What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

Is that what matters to you? You fail to see the fatal flaws in a system that grants enormous wealth to a few individuals while millions suffer. I know you don’t care about their suffering, but intelligent people do.

Without knowing it Todd is one of the best propagators of socialism. Just let him open his mouth and start speaking about his blind "free market" and its "wonders" and most people in the audience will become convinced that capitalism can't function without some socialism. At the very least, you need a bit of socialism, to maintain a sustainable market economy.

 

[Orangecat]

And if they don't want to do the job the state assigns them? What then? Don't dodge. Do they still get free shit?

Then the state kills them.

 

[Orangecat]

The government has the resources to employ and train those who are unemployed.

The government has nothing that it didn’t take from citizens. You sound like a proponent of Marxist wealth redistribution.

 

[Orangecat]

Is that what matters to you? You fail to see the fatal flaws in a system that grants enormous wealth to a few individuals while millions suffer.

The system doesn’t grant anything. It recognizes the inherent right of all people to freely trade in the marketplace. That some do better than others is no different than some basketball players being better than others.

 

[dblack]

Then the state kills them.

Well, I assume they won't be allowed to go into business for themselves, or work a job that isn't approved of by the state.

I'm just wondering what happens to the folks who won't do as they're told.

 

[Mexicano]

You mean we haven't fully defined every detail of how to replace markets with a modern, highly computerized, automated system of production and logistics? We don't have to have every detail fully written out before we can assess its viability and our capacity to implement it. We can get a good idea based on what we already know. The ploy of pretending there's a perpetual mystery and uncertainty to the plausibility of implementing a non-profit, marketless system of production is disingenuous at best. This isn't rocket science.

It is a tad more serious it is not that we "haven't fully defined every detail of how to replace markets with a modern, highly computerized, automated system of production and logistics". We haven't defined ANY detail of how it should work. Sure the problem is already solved for raw materials and commodities: water, electricity, oil,grains, metals, as well as some services like education. I believe public healthcare is the way to go , but the problem of providing good healthcare services is far from solved.

View attachment 809857​

The advent of advanced automation and AI has opened the door to new possibilities, including the potential for a high-tech, non-profit system of production. While this remains largely untested at a national scale, it's not without precedent: consider open-source software, which is created, maintained, and improved by communities of programmers without monetary incentive.

Dismissing the possibility of a moneyless society because it hasn't been empirically tested is a bit absurd. It's akin to saying we should never have tried to fly because, for millennia, empirical evidence suggested humans couldn't. The process of human advancement is often about challenging the perceived limits of possibility. With careful planning, ongoing innovation, and a collective will, there's no reason why we can't explore alternative economic systems that better serve our needs.

No, it is not absurd,it is science! science works with empirical evidence. This means a hypothesis has to be tested. Else it is just philosophy.
Even a small-scale test ( eg. 10,000 people working in a non-monetary system) is enough to test a money-less society, but until that test is done it remains as a hypothesis.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm just wondering what happens to the folks who won't do as they're told.

No need to wonder when we have multiple examples throughout history of what socialism/marxism/communism does to those who object:

 

[Mexicano]

No need to wonder when we have multiple examples throughout history of what socialism/marxism/communism does to those who object:
View attachment 810234

That is an oversimplification. The case can be made that WWI was the result of capitalist countries competing with each other.
Or that the massacre performed by Leopold II is a direct consequence of its capitalist ambitions.

Leopold II: Belgium 'wakes up' to its bloody colonial past

Campaigners want statues of King Leopold II, who killed millions in Central Africa, to be removed.

www.bbc.com

 

[Orangecat]

That is an oversimplification.

It’s also the truth.
2+2=4 is also an oversimplification.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you mean "the market already did that" and that's why they're supposedly unemployable? Be specific.




The government has the resources to employ and train those who are unemployed.

There are measures employers can take to inform a worker that they're not doing their jobs correctly or not completing tasks as they should

Like firing them.

What do you mean "the market already did that" and that's why they're supposedly unemployable? Be specific.
They're not employed. Are they unemployed because they were doing their jobs correctly
and completing tasks as they should?

The government has the resources to employ and train those who are unemployed.

Resources? Or newly printed money?

 

[Mexicano]

It’s also the truth.
2+2=4 is also an oversimplification.

Then we concurr : Leopold II attrocities were a product of savage capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that what matters to you? You fail to see the fatal flaws in a system that grants enormous wealth to a few individuals while millions suffer. I know you don’t care about their suffering, but intelligent people do.

Is that what matters to you?

Yes, understanding your whiney claim matters to me.

You fail to see the fatal flaws in a system that grants enormous wealth

Who are the 3 billionaires? How was their wealth "granted" to them?

 

[Red Front]

It is a tad more serious it is not that we "haven't fully defined every detail of how to replace markets with a modern, highly computerized, automated system of production and logistics". We haven't defined ANY detail of how it should work. Sure the problem is already solved for raw materials and commodities: water, electricity, oil,grains, metals, as well as some services like education. I believe public healthcare is the way to go , but the problem of providing good healthcare services is far from solved.



No, it is not absurd,it is science! science works with empirical evidence. This means a hypothesis has to be tested. Else it is just philosophy.
Even a small-scale test ( eg. 10,000 people working in a non-monetary system) is enough to test a money-less society, but until that test is done it remains as a hypothesis.

It is a tad more serious it is not that we "haven't fully defined every detail of how to replace markets with a modern, highly computerized, automated system of production and logistics". We haven't defined ANY detail of how it should work.

In view of everything that I've explained to you so far, it's quite outrageous for you to claim nothing has been defined or explained to you on how it would function.

Sure the problem is already solved for raw materials and commodities: water, electricity, oil,grains, metals, as well as some services like education. I believe public healthcare is the way to go , but the problem of providing good healthcare services is far from solved.

No, it is not absurd,it is science! science works with empirical evidence. This means a hypothesis has to be tested. Else it is just philosophy. Even a small-scale test ( eg. 10,000 people working in a non-monetary system) is enough to test a money-less society, but until that test is done it remains as a hypothesis.

The transition from a market capitalist, for-profit system of production that uses money as a medium of exchange, to a marketless, socialist non-profit system of production that's moneyless won't occur overnight. It will take decades, but we have to start planning and testing now because as technology advances, it's going to become much more difficult to maintain people employed. Automated systems will eventually eliminate wage labor, requiring a complete overhaul, and restructuring of our economy. The sooner we come to terms with that fact, the easier that transition will be. I hope civil unrest and war are avoided.

 

[Orangecat]

Then we concurr : Leopold II attrocities were a product of savage capitalism.

Nope, we don’t concur. Don’t put words in my mouth when you can quote what I actually posted. It a tactic employed by shitty debaters.

 

[Orangecat]

Who are the 3 billionaires? How was their wealth "granted" to them?

Capitalism doesn’t grant wealth to anyone, it only allows people to rise or descend to their own levels.

 

[Mexicano]

Nope, we don’t concur. Don’t put words in my mouth when you can quote what I actually posted. It a tactic employed by shitty debaters.

You said it was as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.... so there you go.

 

[Orangecat]

You said it was as simple as 2 + 2 = 4.... so there you go.

Think better.

 

[Red Front]

Like firing them.

Really? No inquiry as to why the person is underperforming? Maybe that person could get some training or could do better working in another department. But OK, fire him, the government will train and hire him. That's better than that person being homeless or institutionalized.

They're not employed. Are they unemployed because they were doing their jobs correctly and completing tasks as they should?

1. 
   Criminal Background: Despite having served their sentence and wanting to reintegrate into society, individuals with criminal backgrounds often face discrimination in the hiring process. This doesn't necessarily reflect on their ability to perform a job.
2. Gaps in Employment History: Gaps in a resume can sometimes be viewed negatively, even if they were for completely valid reasons such as caring for a loved one, recovering from an illness, pursuing education, or even struggling with a tough job market.
3. Overqualification: Employers sometimes avoid hiring overqualified candidates out of fear they may become bored, dissatisfied, or leave the job when a better opportunity comes along.
4. Perceived Cultural Fit: A candidate might be rejected because an employer doesn't believe they would "fit" into the company culture. This could be due to personal values, lifestyle, demeanor, or other non-performance related factors.
5. Ageism: Older candidates may face discrimination due to stereotypes about their ability to learn new skills, adapt to new technologies, or their perceived remaining career lifespan.
6. Health Issues/Disabilities: Even with legal protections in place, employers might still discriminate against candidates with health issues or disabilities, out of concern over potential medical costs, accommodations, or productivity.
7. Limited Transportation: Lack of a reliable vehicle or proximity to public transportation can limit job opportunities, particularly for jobs that aren't flexible about punctuality or remote work.
8. Implicit Bias: Unconscious biases based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other factors can affect hiring decisions, even when employers believe they're making choices solely on merit.
9. Educational Requirements: Some employers may put undue emphasis on certain educational credentials, excluding potentially capable candidates who have relevant experience but lack the formal education.
10. Lack of Networking Opportunities: Some job opportunities are not broadly advertised and are instead filled through internal referrals or networks, which can exclude capable individuals who are not in these networks.
11. Lack of Work Experience: Candidates who are new to the workforce or changing careers might be passed over for lack of experience, even if they have transferable skills or demonstrated quick learning in other areas.

Just because Todd's capitalist friends don't want to hire them, doesn't imply these people can't be productive.

Resources? Or newly printed money?

The US federal government's authority to exclusively issue the USD is a resource. People's labor is a resource, including properties (land, facilities), equipment (machinery), taxes, and the revenue generated by the sale of public goods and services, like municipal-run utilities and other government-owned and run companies:

1. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA): A federally owned corporation in the United States providing electricity for 153 local power companies serving 10 million people in parts of seven southeastern states. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. All utilities should be run by the government.
2. Various Public Utilities: Many city and state governments own and operate utilities such as water, gas, and electricity. Examples include the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the New York Power Authority.
3. Public Universities: While they are primarily funded by state governments, many public universities generate revenue through tuition and fees, as well as grants and donations. Examples include the University of California system and the State University of New York system.

 

[dblack]

Well, I assume they won't be allowed to go into business for themselves, or work a job that isn't approved of by the state.

I'm just wondering what happens to the folks who won't do as they're told.

No answer.

When government is the sole employer, what happens to people who won't do the job assigned to them by the state? Jail? Re-Education camps? Insane asylum? What?

 

[gipper]

The system doesn’t grant anything. It recognizes the inherent right of all people to freely trade in the marketplace. That some do better than others is no different than some basketball players being better than others.

Dream on. This isn’t a free market capitalist system. It’s crony capitalism or better yet, quasi Fascism. Wake up!