NationStates

Donut section wrote:

Aillyria wrote:I hate this notion that there's some sort of spectrum or sliding scale of socialism. It doesn't work like that, a systrm is either socialist or not, there's no middle ground.


Don't dodge the topic, prove market economics and socialism are incompatible.

Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. This requires government control which is the opposite of market economics.

How? Explain. Even if social ownership was synonymous with government ownership (hint: it isn't), how would that prevent the implementation of a functional market? Socialism doesn't hinge on central planning at all.

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

Minimum wage should not exist

Donut section wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

Minimum wage should not exist

Agreed

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

I think it should be a livable wage.
I think it should currently be set to $15 an hour.

Donut section wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

Minimum wage should not exist

Agreed, it is a hinderance to the economy.

Deian salazar wrote:*No one pays attention to the Rhine Capitalist System.*
*Cries*

Ain't a social market economy practically is what already exists in much of Europe?

Donut section wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

Minimum wage should not exist

Because strong unions will be put in place that ultimately make it irrelevant?

Taihei Tengoku wrote:Zimbabwe has redistributed the means of production to its workers.

I'm not expert on Zimbabwe, but I'm fairly certain Zimbabwe never socialized the means of production. Rhetoric=/=reality. In fact, during the 90s Zimbabwe adopted a program of deregulation and liberalization entitled the Economic Structural Adjustment Program. Far from socialism, Zimbabwe has embraced aspects of a liberal approach to economics.

Aillyria wrote:

Donut section wrote:
Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. This requires government control which is the opposite of market economics.

How? Explain. Even if social ownership was synonymous with government ownership (hint: it isn't), how would that prevent the implementation of a functional market? Socialism doesn't hinge on central planning at all.

Because people will start openly trading with each other.

Socialist ownership is synonymous with government ownership in a democracy. It's why government run industry is the red headed step child. It's ugly inefficient and taking up a more deserving persons space.

Galloism wrote:

Donut section wrote:
Minimum wage should not exist

Because strong unions will be put in place that ultimately make it irrelevant?

Because some people's labor isn't worth that much.

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

Pragmatically, this:

Valgora wrote:I think it should be a livable wage.
I think it should currently be set to $15 an hour.

Ideally, this:

Galloism wrote:Because strong unions will be put in place that ultimately make it irrelevant?

Donut section wrote:

Galloism wrote:Because strong unions will be put in place that ultimately make it irrelevant?

Because some people's labor isn't worth that much.

Well, ultimately, unless we're willing to have people starving to death in the streets you'll have to step over later, that means you'll be paying for them through taxes so as to not die in the streets (or pay someone to remove the bodies when they do).

Which means you're subsidizing businesses that pay low wages through your taxes.

Valgora wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Since this is on-topic in regards to the thread, a question that I asked in the LDT a while back:

Minimum Wage: What should it be, if one at all??

I think it should be a livable wage.
I think it should currently be set to $15 an hour.

Why though? If an employer sets their wages to say, $4 an hour, and the employee agrees to the contract, why should the government step in to stop this?

Galloism wrote:

Donut section wrote:
Because some people's labor isn't worth that much.

Well, ultimately, unless we're willing to have people starving to death in the streets you'll have to step over later, that means you'll be paying for them through taxes so as to not die in the streets (or pay someone to remove the bodies when they do).

Which means you're subsidizing businesses that pay low wages through your taxes.

I've been homeless I never once starved nor met anyone who did.

The Portland Territory wrote:

Valgora wrote:
I think it should be a livable wage.
I think it should currently be set to $15 an hour.

Why though? If an employer sets their wages to say, $4 an hour, and the employee agrees to the contract, why should the government step in to stop this?

Because wage-fixing is a thing.

We also need to do something about that in the broader scale.

Donut section wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, ultimately, unless we're willing to have people starving to death in the streets you'll have to step over later, that means you'll be paying for them through taxes so as to not die in the streets (or pay someone to remove the bodies when they do).

Which means you're subsidizing businesses that pay low wages through your taxes.

I've been homeless I never once starved nor met anyone who did.

And where did you get your food?

Galloism wrote:

Donut section wrote:
I've been homeless I never once starved nor met anyone who did.

And where did you get your food?

We asked for money at a bus stop. We got enough in an hour for food and drugs. On weekends we would often get enough for fast food meals.

Galloism wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Why though? If an employer sets their wages to say, $4 an hour, and the employee agrees to the contract, why should the government step in to stop this?

Because wage-fixing is a thing.

We also need to do something about that in the broader scale.

If you think that ALL companies in the, say, steel industry will fix wages at $3 an hour, then that's wrong. There will always be companies trying to snatch the best of employees by raising their wages, therefore getting higher quality goods, forcing their competition to follow suit

Donut section wrote:

Aillyria wrote:How? Explain. Even if social ownership was synonymous with government ownership (hint: it isn't), how would that prevent the implementation of a functional market? Socialism doesn't hinge on central planning at all.

Because people will start openly trading with each other.

Socialist ownership is synonymous with government ownership in a democracy. It's why government run industry is the red headed step child. It's ugly inefficient and taking up a more deserving persons space.

If "Socialist ownership" is really, it wouldn't be just one thing, because there are different types of Socialism depending on who owns the means of production (and many other factors). Under State Socialism/State Capitalism, the government owns the means of production, in other forms of Socialism the workers are the ones who owns the means of production.

The way I feel about both capitalism and communism is that when taken to their fullest extremes, both are an absolute cancer to a society providing nothing but a materialistic, hollow populace endlessly chasing after products. That being said, capitalism is the most effective system in providing economic prosperity for a population, but still ought to be heavily regulated in terms of big business.

My views could be summarized as:
An economy ought to prosper as much as it can, but corporation should not be allowed to benefit itself at the expense of the people. To that extent, protective policies towards domestic industry should be encouraged, with corporations kept on a short leash in terms of consumer protection.
Considering the fact that private utility companies, ISPs included, are rightfully a natural monopoly, and no wishing about the free market and competition will be able to change that, regulations ought to be imposed on these companies in terms of the quality provided and prices charged. If not that, then they ought to just be nationalized.
Mega-corporations, on the fact they own increasingly larger and larger market shares of their industries to the point that many industries could be considered oligopolies, ought to be broken up.
I think 'Abolish central banking; GOLD STANDARD BABY' is an absolute terrible meme that needs to die. The Fed, considering its nothing more than a conglomeration of private international banks acting in the interest of private international banks, ought to be abolished and replaced something like the BUS 3.0.
Private sector unions ought to be encouraged, but public sector unions are a self-feeding monstrosity.
Taxes ought to be arranged in so that the middle and lower class pay substantially less in taxes, as it provides both social mobility and they are also the driving force of an economy, also considering how the rich already provide the most tax income anyway

Valgora wrote:

Donut section wrote:

Because people will start openly trading with each other.

Socialist ownership is synonymous with government ownership in a democracy. It's why government run industry is the red headed step child. It's ugly inefficient and taking up a more deserving persons space.

If "Socialist ownership" is really, it wouldn't be just one thing, because there are different types of Socialism depending on who owns the means of production (and many other factors). Under State Socialism/State Capitalism, the government owns the means of production, in other forms of Socialism the workers are the ones who owns the means of production.

All of which need government to stop individual ownership because it massively out competes socialist ownership.

Donut section wrote:

Galloism wrote:And where did you get your food?

We asked for money at a bus stop. We got enough in an hour for food and drugs. On weekends we would often get enough for fast food meals.

Wow, you live in a generous place.

Utah's state legislature found that it was spending about 30 grand a year per person dealing with the homeless, between costs of temporary shelter during nights when people WILL freeze to death, to subsidizing soup kitchens and things of that nature, to costs of prosecution for trespassing, to emergency care for frostbite and other severe issues resulting from exposure to the elements, etc.

Then again, Utah is a northern state. You're not likely to die from exposure in San Diego.

The Portland Territory wrote:

Galloism wrote:Because wage-fixing is a thing.

We also need to do something about that in the broader scale.

If you think that ALL companies in the, say, steel industry will fix wages at $3 an hour, then that's wrong. There will always be companies trying to snatch the best of employees by raising their wages, therefore getting higher quality goods, forcing their competition to follow suit

Sure they will wage fix. Industries already wage fix things now, even though it's against the law.

Don't tell me companies won't do what companies are already doing even though it's illegal.

Collatis wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:If you only look at unionization.

By measures of actual socialism (state share of GDP, ease of doing business, actual state policy) Nordics are capitalists.

Actual socialism has to do with economic democracy, not "ease of doing business". You seem to be defining socialism as things you don't like. I have clearly demonstrated that the Nordic countries are closer to socialism than most countries. That does not, however, mean that they aren't capitalist, as I have previously stated.

I thought socialism was based upon proletariat ownership of the means of production.

Galloism wrote:

Donut section wrote:
We asked for money at a bus stop. We got enough in an hour for food and drugs. On weekends we would often get enough for fast food meals.

Wow, you live in a generous place.

Utah's state legislature found that it was spending about 30 grand a year per person dealing with the homeless, between costs of temporary shelter during nights when people WILL freeze to death, to subsidizing soup kitchens and things of that nature, to costs of prosecution for trespassing, to emergency care for frostbite and other severe issues resulting from exposure to the elements, etc.

Then again, Utah is a northern state. You're not likely to die from exposure in San Diego.

Funnily enough at night we stayed in a inner city commercial district because we got caught squatting there by a security guard. We made a deal to keep theives and graffiti away at night so he could do weed deliveries in his work vehicle. And we got somewhere warm to live.

He kept getting praise for how effective his patrols were. Funniest shit out.

I should add Pizza Hut knew to deliver to the back of the building.