What would a socialist America look like?

[danielpalos]

we don't have true capitalism because that requires voluntary social transactions not a social work ethic from the Age of Iron.

What are you trying to say?

Government must be socialism to the extent it requires the coercive use of force.

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

 

[WinterBorn]

What are you trying to say?

Government must be socialism to the extent it requires the coercive use of force.

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

 

[danielpalos]

Government must be socialism to the extent it requires the coercive use of force.

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

 

[danielpalos]

Government must be socialism to the extent it requires the coercive use of force.

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oddly, you want the gov't to be socialist enough to provide you with an income without checking your need for it, and you specifically want it called "unemployment" instead of "welfare". But you don't want to work or even look for work.

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

 

[danielpalos]

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

 

[danielpalos]

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

 

[danielpalos]

not true. that is just your misunderstanding. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective. a solution to that economic phenomena. means testing would be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

it is about being legal to our own laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have said you don't want to work. YOu have said you want unemployment instead of welfare (which involves means testing). And you have said you do not want a time limit on unemployment benefits.

The natural state of employment can be handled by unemployment insurance first, and when that runs out welfare will take care of it.

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

it is about being legal to our own laws.

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like a cross between Los Angeles and Detroit.

 

[danielpalos]

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

you miss the point; we could be greatly reducing that cost through equal protection of the law. Disgruntled employees could simply quit rather than have to litigate.

 

[danielpalos]

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

 

[danielpalos]

why should it run out and why the expense of welfare to take care of it? do employers have similar restrictions or only the Labor as the Poor.

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

it is about being legal to our own laws.

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

employment is at the will of either party. that is a federal doctrine and State law.

 

[WinterBorn]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like a cross between Los Angeles and Detroit.

LA has too much money and capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not all we are discussing. If there are those who cannot be employed, because of their own inabilities or because of a natural unemployment rate, they should be on welfare, not UC.

 

[WinterBorn]

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

it is about being legal to our own laws.

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

employment is at the will of either party. that is a federal doctrine and State law.

Yes it is. But there is no federal doctrine or state law that states that someone who voluntarily quits a job should be paid.