OtherGround Forums It Shouldn't be "Capitalism Vs Socialism"

9 days ago
8/2/19
Posts: 141
robert bentley -

"- I don't see how this addresses my post: I was explaining the difficulties of taxing a corporation that has other options (i.e. moving their capital).  If anything, automation further strengthens my argument.  If you try to tax a corporation that is heavly invested in automation - they will have a MUCH easier time moving to a new country now that they don't have to worry as much about replacing US workers (since they've already been replaced)."

It makes a huge difference. If a corporation's primary benefit is in providing jobs - and they no longer provide jobs, they lose one of their major bargaining chips. If they only make money for themselves, and pay little in taxes, why would Americans keep footing the bill?

And in many cases the automation makes no difference at all with respect to relocation. Walmart for example (already in the process) is replacing many of their employees with self-checkout. Everything from stocking shelves, to checkout, to security can (and will eventually) be automated. But Walmart won't move to China because their primary source of income is selling things to people in North America. If they move elsewhere - they'll lose access to that consumer market.

And this is another important point. There are reasons for corporations to stay in the United States that makes this equation a bit less imbalanced than you're implying. If 90% of their income comes from people frequenting their stores or buying their products in the U.S -- leaving the country isn't an option.

"It makes a huge difference. If a corporation's primary benefit is in providing jobs - and they no longer provide jobs, they lose one of their major bargaining chips. If they only make money for themselves, and pay little in taxes, why would Americans keep footing the bill?"

 

-Well automation changes the leverage of both the government and corporation in numerous ways, but the flow of capital is still decided by the the open market. 

 If, for example, a company is 100% automated, the government would take into consideration how much the company will cost it (infrastruture use, etc) and tell the company what it would accept in the form of taxes (cost + profit) .  If the company can match those taxes then it makes economical sense for the government to have the company present.

The company on the other hand would take that offer, and compare it with other offers they get.  All things being equal, if government A is offering a higher corporate tax then government B, then it doesn't make economical sense for the company to locate within government A's juristiction. If on the other hand, the government A offers the lowest corporate tax, all things being equal, it now makes sense for the company to go with government A.

Of course this is a simplification (sometimes for example government A can offer a higher tax rate than government B, but their city is cleaner and safer and their weather is nicer, etc -  so the company will choose them anyway) but this is how the sytem works.  Do you see how saying that company A *should* pay 35% (for example) is largely meaningless in this scenerio?  It will pay what the *market* dictates it should pay.

 

"And in many cases the automation makes no difference at all with respect to relocation. Walmart for example (already in the process) is replacing many of their employees with self-checkout. Everything from stocking shelves, to checkout, to security can (and will eventually) be automated. But Walmart won't move to China because their primary source of income is selling things to people in North America. If they move elsewhere - they'll lose access to that consumer market.

And this is another important point. There are reasons for corporations to stay in the United States that makes this equation a bit less imbalanced than you're implying. If 90% of their income comes from people frequenting their stores or buying their products in the U.S -- leaving the country isn't an option."

 

-I'm not under any illusion of how much imbalance there is - there are industries like manufacturing that see an millions of jobs and billions of dollars leave the country, and then there are retail stores that will suffer much less from this.  The balance is what the balance is.

Edited: 9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 4960
Fuck all this nonsense about being born not wealthy gives you less chance at success. Left wing and lazy ass people propaganda.

My parents were neither wealthy nor poor, but I was. They never gave me a damn nickle. Neither did anyone else. Lived on my own since 17.

Now retired, own my own paid for home and land, and am paying for my kids college education.

My son will have a very large head start compared to me.
Still, I did just fine. Why??? How??

Because my old man taught me how to work. I worked harder, faster, and better than anyone else I worked with for decades. Have a worn out as hell body to prove it. Doc says he would tell me all my joints were over worn and had been used hard...if I were 20 years older.

That and that alone got me and my family where we are.

There is not one single reason in the fucking world, besides shear damn laziness, that anyone else can't do the same.
NOT FUCKING ONE.
9 days ago
6/22/13
Posts: 1158
Dryfly - Fuck all this nonsense about being born not wealthy gives you less chance at success. Left wing and lazy ass people propaganda.

My parents were neither wealthy nor poor, but I was. They never gave me a damn nickle. Neither did anyone else. Lived on my own since 17.

Now retired, own my own paid for home and land, and am paying for my kids college education.

My son will have a very large head start compared to me.
Still, I did just fine. Why??? How??

Because my old man taught me how to work. I worked harder, faster, and better than anyone else I worked with for decades. Have a worn out as hell body to prove it. Doc says he would tell me all my joints were over worn and had been used hard...if I were 20 years older.

That and that alone got me and my family where we are.

There is not one single reason in the fucking world, besides shear damn laziness, that anyone else can't do the same.
NOT FUCKING ONE.

So you worked long, hard hours and became successful... good for you.  What type of work?  

Now imagine if you had wealthy parents who sent you to the best schools, university etc... what do you think you would have achieved with that same that work ethic in that circumstance?  Do you feel you would be in the same place you are now or potentially a better place...?  

I also sense anger in your post... are you really mad at lefties or...something else?  Meditate on that before answering.  Quite often our generalized anger is actually a projection of some other issue.  

 

8 days ago
8/7/19
Posts: 367
crashingwaves - 
Dryfly - Fuck all this nonsense about being born not wealthy gives you less chance at success. Left wing and lazy ass people propaganda.

My parents were neither wealthy nor poor, but I was. They never gave me a damn nickle. Neither did anyone else. Lived on my own since 17.

Now retired, own my own paid for home and land, and am paying for my kids college education.

My son will have a very large head start compared to me.
Still, I did just fine. Why??? How??

Because my old man taught me how to work. I worked harder, faster, and better than anyone else I worked with for decades. Have a worn out as hell body to prove it. Doc says he would tell me all my joints were over worn and had been used hard...if I were 20 years older.

That and that alone got me and my family where we are.

There is not one single reason in the fucking world, besides shear damn laziness, that anyone else can't do the same.
NOT FUCKING ONE.

So you worked long, hard hours and became successful... good for you.  What type of work?  

Now imagine if you had wealthy parents who sent you to the best schools, university etc... what do you think you would have achieved with that same that work ethic in that circumstance?  Do you feel you would be in the same place you are now or potentially a better place...?  

I also sense anger in your post... are you really mad at lefties or...something else?  Meditate on that before answering.  Quite often our generalized anger is actually a projection of some other issue.  

 


Yes life is never a fair start for anyone, that's a given.
Most people simply don't have what it takes to achieve a high level of success in business, just the same as they can't make the NFL or become a movie star. Pointing out these differences doesn't mean you have the solution and it doesn't mean there is one. Given a century of the same rhetoric from the left and their abysmal results, it's safe to say they do not have the answer.

As pointed out a million times, to make a decent living all one has to do is finish school, not have a kid while young, and work hard at a trade. If you can't do those 3 simple things then no system is going to help you. You will suffer the natural consequences for your actions, something the left seems incapable of grasping.

Le Shat
©
8 days ago
3/27/03
Posts: 43851
Dryfly - Fuck all this nonsense about being born not wealthy gives you less chance at success. Left wing and lazy ass people propaganda.

My parents were neither wealthy nor poor, but I was. They never gave me a damn nickle. Neither did anyone else. Lived on my own since 17.

Now retired, own my own paid for home and land, and am paying for my kids college education.

My son will have a very large head start compared to me.
Still, I did just fine. Why??? How??

Because my old man taught me how to work. I worked harder, faster, and better than anyone else I worked with for decades. Have a worn out as hell body to prove it. Doc says he would tell me all my joints were over worn and had been used hard...if I were 20 years older.

That and that alone got me and my family where we are.

There is not one single reason in the fucking world, besides shear damn laziness, that anyone else can't do the same.
NOT FUCKING ONE.

The richest kid i knew in school was a heroin addict that showed up in pajamas and slippers 

i also knew some Vietnamese refugees that grew up literally hungry speaking no English that smashed every obstacle to their success 

8 days ago
3/27/03
Posts: 43852
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10801
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

8 days ago
4/19/09
Posts: 32713
Dryfly - Fuck all this nonsense about being born not wealthy gives you less chance at success. Left wing and lazy ass people propaganda.

My parents were neither wealthy nor poor, but I was. They never gave me a damn nickle. Neither did anyone else. Lived on my own since 17.

Now retired, own my own paid for home and land, and am paying for my kids college education.

My son will have a very large head start compared to me.
Still, I did just fine. Why??? How??

Because my old man taught me how to work. I worked harder, faster, and better than anyone else I worked with for decades. Have a worn out as hell body to prove it. Doc says he would tell me all my joints were over worn and had been used hard...if I were 20 years older.

That and that alone got me and my family where we are.

There is not one single reason in the fucking world, besides shear damn laziness, that anyone else can't do the same.
NOT FUCKING ONE.

Ah the im alright jack mentality.

8 days ago
4/19/09
Posts: 32714
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

There is nothing perfect callit apathy or political entropy, either way a system works for the time it can. It then will naturally turn, to an antithesis. This has been repeated throughout history. 

We are seeing this massive swing ot the right,nationalism, otherism, and cultural hegemony which inevitably has conflict as its conclusion. 

After such a conflict, it is clear that a swing to the left will again ocurr. 

And as long as we have scarcity of resources we will go through this cycle.

 

8 days ago
4/19/09
Posts: 32715

At the root of the polarization, intemperate tone, and disdain for compromise in modern politics, and at the core of its overshadowing incoherence, is the insufficiency of the old paradigm to explain modern conditions.

We need a new paradigm. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew.”

If the old paradigm might be termed the “scarcity paradigm,” what we need is a new postscarcity paradigm, and a new politics organized around it.

The core elements of postscarcity critique are:

1. The capacity to provide abundant goods and services with less and less human toil now exists, but our socio-economic institutions and habits of thought, which assume the absence of that capacity and are focused single-mindedly on creating it, are ill-equipped to harness it wisely. They are failing us.

2. Negative environmental and public health consequences of economic growth are outstripping the benefits, diminishing our lives rather than enriching them.

3. Despite the fact cited above, that we are tapping only a fraction of the capacity we have to create abundant goods and services, the affluence we are already generating is not being grandly distributed. This is because the old paradigm incentivizes work to maximize growth, yet progress itself is putting us all out of work. We have the paradox of inequality and poverty amidst affluence. Yet it is unlike a situation where there is not the capacity to create enough to go around, so that you having less is the only way I can have more. Instead, in a postscarcity economy, no one benefits from others’ misfortune. The existence of “have not’s” is an absurd outcome, as often as, or more often than, an unjust one.

4. Postscarcity creates greater consumer demand for, and worker satisfaction from, attention to quality over quantity. Yet the “consumer movement” meets resistance, and the decentralized, small business, small farm, craft, boutique, individual service, and shared economies all struggle in a social, legal, and regulatory environment designed to favor mass quantity over personalized quality.

5. Finally, there are the ultimate questions: where does one find meaning and personal dignity, and what binds us as a community, in an affluent world beyond work? If we ignore the sociological problems of anomie and alienation, or the potential mental health problems, of an increasingly postscarcity society, we do so at our peril. The progress for which we have strived and sacrificed for centuries could yield a “be careful what you wish for” result. We need to think hard on these questions.

 

https://frontiergroup.org/page/fg/paradigm-shift

8 days ago
4/19/09
Posts: 32716


I have actually always seen Islamic Economics as a different paradigm and inherently (for basic sense of an argument,) socialist or at least equitable. I believe that this fundamental difference to the evangelical capitalism of the USA is the reason for the last two decades of war.
8 days ago
1/9/19
Posts: 2223
Vegito Blue -

Capitalism - God’s way of determining who’s smart and who’s poor

 

Its the only way 

just how rich are you?

8 days ago
1/9/19
Posts: 2224
Pedro Navaja -
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.

brilliant!

8 days ago
1/9/19
Posts: 2225
robert bentley -

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. ------

 

keep preaching the GOOD MESSAGE brother bentley!

7 days ago
8/2/19
Posts: 144
theraskal -
Pedro Navaja -
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.

brilliant!

The Jentleman is characterising capitalism and socialism as it pertains to general governship.  He's not saying that anything that has a social undertone (i.e. paying the police) is evil.  He's saying that under a socialist system we would all be told what to do, and that's that.

Pedro completely misconstrude what he said.

 

 

7 days ago
8/2/19
Posts: 145
Ghengiseanie -


I have actually always seen Islamic Economics as a different paradigm and inherently (for basic sense of an argument,) socialist or at least equitable. I believe that this fundamental difference to the evangelical capitalism of the USA is the reason for the last two decades of war.

Central planning and socialsim have failed every time they've been tried.

7 days ago
3/27/03
Posts: 43857
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10818
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


I wasn't clear?

The people, by way of having more direct involvement and influence through their elected officials. The situation as it stands is that Corporations have *taken* that power by various means so now *they* are the one that's in control.

Where is the disconnect here? What are you having a hard time understanding?

7 days ago
8/2/19
Posts: 146
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


I wasn't clear?

The people, by way of having more direct involvement and influence through their elected officials. The situation as it stands is that Corporations have *taken* that power by various means so now *they* are the one that's in control.

Where is the disconnect here? What are you having a hard time understanding?

Well it's *not* clear, since the people, through their elected officials, can change any law and alter the constitution in such a way as to nationalize everything and control every business in the USA.

They already have ultimate power.

7 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10819
jspeed - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


I wasn't clear?

The people, by way of having more direct involvement and influence through their elected officials. The situation as it stands is that Corporations have *taken* that power by various means so now *they* are the one that's in control.

Where is the disconnect here? What are you having a hard time understanding?

Well it's *not* clear, since the people, through their elected officials, can change any law and alter the constitution in such a way as to nationalize everything and control every business in the USA.

They already have ultimate power.


You're right - the people DO have the ultimate power, and they would be able to enact genuine change if they only knew and *used* that power now.

That's not the case at the moment, but it *could* be if they used the power they *currently* have to remove a significant measure of corporate influence.

There has been a great deal of talk about inordinate influence from wall street, lobbyists, and corporate "sponsorship" of politicians. On this thread alone a few people with very different views at least agree on this one area (stop or at least severely limit the power of corporate lobbyists) . There is also fairly wide spread support for the idea yet very few politicians make this a central point (or priority). They're hoping (and in some ways they're being proven correct) that the general public doesn't press this topic too much so the politicans can keep the same system.

Sure there's a few overtures - but nowhere near the level of other issues like gun control, police brutality etc. 

I think a lot of those other issues are important but they'll all be helped by removing corporate control of politicians.

More people need to make noise, and more people need to insist on this particular change above almost all others.

6 days ago
4/19/09
Posts: 32719
jspeed -
Ghengiseanie -


I have actually always seen Islamic Economics as a different paradigm and inherently (for basic sense of an argument,) socialist or at least equitable. I believe that this fundamental difference to the evangelical capitalism of the USA is the reason for the last two decades of war.

Central planning and socialsim have failed every time they've been tried.

China would disagree,

6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 29425
Dryfly - Fuck all this nonsense about being born not wealthy gives you less chance at success. Left wing and lazy ass people propaganda.

My parents were neither wealthy nor poor, but I was. They never gave me a damn nickle. Neither did anyone else. Lived on my own since 17.

Now retired, own my own paid for home and land, and am paying for my kids college education.

My son will have a very large head start compared to me.
Still, I did just fine. Why??? How??

Because my old man taught me how to work. I worked harder, faster, and better than anyone else I worked with for decades. Have a worn out as hell body to prove it. Doc says he would tell me all my joints were over worn and had been used hard...if I were 20 years older.

That and that alone got me and my family where we are.

There is not one single reason in the fucking world, besides shear damn laziness, that anyone else can't do the same.
NOT FUCKING ONE.

that's funny, you tried to lie that being wealthy wasn't an advantage, and then explained that your kid will have a headstart financially...

5 days ago
1/21/17
Posts: 75
theraskal - 
robert bentley -

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. ------

 

keep preaching the GOOD MESSAGE brother bentley!


Agreed, being acknowledge the problems again and being have a nuanced discussion would be a nice change.

It shouldn't be as difficult as it is to get people to agree that:

*There is a growing imbalance and its in everyone's best interest that there isn't too large a wealth gap

*Healthcare, education, and social support systems should be improved so that the programs aren't ineffective and costs aren't insane/abused

You'd also have to acknowledge though it's more of an issue with the shutting down of dialogue however coming from the liberal view. It's generally not frowned upon in serious discussion to complain about corporations or x wealthy demographic having concentrated power and being greedy etc. But pointing out change also required by those in the bottom of society will probably get you labeled as an asshole by many.

It should be a general view that:
1) There exists plenty of social mobility today and but being able to succeed even if you're very poor is something we always be maintaining and seeking to improve as it's core to American values.

2) There should be winners and losers. It's OK for people to have some family wealth advantage because that's fucking life and parents who bust their ass deserve to give their family at least some edge. If you're born into a shitty situation you should have to work harder to a degree than others for success.. and that's admirable and OK. Personal responsibility for your life decisions is a good thing.

The discussion should be happening on what is an acceptable upper and lower limit and how to achieve it through incremental improvements.. not fundamental disagreement around 1 and 2
5 days ago
3/27/03
Posts: 43885
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


I wasn't clear?

The people, by way of having more direct involvement and influence through their elected officials. The situation as it stands is that Corporations have *taken* that power by various means so now *they* are the one that's in control.

Where is the disconnect here? What are you having a hard time understanding?

Not in the slightest 

5 days ago
3/27/03
Posts: 43886
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 
robert bentley -
jacktripper - 

“1)No entity, corporate or otherwise, should have undue power.”

according to you?  That’s a lot of power to have 


Lol - So you support the alternative? Giving someone too much power?

Of course you do.

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


The closest thing to a perfect system used to be the United States (if forced to pick); but the checks and balances that used to be in place have been eroded over time by growing corporate influence. There used to be a time in American history decades ago when they didn't have so much control over politicians - and politicians were able to pass laws based on what the people needed and not what a corporation dictated.

So more of the power was in the hands of the people themselves. Of course politicians have been corrupt and corruptable in the past like at any other time in history - but everyone from mayors all the way up to Presidents were able in many cases to retain certain principles and powers given to them by the electorate, instead of being forever in the pocket of someone else.

In fact one of the single biggest changes that would have significant effect is something I've found common ground on in this thread. Tackling the problem with corporate lobbying.

Honestly - there is a lot to admire about the American system; but one of the biggest mistakes is to believe that the *current* state is its best or final state. 

Some related reading:

- The memo that launched the corporate take-over of America:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357045-powell-memo-corporate-takeover/

- How corporate lobbyists took over America

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

Who would be in charge of “giving power”?


I wasn't clear?

The people, by way of having more direct involvement and influence through their elected officials. The situation as it stands is that Corporations have *taken* that power by various means so now *they* are the one that's in control.

Where is the disconnect here? What are you having a hard time understanding?

You’re very vague for one... serious question: are you high?