Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[213374U]

It's not that the markets are out of control. And there are things the government can to to modify activity. Taxation for example. Increase tax on an activity, capital gains for example, and you get less of that activity, investing for example. Decrease taxes and you get more of that activity. If you want to encourage borrowing, decrease the interest rate. Do the opposite to discourage. But at the end of the day the economy is millions of investors, producers, consumers, buyers, sellers, and speculators doing what is in their own interests and beholden to nothing else. It can't be controlled. Nor should it be.

 

The problem rises when trying to take control without taking over. Then it's neither free nor regulated. Neither wolf nor dog. That isn't good. I've said a hundred times pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the best option. There must be some ground rules but they must be few, universally and evenhanded enforced. That economy will grow, then contract, grow then contract. It will always correct it's excesses and return to the mean. It's a beautiful system because is follows human behavior. It won't make everyone rich. There will be winners and losers. Just like in life. But over all there will be a much higher level of prosperity and opportunity for anyone to improve their lot.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Much like with the whole "invisible hand" gimmick, I'm not really sold on this romantic vision that "winners and losers" is a state of affairs that is desirable, if being a loser means lacking basic means to sustain yourself through no fault of your own. This isn't a game, and in this context, the increasing amount of "losers" tend to turn to crime which threatens the stability of society as a whole. A system that will not make everyone rich but will indeed make most poor is, I'm sorry, a very bad system.

 

And I see no reason why a system created by humans to serve humans "should not be controlled". That's very much what laissez-faire is, at its core.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?

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

The 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

Change 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.

 

[Gfted1]

Man, you pinko's sure are cranky.

[Guard Dog]

 

It's not that the markets are out of control. And there are things the government can to to modify activity. Taxation for example. Increase tax on an activity, capital gains for example, and you get less of that activity, investing for example. Decrease taxes and you get more of that activity. If you want to encourage borrowing, decrease the interest rate. Do the opposite to discourage. But at the end of the day the economy is millions of investors, producers, consumers, buyers, sellers, and speculators doing what is in their own interests and beholden to nothing else. It can't be controlled. Nor should it be.

 

The problem rises when trying to take control without taking over. Then it's neither free nor regulated. Neither wolf nor dog. That isn't good. I've said a hundred times pure laissez-faire capitalism is not the best option. There must be some ground rules but they must be few, universally and evenhanded enforced. That economy will grow, then contract, grow then contract. It will always correct it's excesses and return to the mean. It's a beautiful system because is follows human behavior. It won't make everyone rich. There will be winners and losers. Just like in life. But over all there will be a much higher level of prosperity and opportunity for anyone to improve their lot.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Much like with the whole "invisible hand" gimmick, I'm not really sold on this romantic vision that "winners and losers" is a state of affairs that is desirable, if being a loser means lacking basic means to sustain yourself through no fault of your own. This isn't a game, and in this context, the increasing amount of "losers" tend to turn to crime which threatens the stability of society as a whole. A system that will not make everyone rich but will indeed make most poor is, I'm sorry, a very bad system.

 

And I see no reason why a system created by humans to serve humans "should not be controlled". That's very much what laissez-faire is, at its core.

 

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The US isn't the entire world and there's a difference between starving and half the country living in poverty when you don't count for government programs.

 

Man, you pinko's sure are cranky.

Comes with the territory.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The economy goes up, the economy goes down because it is largely beyond the control of those whose hands are on the levers of power.

Huh?

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

The 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

Change 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.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Ben No.3

[213374U]

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 

Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.

 

I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?

 

A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

Edited July 17, 2017 by 213374U

[smjjames]

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 

Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.

 

I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?

 

A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

 

 

 

GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek.

[Guard Dog]

At the risk or repeating someting I wrote a few pages back: Being poor is not a choice. Staying poor might not even be a choice. Staying poor by failing to take advantage ot the programs, opportunites, and charities that exist to help people in that situation IS a choice. 

 

But if you want to discuss the need for a Universal Basic Income at some point, one that REPLACES all other social benefits we are way overpaying for poor returns on, I'm open to that.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 

Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.

 

I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?

 

A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

 

 

 

GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek.

 

 

It does not always come over well on text forums.

[Ben No.3]

Guard dog, wanna talk about taxes?

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/93085-politics-episode-8-wwf-edition/page-15

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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.

It isn't, the levers of power will continued to be pushed regardless of individual happiness or even who the individuals are. Your assumption that the ruling class needs to be all powerful to be considered rulers is strange. In feudalism a king did not stop being part of the ruling class because he couldn't dissolve feudalism as a system, he still is king and is more than able to shape his domain as he sees fit. Under capitalism we see a similar thing on smaller scales, the individual bourgeois can't dissolve the system out of sheer will, but they are still the ones pushing the levers by controlling production and distribution and politics.

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?

The fact that the lives of everyone, including the ruling class, are shaped by material conditions does not mean that the ruling class is a myth.

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?

The bourgeois aren't a cackling coven of witches or some other force of evil, they are simply people acting in their material interests, interests that are antithetical to the interests of the proletariat. Thus any action that merely aims to eliminate current bourgeoisie is not enough and placing blame on the bourgeoisie as individual actors is misplaced.

[Ben No.3]

"The fact that the lives of everyone, including the ruling class, are shaped by material conditions does not mean that the ruling class is a myth."

 

This is what our dispute comes down to; wether the ruling class rules or reacts. You say people, I say system. I think we're just gonna go in circles, really.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/93085-politics-episode-8-wwf-edition/page-15

 

Guard dog, how about we discuss taxes?

[Hurlshort]

It seems odd that we are talking about homelessness and no one has brought up the massive part that substance abuse plays. 

[ShadySands]

and mental illness

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"The fact that the lives of everyone, including the ruling class, are shaped by material conditions does not mean that the ruling class is a myth."

 

This is what our dispute comes down to; wether the ruling class rules or reacts. You say people, I say system. I think we're just gonna go in circles, really.

No, you are claiming that the ruling class does not actually rule, I am claiming that they do in fact rule. Ruling does not require absolute power.

[BruceVC]

At the risk or repeating someting I wrote a few pages back: Being poor is not a choice. Staying poor might not even be a choice. Staying poor by failing to take advantage ot the programs, opportunites, and charities that exist to help people in that situation IS a choice. 

 

But if you want to discuss the need for a Universal Basic Income at some point, one that REPLACES all other social benefits we are way overpaying for poor returns on, I'm open to that.

I know for a fact that there are people in South Africa who chose to live on the street as it gets them a decent income from begging

 

2133 is making the classic " SJ assumption 101 " , he means well but he lives in a first world country and thinks there is no such thing as beggars who want to live on the street and staying poor 

[injurai]

Another big part of homelessness if not leaving your community. A lot of people might live in an expensive city but can't afford it. But never choose to move away for cost of living. Then they get evicted and their vices take over.

[Orogun01]

Another big part of homelessness if not leaving your community. A lot of people might live in an expensive city but can't afford it. But never choose to move away for cost of living. Then they get evicted and their vices take over.

Seems like that ties to the mental health issue.

 

I met homeless and they seem to be fine with being homeless; the ones that are not crazy at least, it seems that is only society that has issue with people not wanting to be productive.

[Gorgon]

I see a couple of regulars on my train ride to work, begging.  Money in it if you're good at it, have a friendly dog for a prop. all tax free and more than they would make holding down a job.

And yet any one of these guys could get a place to live and money for food if they wanted to. Have a little pride, it doesn't come back if you let it go like that. 

 

Then I see one of the recent immigrants who are likely here illegally, those guys do it because otherwise they they starve. That's something else entirely. 

[BruceVC]

It seems odd that we are talking about homelessness and no one has brought up the massive part that substance abuse plays. 

 

Im sure you remember my personal experience with my niece and drug addiction, I have  learnt and believe the best way to help people who are addicts is to follow a strict and uncompromising  approach

 

You dont cut them off like her family did but rather keep an open door but only if they are prepared to go to rehab. So you absolutely support them around getting to rehab and helping them on that initiative only

 

The addict must want to take that first step to getting clean, if they aren't prepared to do that you have to keep your distance

 

Under no circumstances must you support them if they aren't in rehab or prepared to go. So if they chose to live on the street and do drugs that has to be there reality 

 

 

I see a couple of regulars on my train ride to work, begging.  Money in it if you're good at it, have a friendly dog for a prop. all tax free and more than they would make holding down a job.

And yet any one of these guys could get a place to live and money for food if they wanted to. Have a little pride, it doesn't come back if you let it go like that. 

 

Then I see one of the recent immigrants who are likely here illegally, those guys do it because otherwise they they starve. That's something else entirely. 

Yes this is  also a good overall point, this is very common is SA

 

There are real examples of homeless people who need to beg to survive. Poverty is there only outcome and its about survival 

 

For other people being homeless is something they could change through concerted effort 

[Raithe]

"RIP Republican Health Care Bill. In lieu of flowers, please send new representatives to Congress in 2018."

[Raithe]

[redneckdevil]

I've been wondered why in a capitalist country we are in, why don't we let that work for our health insurance and medical bills?

In what way could we make medicine and hospital treatments and stuff cheaper since no one can afford it?

Like how they jacked up the prices for insulan from less than 10 bucks a pop to hundreds of dollars simply because they can, so would a better option be instead of insurance, instead make it the same amount of payments instead directly to the hospital with the same not as bad to your credit penalties we already have? Meaning drug companies aren't getting paid the full cost they are asking at a jacked up rate and forces them to get lower amount because health Care is still forced on the hospitals to give.

Right now I feel like anything the govt is gonna do for the health Care is gonna blow up since most are much more knowledgeable about law but not as big a focus on economics.

Sorry early morning ramblings