Ben No.3

Huh? it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of controlThe markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official. even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" controlChange your avatar to a rose or read a book.Read some sense into yourself.The "underlying mechanisms" aren't some natural or divine occurance, they are the results of those who hold the levers of power aka the bourgeoisie acting in their own self-interest in the short term. That they don't coordinate their efforts to collectively manipulate their grand machine is evidence of intra-class conflict, not evidence the market is a natural phenomenon like gravity. This should be basic **** for anyone who has lurked a leftist forum for a week, let alone read an ounce of theory. Here is a new avatar for you that better fits your opinions and knowledge. [imghttp://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/socialism/images/8/8d/Red_Rose_%28Socialism%29.svg.png[/img] Don't be so short sighted. It is easy to give in to the idea of a ruling class that is truly ruling, but that idea is a false one. Humans are, to a large extent, slave to the society they live in. This is not to say we can't have an individual personality, but our day to day actions will be, more or less, determined by the society in and how we handle it. This applies for the bourgeois just as much as it does for the proletarian. Neither one of those is truly in control of their fate. It is ludicrous to assume that a golden cage is less of a cage than a dirt one. The fact that the bourgeois is better off doesn't make him less of a subject to society's influence How many of the rich genuinely need to work? None. Yet there are vast numbers of them who work long hours, week for week. Take Germany. If you look at the numbers, there is a positive correlation between income and overtime hours per week. While those who earn below 20.000 a year work on average 2 hours overtime per week, those who earn above 120.000 per week, so top earners, work on average 10 hours overtime per week. Do they have to? No. Do they do it anyway? Yes. http://www.e-fellows.net/Karriere/Beruf-und-Karriere/Spitzenverdiener-machen-mehr-Ueberstunden and is your bourgeois truly free in his decision when he works his overtime hours? He has to decide exactly in a way that will enable him and his company to survive. He doesn't rule, he reacts. And what he reacts to is the market; is really just the others trying to survive themselves. The market is a societal force because it is society. It is the way we organise the economy, and by that everything else. Basic ****, right? it is far to simple to say that there is some evil clique in control. Sadly, it is a very powerful myth, because it is so beautifully simple. And wouldn't it be nice if it were so? If we could just start a revolution, chop of a few heads and be forever free? HA! Good Fun! Reality is sadly a bit more complicated.

Huh? it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of controlThe markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official. even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" controlChange your avatar to a rose or read a book.Read some sense into yourself.

Huh? it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of controlThe markets are largely controlled by those who have their hands on the levers of power. Which is not any elected official. even for "them", the underlying mechanisms are beyond "their" control

Huh? it lies in the nature of markets that they are out of control

Seen it already. Surprisingly entertaining. Let's all just have a debate over how to save the seven kingdoms from economic collapse xD

German high court just decided a controversial law was d'accord with the constitution. The law states, amongst other things, that within a firm, only the conditions dealt out by the majority union are applied. This is a catastrophe for the union. It forces them to fight each other for members, rather than focusing on common goals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4652002/Native-Germans-minority-Germany.html In other news, Frankfurt is now officially multicultural in the truest sense. I'm looking forward to this, should be interesting. Not that'll be much different... we always were at the verge, it was only a matter of time tbh.

Left-conservative. The rest is true. There is a slight hope president will not sign this.Left as in economics or socially?

In other news, Poland just abolished freedom of the judiciary and thereby greatly threatening democracy. For the German ones: http://m.tagesspiegel.de/politik/polen-senat-verabschiedet-gesetze-zur-justizkontrolle/20066256.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.fr%2F The basic news is that two laws just passed, one allowing the parliament to decide who will be the high judges (?) and the other one allowing the minister of justice to directly appoint judges. Both the minister and the parliament are (ruled by) PiS, the right-conservative party.

Political cartoon of evil Trump manhandling an upset statue of liberty in a sexual manner behind the cut: http://img.wennermedia.com/480-width/trump-failure-with-election-tiabbi-9c70ec25-6cc4-4eb8-bc9e-d6e85c0260b7.jpg Edit by TrueNeutral. Bit too close to imagery of sexual violence for this board. Comment: "Manhandling in a sexual manner" xD

Sharp one, take me through this.... Which scenario applies more a) your firm accepts an offer. You or your manager(s) draft a plan on how and when everything will be produced. Who will do what at which point in time, you assign the workers.You set time frames and budgets. You go through multiple meetings and excessive planning to archive all of this. You then launch this plan and hope it works. b) one morning, one of the salesmen comes to his assigned team of workers. He tells them what new job he brought in. The team of workers then decide how to go about this and then proceeds to do so. Situation a) is a top-down planning done by a central management board in order to fulfill the need at hand. Situation b) is a non-hierarchical approach to dealing with the same problem. Both concepts are realised by existing and thriving companies, so they seem to be at least equally good. Now I will grant you that the Soviet model also decides WHAT will be consumed, while the capitalist one merely decides HOW that will be produced; in a way at least. But what I am comparing is the decisions and procedures on HOW, and those seem to be, all ideologies aside, fairly similar.

Guys come one This thread is full of hyperbole and unfair criticism of standard corporate culture ....Bennie what do you mean by comparing a business to the Soviets ? I cannot see the common link? The Soviet Union had a centralised planned economy, so, put simply, a clique of bureaucrats decided what job everyone should do, which tasks had to be fulfilled, how much had to be produced and so on. A modern business is run much the same way, with a clique of bureaucrats deciding the exact same things, only on a smaller scale. If we can all agree that the Soviet planned economy both interfered with our economic freedoms as well as created great inefficiency, why is it so hard for us to say the same thing about firms? Okay I can see the misunderstanding Typically most corporates have a very important objective, they have to be profitable and this objective ensures in most cases the corporate entity has to follow good governance and have rules and procedures around how staff conduct themselves especially if you have a target. By a target I mean revenue number Communism was the opposite of this approach, it took away any incentive and tried to make everyone work for the common good of the state .....this is not how human beings function. The best way to motivate people is to reward those that work harder and set reasonable goals and outcomes Yet, in the end, it's much more similar than you seem to want to admit. One management team tries to benefit everyone and the other one seeks to benefit themselves; but ultimately, you end up with this very small group of people desperately trying to control the highly complex machine that is the economy. And for worker joe, aside from wether he has free healthcare and education as well a guaranteed employment and housing or freedom of speech and expression, not a lot is different in day to day life. But at the end of the day, you do your job and you get money for it. Different amounts... the Soviets thought a coal miner should earn more than a doctor because of how hard his job is; capitalists give the doctor more because of how rare his skills are. But: Neither one nor the other system empowers the worker and his coworkers truly. And, furthermore, management will never be able to manage it. The Soviet economy collapsed because the government was incapable of managing the economy; but the same has been and always will be true for almost if not every firm. Adam Smith already said that everyone understands his own job best, everyone knows how to do that duty the most effectively. And neither a Soviet nor a modern capitalist model can fulfill this premise. In both cases, we have a hierarchy which attempts to control people, even though they can not possibly fully understand what is to be done. In a way, you could say I'm making a deeply capitalist argument, essentially im saying free the common man from unnecessary rules and regulations from above; it doesn't help and it puts him in chains.

Guys come one This thread is full of hyperbole and unfair criticism of standard corporate culture ....Bennie what do you mean by comparing a business to the Soviets ? I cannot see the common link? The Soviet Union had a centralised planned economy, so, put simply, a clique of bureaucrats decided what job everyone should do, which tasks had to be fulfilled, how much had to be produced and so on. A modern business is run much the same way, with a clique of bureaucrats deciding the exact same things, only on a smaller scale. If we can all agree that the Soviet planned economy both interfered with our economic freedoms as well as created great inefficiency, why is it so hard for us to say the same thing about firms?

With all your talk of economic freedom, you run your business with the exact same practices the soviets ran their economy.

You do seem to think though that people genuinely choose the lifestyle of "being poor and screwing over people". An interesting perspective on love you have there.

Are you counting the banks as part of the American populace? Everyone is equally guilty, I believe. if the common man actually had money, and if he wouldn't need to pay fortunes for such basics as decent education for his children, he'd be in a lot less debt. He isn't guilty, he was forced into his predicament.NONSENSE! There is no such thing as "rich man is power so the rich man controls all" that is just a cover-up for the blue-collarsand the low-income to feel entitled to have more of a say but all along. Listen to me brorher, the poor man is actually just as powerful if not more powerful than the rich. Times are changing and with that the voice of the people are even moreso than ever regardless of wht race, or income. I didn't even mention the rich; but now that you did... those blue collar workers are the reason that others are rich. Isn't that a bit strange? The underclass has a say in US politics? Name me one president who didn't require heavy funding from rich individuals for his campaign from the past 50 years. show them to me. And don't just show me a random post... we both know that people say the most ludicrous things online. I have several studies that point out two things, 1. That poor people deny their poverty and try to look like their not poor and 2. That those people "milking" social services practically don't exist. Do you have any academic or otherwise better sources than "muh Facebook friends"? with this -> ☭★ ? They don't.

Are you counting the banks as part of the American populace? Everyone is equally guilty, I believe. if the common man actually had money, and if he wouldn't need to pay fortunes for such basics as decent education for his children, he'd be in a lot less debt. He isn't guilty, he was forced into his predicament.

no

"Now, your other point about the child in a religious school. They are free, in that when they become adults they are free to follow or reject anything they were taught as a child. If their parents chose to put them in a religious school that is a choice they are free to make. Religious schools in the US are accredited in the same way public schools are. The kids are taught the same subjects with the same requirements with the addition of the curriculum of the sponsoring faith. The difference is those kids are not costing the state any money. Those schools are private and the parents have to pay to send their kids to them." Wouldn't you agree that parents education their children to follow a certain religion is just a nice of saying that they are forcing their beliefs onto the child, before the child is old enough to decide on wether to actually follow these beliefs. And when it is, the parental influence is for a vast majority far too strong to allow an actual evaluation of belief. So, this is not merely deciding on how much freedom to grant the parents, it's the child's freedom of spirit vs the parents freedom of expression. Especially with regards to the child's inability to reflection to extends comparable to those of the parents, protection of the child's liberty is something that emerges as central to protect. So no, no religious schools. Besides, "no law regarding the establishment of a religion" is far too generous. This basically says that no religion should be legally endorsed; for example by being granted more rights than others. But it doesn't stop any politician from promoting political goals solely on the basis of religion (because my understanding is that it forbids making laws regarding religion, but it's fine to make laws based on religion, right?), which I find is a problem. And don't try to evade the discussion on taxes

That is true. And it works as long as the economy grows and can sustain the new money. So there's theoretically an infinite amount of it but if it becomes too much we have the problem of a super inflation

@Guard Dog Exactly, the US is a consumer driven economy, which is why it is so central that there is a good amount of wealth redistribution. You are not stupid. You know that capital, wealth, has a tendency to centralise in very few hands if the returns on capital are larger than the economic growth (r>g), because in this case, simply being rich will get you more money than actually working. If this happens, the common man will slowly but surely become too poor to buy the products. But it is necessary that the products are bought to keep the economy running, so vast amounts of loans are handed out. Now, we saw where that brought the American economy. On the contrary, you can stop the r>g trend through taxation. This is what happened in the 50s, when income taxes where, as mentioned, up to 91% high. If my thesis is correct, this large wealth redistribution should enrich the common man and thereby ensure larger consumption and eventually result in larger economic growth. Take a look at the following chart http://www.pdwb.de/nd23.htm Granted, it's German but I think you'll understand. It's the US' gross domestic product. The important number here is the annual growth, all the way to the right. As you can clearly see, the 40s and 50s, are amongst the best decades, give or take one or two years. Now, you might explain the rapid growth and falls in the 40s with the war efforts, which is fair, but can't explain the 50s. And after the 50s, taxes fell, and economic stagnation began. You never again reached the growth levels of the 50s, and I believe "I" explained why.

I agree

The share thing is to ensure that the new business order remains established. If you have a better idea on how to do that, tell me. Nobel Prize winner Krugman advocates for a max. 91% income tax, modelled after the US in the 50s, where this was the case. And even with that, there were still millionaires, billionaires, and the economy was flourishing. Your doomsday predictions don't seem to hold up to actual fact. Furthermore, a 70-75% max. Income tax isn't socialist expropriation, but rather a truly progressive tax system. Take Germany. We have a top income tax bracket if 42% percent and nothing on wealth. However, if we take into account all of the taxes that exist, so total tax burden on income, rich folks pay 43% and poor 48%. Progressive, yes, but in the wrong way. Again, even with 91%, there were still extremely rich people. "Our tax burden today" is that of the US? If even third world countries like Cuba can pull of free education, it is borderline embarrassing that you claim not to be able to. Banning religious symbols FROM PUBLIC SPACES. The state should not have anything to do with religion, at all. Religious dictatorships are arguably (amongst) the worst that exist(ed), under no circumstances can and should religion be allowed to influence government.Furthermore, with all your talk about freedom, would you consider a child going to a religious school to be genuinely free in its choice of belief? A third time: even with a 91% income tax, there were still millionaires. And yes of course; tax evasion is the criminal offence and will be persecuted. But was this ever any different? This is merely pure straw man-attacking. These were dictatorships that lacked any form of democracy and checks and balances, and you know that just as well as I do. To quote Bakunin:"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

Are you asking me? If so go back and read my last 5 or so posts. I'm not here defending capitalism as the end all be all way of doing business. At best it's just better than the alternatives.is it really efficient enough to justify the suffering it causes? We're speaking globally, anything else wouldn't make sense... When you have a better idea I'm willing to listen. But if that idea concentrates absolute political power in the hands of the few then it's a non-starter with me. note: I ordered them cause they became too much Economics: for the start, a few reforms... making employees the necessarily primary shareholders of their respective companies (which means for example entrepreneurs can still profit of their ideas, vastly), the abolition of today's hierarchical company governance in favour of non-hierarchical structures, of course such basics as free good healthcare and free quality education for everyone. Free water, electricity and internet, including public wifi. A highly progressive tax system going up to somewhere around the 70% for income and the 5% on wealth (which is laughable in comparison to the 91% income taxes the US used to have, and it didn't hurt your economy either). Progressive taxes for companies, of course. The development of a fair tax system for inheritance. Mid term, a 35 hour week with two free days. More long term: Focus on eco-friendly technology, especially in the energy sector. A great focus on automation, so that more and more "dislikable" jobs will be done by machines. An universal basic income for everyone. Socially: radical social egalitarianism. I'd like to see Unis opening up more, with public lectures every weekend; somewhat similar to what churches do. I'm impressed by religions ability to gather people and talk about how we should live, we should be able to copy that. Furthermore, especially school education needs to be focused more on the usage and application of knowledge; right now, our testing systems propagate sheer learning and then forgetting. Furthermore, more cross-subject classes. Students also need vastly more knowledge in the IT sector. Talking about it, much less government involvement in online posts would be nice. Also, much less focus on religion, for example through a ban of all religious symbols including wearable items and clothes from public institutions including parliament, courts, schools and hospitals. Politics: much more transparency at every level. Much more political empowerment for the single communes (kinda how we're empowering employees), while also striving for more economic equality between said communes, so that their political empowerment benefits all of them. For every state and federal level politician, a duty to lay open their entire financials for the time in office. I think there's more, just what came to mind right now.