for your own food. It's that you can use your profit to hire others to do that for you and acquire more capital to produce more and make even more profits.

That's capitalism.

The problem is that you are stuck with the initial part of the process. For some reason, you cannot imagine that the profit earned will not be used as capital.

No I can. That is part of capitalism.

But capitalism is also you just building your own house.

Taking the seeds I produce, to produce more, without selling anything... is also capitalism. I'm using my capital to advance myself. I'm investing what I have, to create more capital. I've hired no one, and sold to no one. I'm still engaging in Capitalism.

 

[there4eyeM]

Previous to a money based economy, ownership and gain existed, of course. Cattle can be capital for trade. That is evident. It needs no citations for proof and is indisputable.That these are attributes of capitalism is implicit. But cattle can also or can be eaten, turned into leather for clothing, etc.
Money is capital in an essentially pure form. It always remains money and nothing can be done with it but use it for a medium of exchange. That peculiarity is what makes capitalism what it is, based on money and using money to make money.
When someone is paid for labor, the medium of exchange comes to represent the investment of time, energy and life of the laborer. Thus, labor possesses a primary attribute of 'capital' while at the same time introducing another entire dimension. The time and life of a human have value unlike anything else to which any sense of 'value' can be attached.
This is why we need clear thinking and vocabulary for such discussions.

Ideology must subside and only what is human and works for humans be implemented.

 

[danielpalos]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

 

[Andylusion]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

 

[danielpalos]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

 

[Andylusion]

Previous to a money based economy, ownership and gain existed, of course. Cattle can be capital for trade. That is evident. It needs no citations for proof and is indisputable.That these are attributes of capitalism is implicit. But cattle can also or can be eaten, turned into leather for clothing, etc.
Money is capital in an essentially pure form. It always remains money and nothing can be done with it but use it for a medium of exchange. That peculiarity is what makes capitalism what it is, based on money and using money to make money.
When someone is paid for labor, the medium of exchange comes to represent the investment of time, energy and life of the laborer. Thus, labor possesses a primary attribute of 'capital' while at the same time introducing another entire dimension. The time and life of a human have value unlike anything else to which any sense of 'value' can be attached.
This is why we need clear thinking and vocabulary for such discussions.

Ideology must subside and only what is human and works for humans be implemented.

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

How do you propose to create an artificial scarcity of labor?

 

[danielpalos]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

 

[Andylusion]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

It would also completely bankrupt the system, and send the entire country into a death spiral.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

 

[HenryBHough]

Redistribute everything to everyone and everyone will have a little something. Until the next round when nobody will have produced anything to redistribute because they'd know it wouldn't be theirs, ever.

But I DO believe that wouldn't happen until about the fifth round as there will remain both the optimistic and the stupid. The stupid will be the last to comprehend.

 

[Indofred]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Wealth always redistributes itself.
The best people rise, whilst the prols fall.
You can tax, revolt and mess about all you like, but the cream always comes back to the top.

 

[Indofred]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

 

[danielpalos]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

It would also completely bankrupt the system, and send the entire country into a death spiral.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

Why do you believe what you do; or do you habitually appeal to ignorance?

 

[danielpalos]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

A simpler and general Tax on Firms. It should reduce red tape.

 

[danielpalos]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

 

[Indofred]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Thatcher did something with socials, they were the leak in Britain's boat, and she plugged it.

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all don't really believe in Capitalism, do you.

 

[Andylusion]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

It would also completely bankrupt the system, and send the entire country into a death spiral.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

Why do you believe what you do; or do you habitually appeal to ignorance?

You can trust, that I would never appeal to your ignorance ever.

Why I believe that is because of something super sophisticated called "math".

Unemployment benefits cost 520 billion - Nov. 29 2012

According to the most recent numbers, the total cost of unemployment compensation was over $550 Billion dollars in the last 5 years.

That's with a capped weekly benefit under $400 in most states, with the vast majority collecting less, and with a capped number of weeks you could collect such benefits.

We have at least 23 Million unemployed people (last I checked). That's the ones we know about.

That's almost double the total number of people who were collecting unemployment comp at the height of the recession.

But that also ignores millions who currently have low paying jobs, who would rather sit on unemployment comp for free.

Additionally this ignores people who choose not to work, but would absolutely collect unemployment comp if they could.

For example, I know a lady who is a stay at home mother. She's perfectly happy to be where she is. If you say she now can qualify for unemployment compensation 'at-will'... she'll do it.

Heck... I'd do it.

So millions of people are going to take the money if they can.

Not to mention millions of have no legally reported income. Those working off the books. They will also be more than happen to take the money.

Lastly, it's a proven documented fact, that people are less likely to work, even if it would mean more money, if they get enough from the government to live.

So more people may quit their jobs, and just live off the government, if they are given the option.

Thus fewer people working and producing, equals lower and lower tax revenue. At the same time, more and more people living off unemployment comp, equals higher and higher government expenses.

Detroit, only on a national scale.

 

[Andylusion]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

A simpler and general Tax on Firms. It should reduce red tape.

Which will cause even less investment in the US, regardless of red tape, and thus fewer jobs and less tax revenue. Result, more people taking government money, when the government has less money to give. Thus economic ruin.

Companies are already moving their investments overseas to avoid taxes as they are now. And you want to increase taxes to pay for ever greater benefits, which we also can't afford now. Bad plan.