Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[dblack]

We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.

It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

 

[dblack]

We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.

It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Under socialism, there wouldn't be a market, so how could anyone watch "market trunds?"

I dunno. Tehon seems to think there will still be a market.

 

[bripat9643]

We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.

It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Under socialism, there wouldn't be a market, so how could anyone watch "market trunds?"

I dunno. Tehon seems to think there will still be a market.

All the Maxists do. They all believe there will still be "market prices" even though there is no market.

 

[easyt65]

Who's Afraid of Socialism?

Venezuela
Argentina
Brazil
Cuba
Anyone who has ever lived under it...
Anyone with a brain...

Ever see any illegals flicking SOUTH to declare asylum in any of these shitholes?

Right now they're people in Parks looking for squirrels and cats to kill to feed their families in Venezuela... and that is what AOC wants to turn this country into...

 

[bripat9643]

We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.

It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Under socialism, there wouldn't be a market, so how could anyone watch "market trunds?"

I dunno. Tehon seems to think there will still be a market.

All the Maxists do. They all believe there will still be "market prices" even though there is no market.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

I think that technological know how is an imperative in sustaining a country's population. Don't you?

Why is that only acquired under capitalism?

Capitalism is good at driving innovation.

That's true. What is socialism good at? You appear to be admitting that under socialism all progress stops. I agree with that assessment.

That is quite a leap. Progress doesn't stop, it has never stopped.

Socialism will liberate us from capital tyranny.

Progress does stop. Just consider the period called "the Dark Age."

 

[Tehon]

We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.

It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

 

[dblack]

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

By way of example, what if anti-socialist "propaganda" was flying off the shelves of the government bookstores? Should the state step up production?

 

[bripat9643]

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

By way of example, what if anti-socialist "propaganda" was flying off the shelves of the government bookstores? Should the state step up production?

Yeah, and what about MAGA hats? Those are in high demand these days.

 

[dblack]

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

By way of example, what if anti-socialist "propaganda" was flying off the shelves of the government bookstores? Should the state step up production?

Yeah, and what about MAGA hats? Those are in high demand these days.

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[sakinago]

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive. Now if someone is getting rich by providing a service or product at a price people are willing to pay, and doing so without cheating or gaming the system...what is wrong with that? You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are super rich people out there. In the past those people were just the ones in power. Now it’s mainly the people making lives better humanity somehow.

Another factor you may be overlooking is that in America, ones level of wealth is rarely static. You can look at a screen shot stat showing the haves and the have nots, but it isn’t the full story. Some 70% of Americans wind up in the top 10% at some point in their life (if I remember correctly). Sounds like a damn good system of distribution to me despite that stubborn Pareto distribution.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

First, that is actually not true. Europe is only more equal, because they have many wealthy countries, that have exceptionally low immigration. Fewer low-skill workers, naturally means more equal wealth.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.

Inequality is a sign of morality. Equality, is immorality. Go live in a commune like the hippies did, and you'll find how how terrible it is. That's why most of the 60s hippies left their communes and became capitalists.

 

[Tehon]

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

I understand that people in our age are not open to an idea like this, but that will change. We are already witnessing an awakening of sorts. Eventually things will deteriorate to a point where people will open to it. They will eventually begin to realize that capital is the source of societies ills and that it is completely unnecessary to produce the things we need to sustain us. They will learn the hard way that there is no such thing as fair capitalism.

I won't see it in my lifetime, but I am enjoying the show.

 

[Andylusion]

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Every brutal socialists, has always said they represent the working people. And yet every socialist has brutalized the working people.

It doesn't matter what you claim you stand for. What matters is the results. The results of socialism are always devastating to the the working people. Always. Never seen one example where it was not.

 

[Tehon]

We would organize labor and allocate resources in much the same way we do it in a capitalist system, the market. In a socialist system, collaboratively and voluntarily would be more than just rhetoric.

It would be different in that the market wouldn't determine the price of the commodity. The price would be determined by the amount of labor contained in it.

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Under socialism, there wouldn't be a market, so how could anyone watch "market trunds?"

I dunno. Tehon seems to think there will still be a market.

Of course there is a market.
There has to be place you can go to get what you need.

 

[Yarddog]

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Every brutal socialists, has always said they represent the working people. And yet every socialist has brutalized the working people.

It doesn't matter what you claim you stand for. What matters is the results. The results of socialism are always devastating to the the working people. Always. Never seen one example where it was not.

Yep, and take India and China for example. It's taken capitalism to pull millions of their own people from the edge of starvation. Not socialism! and though China remains Communist, if it wasn't for capitalism, they wouldn't have a market to sell their goods, they wouldnt have a place to steal their technology from.

 

[dblack]

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?

 

[Tehon]

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

Like the automated trading algorithms that a lot of investment firms use?

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?

The same thing that happens now.

 

[georgephillip]

I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive. Now if someone is getting rich by providing a service or product at a price people are willing to pay, and doing so without cheating or gaming the system...what is wrong with that? You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are super rich people out there. In the past those people were just the ones in power. Now it’s mainly the people making lives better humanity somehow.

Another factor you may be overlooking is that in America, ones level of wealth is rarely static. You can look at a screen shot stat showing the haves and the have nots, but it isn’t the full story. Some 70% of Americans wind up in the top 10% at some point in their life (if I remember correctly). Sounds like a damn good system of distribution to me despite that stubborn Pareto distribution.

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive

Vilfredo Pareto revolutionized the study of economics and income distribution.

Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia

"He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He was also the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution.

"The Pareto principle was named after him, and it was built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by about 20% of the population."

It seems to me like the richest 20% of Italians relied on "cheating or gaming the system" (if not worse) in order to amass their wealth?

Extending this principle to its logical end, you end up with the richest one percent owning most of the wealth, which seems inconsistent with a democratic/republic form of government.