Socialism, is it really any good?

[PLAYER57832]

, Player yells to live in the real world,

Yelled?

Well anyway. Truthfully, I generally enjoy reading (not agreeing with) your posts. You do put thought into them. I don't agree, in general, but diverse opinions make for a good discussion. That said...

My basic problem with a lot of what you have said about capitalism and the free market is that it really doesn't apply today.

Most executives right now answer primarily to stock holders. The "product" being sold is not really the widgets a factory makes (or service it provides), it is the stock and the profits the stock can make. Sometimes, the two merge. Company A tries to make a better widget more efficiently than Company B. With some broad limitations (no monopolies, safe working conditions, controll of pollution, etc.) that works.

BUT, when the "product" is the stock ... profit from widgets often doesn't matter much at all. Many decent, profit making companies in the US have been closed because they were not making stockholders enough money. Not because they were unprofitable, not because the product was not being sold... it just was not "efficient". When that decision is made in an economic downturn, and NOT because of a historic track record of failures ... it hurts everyone involved.

Granted, not everyone dealing in stocks think this way ... at least not intentionally. But, many people don't even really know what stocks they "own". They are part of huge mutual funds. When they do, they do not have direct purchasing power. Those who have that power, with a few exceptions (certain so-called "morality" funds, for example) are "hired and fired" based upon results, that is stock profits. Nay, in many cases it isn't even that ... in many cases the traders trade simply because that's when they get their money. No trades, no (or less) income.

Talk about securities, and it gets even more complicated. They are sold and sold... as we saw in the mortgage crisis.

Bottom line: the biggest money being made is so far removed from "widgets", it is no wonder that things are starting to collapse.

The other issue I think I addressed earlier.

People who shop in Walmart may well think about the fact that the only reason they are getting those shoes cheaply is because the company relocated from Pennsylvania to China. BUT, they often don't consider that if Walmart "cannot" pay its employees enough to live on, those employees will be getting food stamps, childcare assistance, and free health care ... all at taxpayer expense. So, we are really robbing the average taxpayer to support the high stock prices and (in the case of Walmart at least) very high incomes of the executives.

If Joe smoe running the local video store, pays his help minimum wage, and brings in maybe $50,000 himself. That is one thing. He really and truly CANNOT afford to pay more, is open mostly in "after hours" and primarily hires teenagers who already have insurance and such from their parents. Its a good thing. BUT when a company the size of Walmart ... or Lowe's .. or any other large company claims the same "inability to pay" employees a living wage.... while bringing in HUGE profits. THAT is nothing more than a back-handed taxpayer subsidy.


IN both cases, at some point government intervention is needed.


Did Rockafeller complain when anti-trust laws were passed? You betcha! Did it hurt him? Yes, but did business as a whole collapse or did it flourish?

Did factory owners across the nation complain when worker safety standards were implemented ... absolutely (and sometimes they still do!)? Did business fail? Some, yes, but that is natural attrition. In general, those rules brought in a decade of the highest standard of living we have ever seen (yes, a little thing called WWII certainly had something to do with it also).

Did employers complain when the minimum wage was instituted. Yes! And, they found, much to their surprise, that folks actually used those wages to BUY things.

Government is a pull and take. People push, until it gets out of hand, then it is government's role to step in. The mortgage crisis is just one symptom of a broken system right now.

If you wish to call this "socialism" ... okay.

Finally, one note of "trivia". FDR instituted social security and welfare. The one folks objected to most? Social security. It was "socialism". Welfare, on the other hand, helped single women with kids and the disabled who could not help themselves. Now, its the opposite. Just a point of interest.

[Snorri1234]

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

Difficult issue actually.

I think a state serves the function of doing what is right for the people as a whole. So in that regard it derives it legitimacy from people willing to give them that power.
However, this is ofcourse very optimistic as through several tactics a government can trick people in giving them more power than they actually would when thinking clearly about it. I think that that is the main problem with big nations, as they require a non-direct democracy and are therefore flawed as they gain more and more power like any other government in the history of mankind.

Government cannot exercise authority from the consent of the governed, the mere existance of anarchists dispells this notion.

Thanks for playing, try again...

Well then what do you think it is states derive their legitimacy from?

(Also, just because there are anarchists doesn't invalidate it. There are also islamic fundies who think the government should be replaced by one that follows sharia-law by force, but that doesn't mean the consent of the governed is immediately invalidated.)

[Frigidus]

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

Difficult issue actually.

I think a state serves the function of doing what is right for the people as a whole. So in that regard it derives it legitimacy from people willing to give them that power.
However, this is ofcourse very optimistic as through several tactics a government can trick people in giving them more power than they actually would when thinking clearly about it. I think that that is the main problem with big nations, as they require a non-direct democracy and are therefore flawed as they gain more and more power like any other government in the history of mankind.

Government cannot exercise authority from the consent of the governed, the mere existance of anarchists dispells this notion.

Thanks for playing, try again...

Well then what do you think it is states derive their legitimacy from?

(Also, just because there are anarchists doesn't invalidate it. There are also islamic fundies who think the government should be replaced by one that follows sharia-law by force, but that doesn't mean the consent of the governed is immediately invalidated.)

The consent of the majority of the governed would be my guess.

[Napoleon Ier]

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

Difficult issue actually.

I think a state serves the function of doing what is right for the people as a whole. So in that regard it derives it legitimacy from people willing to give them that power.
However, this is ofcourse very optimistic as through several tactics a government can trick people in giving them more power than they actually would when thinking clearly about it. I think that that is the main problem with big nations, as they require a non-direct democracy and are therefore flawed as they gain more and more power like any other government in the history of mankind.

Government cannot exercise authority from the consent of the governed, the mere existance of anarchists dispells this notion.

Thanks for playing, try again...

Well then what do you think it is states derive their legitimacy from?

(Also, just because there are anarchists doesn't invalidate it. There are also islamic fundies who think the government should be replaced by one that follows sharia-law by force, but that doesn't mean the consent of the governed is immediately invalidated.)

Yes...that's the point there, snorri. Government certainly doesn't have their consent; so how can it legitimately claim to exert authority over them?

[Snorri1234]

Yes...that's the point there, snorri. Government certainly doesn't have their consent; so how can it legitimately claim to exert authority over them?

Well if that is your question, why not resort to anarchism?

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes...that's the point there, snorri. Government certainly doesn't have their consent; so how can it legitimately claim to exert authority over them?

Well if that is your question, why not resort to anarchism?

So I've converted you to anarchism, or do you have another justification for government?

[Snorri1234]

Yes...that's the point there, snorri. Government certainly doesn't have their consent; so how can it legitimately claim to exert authority over them?

Well if that is your question, why not resort to anarchism?

So I've converted you to anarchism, or do you have another justification for government?

Not actually converted, I just want to see what you think about it.

[Jenos Ridan]

We can't hear your bullshit anymore, Snorri. It's off the charts.



Your gig at pretending to be the Dutch Doogie Howser is over. You sit on the internet all day instead of engaging people in real life. If you were as serious about helping people through the medical profession you wouldn't be on Conquer Club all the time. Jenos is right and you're just being an ass and trying to inflate your ego. But go ahead and continue posting shit about stuff you know almost nothing about.

Another disatisfied poster, fed up with a certain moron's windbaggery.

I love how he makes the blind assumption that I've never been to college. How in hell does he think I could have ever paid for it? Federal Aid? Parents make too much money. Mommy and Daddy paid for it? Sorry, they're not that rich and were not that good with money when they were younger. So did what, oh that's right, I GOT A JOB AND EARNED MY FUNDS THE HARD WAY!

Snorri should now stop, for the sake of what little remains of his tattered credibility.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes...that's the point there, snorri. Government certainly doesn't have their consent; so how can it legitimately claim to exert authority over them?

Well if that is your question, why not resort to anarchism?

So I've converted you to anarchism, or do you have another justification for government?

Not actually converted, I just want to see what you think about it.

Ah...ah ah ah. I'm not doing the donkey work for you here snorri, you need to come up with your own justification for the role of the state. Then we can discuss more clearly what it's implications are and whether the welfare state is an ethically justifiable entity. Try not to think about it with the pre-determined outcome of justifying the welfare-state, it ruins the exercise, it really does. In fact, it's this very exercise that made a libertarian of me. Approach it with an open mind, eh?

[Juan_Bottom]

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

Difficult issue actually.

I think a state serves the function of doing what is right for the people as a whole. So in that regard it derives it legitimacy from people willing to give them that power.
However, this is ofcourse very optimistic as through several tactics a government can trick people in giving them more power than they actually would when thinking clearly about it. I think that that is the main problem with big nations, as they require a non-direct democracy and are therefore flawed as they gain more and more power like any other government in the history of mankind.

Government cannot exercise authority from the consent of the governed, the mere existance of anarchists dispells this notion.

Thanks for playing, try again...

I don't get this either Napoleon, if the Anarchists aren't doing anything about the government, then that is silent consent isn't it?

[Napoleon Ier]

Well now, we get into the subject of the very beginning of Plato's Republic here.

If the Anarchists aren't doing anything, it's that they're afraid of government reprisal (if they knew they could overthrow the State without any bloodshed, we can assume they would). In which case, the State in question, to be legitimized, would derive it's legitimacy not from the consent of the governed so much as through reluctant compliance of a coerced populace.

It's a bit like me putting a gun to your head and telling you to do things: then saying I'm justified, because you're not doing anything about it (knowing full well I'd shoot if you did).

[Juan_Bottom]

Well now, we get into the subject of the very beginning of Plato's Republic here.

If the Anarchists aren't doing anything, it's that they're afraid of government reprisal (if they knew they could overthrow the State without any bloodshed, we can assume they would). In which case, the State in question, to be legitimized, would derive it's legitimacy not from the consent of the governed so much as through reluctant compliance of a coerced populace.

It's a bit like me putting a gun to your head and telling you to do things: then saying I'm justified, because you're not doing anything about it (knowing full well I'd shoot if you did).

Fair enough, I just wanted a little clarity.

[CoffeeCream]

I think jones was talking more about the "less-government!"-gut reaction some people have. Basically, Jenos's statement is meaningless as it doesn't tell us what the government should be doing. He doesn't exclude health-care run by the gov in that post for example, as you can easily argue it's for the protection of people.

Well then why can't you just let him speak for himself, Snorri? I'm trying to restrain myself because I don't want to come off as hostile towards you but you are totally twisting what is being talked about. Are you doing this intentionally to try to be cute? There was absolutely no talk about health care. Who are you to say that someone's statement is meaningless?

I rarely get angered but I'm starting to see what people are talking about when it comes to elitist attitudes around here.

[bradleybadly]

@ player: nice post - obviously I don't agree with how you portray executives & stockholders but I'm guessing part of that is due to your own past experiences and resentment to the way you were treated. I didn't quote all that since it was such a long post. I would venture to say that real concrete numbers of real-life instead of hypotheticals would produce a more accurate picture, but I do understand what you're saying. Thanks for taking the time to write all that.

I guess my main problem with the left wing is generally that they form their arguments to make companies, corporations, and stock holders all look evil. I think most of this is based on jealousy of those who have more money. Instead of trying to imitate success and prosperity there is an effort to portray those people as villains. I hear people at work say "why is there such a huge gap between the rich and poor". Well, I've never heard of a law that said everyone must be economically equal. So that's where I'm coming from.

[got tonkaed]

@ player: nice post - obviously I don't agree with how you portray executives & stockholders but I'm guessing part of that is due to your own past experiences and resentment to the way you were treated. I didn't quote all that since it was such a long post. I would venture to say that real concrete numbers of real-life instead of hypotheticals would produce a more accurate picture, but I do understand what you're saying. Thanks for taking the time to write all that.

I guess my main problem with the left wing is generally that they form their arguments to make companies, corporations, and stock holders all look evil. I think most of this is based on jealousy of those who have more money. Instead of trying to imitate success and prosperity there is an effort to portray those people as villains. I hear people at work say "why is there such a huge gap between the rich and poor". Well, I've never heard of a law that said everyone must be economically equal. So that's where I'm coming from.

I believe when people on the left demonize corporations it is because they feel individuals acting on the interests of the company are attempting to play both sides in a way that isnt really possible for the outsider. In a lot of ways corporations have attempted to take some of the enlightenment types of ideals about what rights could and should be expected to be provided to people and obtain such rights themselves. On the one hand you might say well theres nothing wrong with that, after all the ideals are ideals because we believe them to be the best of what we have come up with as far as rules for decency. However part of getting those rights is often an expectation that individuals will fulfill their end of the social contract, which is something that corporations perhaps rarely if ever do - if for the simple reason that a business does not reason in the same way as a person might. Though we may use a form of cost/benefit rationality, it most likely isnt as purely driven by the profit motive. So what you have as a result in many cases, is a company that expects and is often conferred the rights of personage by governments and yet at the same time is not expected to pay very much if any concern towards individuals who may very directly depend on them. People make the leap to demonizing these groups because they act in a way that you would not expect a person, no matter their ideological affiliation to act towards other people.

[Jenos Ridan]

OH, BTW Snorri, shut up. Just cease wasting your time pumping up your over-inflated sense of self-importance: you're not impressing anybody with your arrogance

Man, that's some pretty heavy irony there.

Since you have no interest in succeeding in your alledged course of study, I cannot image that your actual practice, assuming you are not lying to us all, would fair any bit better.

Now obviously you have no fucking idea why I don't study or pass tests, but even then you come off as a pompous twat whenever you talk like that. Even when it'd be true I have no interrest in succeeding (actually I do, I'll just take my time), judging the entire medical education in a country you have no experience with based on what some first-year collegeboy is saying is retarded at best. But then having no experience with something has never stopped you from acting like an arrogant douchebag and judging whatever thought pops up in your mind must be the absolute truth.

As things stand, if what you say is true, quit wasting your money and the professors time and go get a real job.

Ah, the old "get a real job"-response, usually made by people who have never been to college and somehow envy those who do.

But I think, from what you have shown us all, that you have too much pride to simply admit that you made some honest mistakes and that you can own up to it and pull through.

What kinds of drugs are you taking to assume I won't try harder next year or change to a different study? Why would you assume so much from 2 or 3 lines I bother to post?

We can't hear your bullshit anymore, Snorri. It's off the charts.



Your gig at pretending to be the Dutch Doogie Howser is over. You sit on the internet all day instead of engaging people in real life. If you were as serious about helping people through the medical profession you wouldn't be on Conquer Club all the time. Jenos is right and you're just being an ass and trying to inflate your ego. But go ahead and continue posting shit about stuff you know almost nothing about.

No responce. I do believe that he is evading us for a reason; we know the sort of slime he is.

[Juan_Bottom]

Slime??? There are three of you, and one of him. And it is hard to rebuttle, "shut up!"

[Napoleon Ier]

Most executives right now answer primarily to stock holders. The "product" being sold is not really the widgets a factory makes (or service it provides), it is the stock and the profits the stock can make. Sometimes, the two merge. Company A tries to make a better widget more efficiently than Company B. With some broad limitations (no monopolies, safe working conditions, controll of pollution, etc.) that works.

BUT, when the "product" is the stock ... profit from widgets often doesn't matter much at all. Many decent, profit making companies in the US have been closed because they were not making stockholders enough money. Not because they were unprofitable, not because the product was not being sold... it just was not "efficient". When that decision is made in an economic downturn, and NOT because of a historic track record of failures ... it hurts everyone involved.

Granted, not everyone dealing in stocks think this way ... at least not intentionally. But, many people don't even really know what stocks they "own". They are part of huge mutual funds. When they do, they do not have direct purchasing power. Those who have that power, with a few exceptions (certain so-called "morality" funds, for example) are "hired and fired" based upon results, that is stock profits. Nay, in many cases it isn't even that ... in many cases the traders trade simply because that's when they get their money. No trades, no (or less) income.

So, you're now suggesting we undermine the entire financial and monetary structure of the entire Western world?

People who shop in Walmart may well think about the fact that the only reason they are getting those shoes cheaply is because the company relocated from Pennsylvania to China. BUT, they often don't consider that if Walmart "cannot" pay its employees enough to live on, those employees will be getting food stamps, childcare assistance, and free health care ... all at taxpayer expense. So, we are really robbing the average taxpayer to support the high stock prices and (in the case of Walmart at least) very high incomes of the executives.

I really don't think you've understood how the economy works. Rational individuals always think at the margin, and by doing that, efficiency is optimized. The laws of the market dictate how much someone will get paid, and it will always be the lowest wage he/she is willing to work for. Companies, by their very definition, set out to profit stockhlders: that's what they do, that's how the system works. So households then get back some money in stocks they hold. What you're demanding is ludicrous and inpractical.

As for the Chinese people taking yer jerbs, don't they have a right to get those jobs if they're willing to work harder for less? Isn't it an employer's right to choose who he wants working for himand for what wage, if the employee agrees? Surely it's not compatible with your views on social justice to deny the little Chinese folk their jobs?

[bradleybadly]

I believe when people on the left demonize corporations it is because they feel individuals acting on the interests of the company are attempting to play both sides in a way that isnt really possible for the outsider. In a lot of ways corporations have attempted to take some of the enlightenment types of ideals about what rights could and should be expected to be provided to people and obtain such rights themselves. On the one hand you might say well theres nothing wrong with that, after all the ideals are ideals because we believe them to be the best of what we have come up with as far as rules for decency. However part of getting those rights is often an expectation that individuals will fulfill their end of the social contract, which is something that corporations perhaps rarely if ever do - if for the simple reason that a business does not reason in the same way as a person might. Though we may use a form of cost/benefit rationality, it most likely isnt as purely driven by the profit motive. So what you have as a result in many cases, is a company that expects and is often conferred the rights of personage by governments and yet at the same time is not expected to pay very much if any concern towards individuals who may very directly depend on them. People make the leap to demonizing these groups because they act in a way that you would not expect a person, no matter their ideological affiliation to act towards other people.

There's no way this will come off as not being sarcastic since I've done it in the past but I do have a serious question for you tonka. Do you talk like this normally when you're around other people?

[Neoteny]

I believe when people on the left demonize corporations it is because they feel individuals acting on the interests of the company are attempting to play both sides in a way that isnt really possible for the outsider. In a lot of ways corporations have attempted to take some of the enlightenment types of ideals about what rights could and should be expected to be provided to people and obtain such rights themselves. On the one hand you might say well theres nothing wrong with that, after all the ideals are ideals because we believe them to be the best of what we have come up with as far as rules for decency. However part of getting those rights is often an expectation that individuals will fulfill their end of the social contract, which is something that corporations perhaps rarely if ever do - if for the simple reason that a business does not reason in the same way as a person might. Though we may use a form of cost/benefit rationality, it most likely isnt as purely driven by the profit motive. So what you have as a result in many cases, is a company that expects and is often conferred the rights of personage by governments and yet at the same time is not expected to pay very much if any concern towards individuals who may very directly depend on them. People make the leap to demonizing these groups because they act in a way that you would not expect a person, no matter their ideological affiliation to act towards other people.

There's no way this will come off as not being sarcastic since I've done it in the past but I do have a serious question for you tonka. Do you talk like this normally when you're around other people?

Based on my experience, I'd say it might have a bit to do with who he's talking to. I enjoy speaking like that sometimes.

[got tonkaed]

bradley...it probably varies depending what im talking about or who im talking with. If i was discussing something that i considered intellectual in nature then my default probably isnt very different than that, as i think i talk fairly consistently with how i type. Now obviously once i get to know someone or i find I am having difficulty communicating, I try to adapt.

I suppose the post i responded to would be a good example. If you had asked my opinion about that in the real world or had expected me to comment, i probably would respond similarly, though maybe i would use anecdotal reasoning more.

[bradleybadly]

bradley...it probably varies depending what im talking about or who im talking with. If i was discussing something that i considered intellectual in nature then my default probably isnt very different than that, as i think i talk fairly consistently with how i type. Now obviously once i get to know someone or i find I am having difficulty communicating, I try to adapt.

I suppose the post i responded to would be a good example. If you had asked my opinion about that in the real world or had expected me to comment, i probably would respond similarly, though maybe i would use anecdotal reasoning more.

fair enough

[falcon]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

[Jenos Ridan]

Slime??? There are three of you, and one of him. And it is hard to rebuttle, "shut up!"

I did I miss a quote? I do only remember that it was me and silvanricky who dared to confront him on his stupidity. And all he could manage as a initial responce amounts to "yur wetarded" and has since refused to engage in further dicussion. As things stand, he could have simply acknowledged that he made an ass of himself and conceded but decided to be to proud, of what, I cannot fathom, to admit his mistake.

Therefore, Slime.

[Jenos Ridan]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

Simply put, but yes, that is the idea.