Economics Discussion Thread

[The Portland Territory]

It really isn't, though

It really is. It is in your best interest to purchase the thing you need at the lowest possible price you can get it and still maintain the quality of it, whether that thing is an iron rod, a truck full of silica, or someone's labor.

With wage fixing, you get the thing you need at a rock bottom price, and all it takes is a little cooperation. That's why you see cases of it over and over again, even though it's illegal.

That's not the reason why corporations wage-fix. They wage-fix so that there's no competition of workers, that no corporation steal another's employee.

[Liencia]

Or we can just explain to people how the more valuable you are to others the more you can demand to be paid. And give simple training on how to haggle for your pay.

Wage fixing. They can wait you out while you get starving, cold, and desperate. You can't wait them out because they're not starving, cold, and desperate.

Unions I'm don't like. Minimum wage is bad.

Why do you not like the free market?

Minimum wage promotes inflation...it is a form of artificial price control, which is inherently detrimental to market economics. Mind you, I'm a socialist saying this.

[Constantinopolis]

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.

I'm not an advocate of market socialism by any stretch of the imagination. However, point of order: Socialism doesn't technically need the government to stop individual ownership. Socialism only needs the government to not recognize individual ownership in law.

Without legal recognition - and therefore without legal protection of their property rights - individual owners would be limited to relatively small-scale black market activities, and would not be able to out-compete socialist ownership.

Or in other words: It's not necessary for a socialist government to physically stop you from privately owning a factory; it is sufficient for a socialist government to simply not provide any legal means by which you could be officially recognized as the owner of a factory. It is enough to make it legally impossible to open a business.

[Constantinopolis]

Having said that, I am a proud authoritarian socialist and I have absolutely no problem with the government using any force necessary to crush private ownership. Capitalists are scum and should be treated as such.

I only pointed out the things in my previous post for the benefit of my non-authoritarian comrades. You don't technically need to enforce socialism with an iron fist. But I prefer the iron fist.

[Donut section]

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

I'm not an advocate of market socialism by any stretch of the imagination. However, point of order: Socialism doesn't technically need the government to stop individual ownership. Socialism only needs the government to not recognize individual ownership in law.

Without legal recognition - and therefore without legal protection of their property rights - individual owners would be limited to relatively small-scale black market activities, and would not be able to out-compete socialist ownership.

Or in other words: It's not necessary for a socialist government to physically stop you from privately owning a factory; it is sufficient for a socialist government to simply not provide any legal means by which you could be officially recognized as the owner of a factory. It is enough to make it legally impossible to open a business.

free market activity unburdened by socialist ownership out competes socialism. You have seen enough evidence in this thread to accept that.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm not an advocate of market socialism by any stretch of the imagination. However, point of order: Socialism doesn't technically need the government to stop individual ownership. Socialism only needs the government to not recognize individual ownership in law.

Without legal recognition - and therefore without legal protection of their property rights - individual owners would be limited to relatively small-scale black market activities, and would not be able to out-compete socialist ownership.

Or in other words: It's not necessary for a socialist government to physically stop you from privately owning a factory; it is sufficient for a socialist government to simply not provide any legal means by which you could be officially recognized as the owner of a factory. It is enough to make it legally impossible to open a business.

free market activity unburdened by socialist ownership out competes socialism. You have seen enough evidence in this thread to accept that.

Which part of "no legal recognition" didn't you understand?

[The Portland Territory]

Having said that, I am a proud authoritarian socialist and I have absolutely no problem with the government using any force necessary to crush private ownership. Capitalists are scum and should be treated as such.

I only pointed out the things in my previous post for the benefit of my non-authoritarian comrades. You don't technically need to enforce socialism with an iron fist. But I prefer the iron fist.

Why am I scum? Not gonna lie, as a fellow Christian, I'm kinda hurt

[Northern Davincia]

free market activity unburdened by socialist ownership out competes socialism. You have seen enough evidence in this thread to accept that.

Which part of "no legal recognition" didn't you understand?

Even socialism would require legal recognition of some kind. Unless you are an anarchist, perhaps.

[Donut section]

free market activity unburdened by socialist ownership out competes socialism. You have seen enough evidence in this thread to accept that.

Which part of "no legal recognition" didn't you understand?

Pretty sure drugs, a niche consciousness altering product has been out competing other niche consciousness altering products for a while now without legal recognition.

[Constantinopolis]

Having said that, I am a proud authoritarian socialist and I have absolutely no problem with the government using any force necessary to crush private ownership. Capitalists are scum and should be treated as such.

I only pointed out the things in my previous post for the benefit of my non-authoritarian comrades. You don't technically need to enforce socialism with an iron fist. But I prefer the iron fist.

Why am I scum? Not gonna lie, as a fellow Christian, I'm kinda hurt

By "capitalists" I meant private business owners, not advocates of capitalism.

Private business owners are scum because market competition pretty much ensures that you have to be a selfish, greedy bastard in order to be successful in business. You have to exploit your workers. You have to brag about your products to consumers - and lie if you can get away with it - in order to increase sales. You have to be willing to fire people, without regard for their personal hardship or their families, if that's what it takes to keep your business profitable. In a word, you have to act evil.

And people who spend a lot of time acting evil, generally become evil people, even if they weren't that way when they started out.

[Galloism]

It really is. It is in your best interest to purchase the thing you need at the lowest possible price you can get it and still maintain the quality of it, whether that thing is an iron rod, a truck full of silica, or someone's labor.

With wage fixing, you get the thing you need at a rock bottom price, and all it takes is a little cooperation. That's why you see cases of it over and over again, even though it's illegal.

That's not the reason why corporations wage-fix. They wage-fix so that there's no competition of workers, that no corporation steal another's employee.

Corporations are motivated by one thing: money.

That's not particularly a bad thing mind you, in the context of someone running a business, but they wage fix to save money, and that means keeping wages low.

[Galloism]

Wage fixing. They can wait you out while you get starving, cold, and desperate. You can't wait them out because they're not starving, cold, and desperate.



Why do you not like the free market?

Minimum wage promotes inflation...it is a form of artificial price control, which is inherently detrimental to market economics. Mind you, I'm a socialist saying this.

Strong unions are a better solution.

[The Portland Territory]

Why am I scum? Not gonna lie, as a fellow Christian, I'm kinda hurt

By "capitalists" I meant private business owners, not advocates of capitalism.

Private business owners are scum because market competition pretty much ensures that you have to be a selfish, greedy bastard in order to be successful in business. You have to exploit your workers. You have to brag about your products to consumers - and lie if you can get away with it - in order to increase sales. You have to be willing to fire people, without regard for their personal hardship or their families, if that's what it takes to keep your business profitable. In a word, you have to act evil.

And people who spend a lot of time acting evil, generally become evil people, even if they weren't that way when they started out.

That's not evil nor necessarily greedy, that's economic survival. What's wrong with showing how great your product is? As for firing people and not taking their families into consideration, well, it's an us vs. them situation. Not a happy one but in order to make sure that your own family eats, a business owner may need to lay someone off. And if the employee was good, hopefully help find him another job.

[The Portland Territory]

That's not the reason why corporations wage-fix. They wage-fix so that there's no competition of workers, that no corporation steal another's employee.

Corporations are motivated by one thing: money.

That's not particularly a bad thing mind you, in the context of someone running a business, but they wage fix to save money, and that means keeping wages low.

Saving money is the side effect of wage-fixing. If they wanted to just save money, why would they try and gather their competition to literally do the same thing?

[Constantinopolis]

Which part of "no legal recognition" didn't you understand?

Even socialism would require legal recognition of some kind. Unless you are an anarchist, perhaps.

I meant no legal recognition for private businesses. Obviously, other types of organizations would have legal recognition.

Which part of "no legal recognition" didn't you understand?

Pretty sure drugs, a niche consciousness altering product has been out competing other niche consciousness altering products for a while now without legal recognition.

True, but I'm pretty sure that drugs remain a niche product, and although many people use heroin, there are no massive heroin corporations threatening to take over the US economy.

[Galloism]

Corporations are motivated by one thing: money.

That's not particularly a bad thing mind you, in the context of someone running a business, but they wage fix to save money, and that means keeping wages low.

Saving money is the side effect of wage-fixing. If they wanted to just save money, why would they try and gather their competition to literally do the same thing?

The same reason Google and Apple did:

They save money together.

[Constantinopolis]

By "capitalists" I meant private business owners, not advocates of capitalism.

Private business owners are scum because market competition pretty much ensures that you have to be a selfish, greedy bastard in order to be successful in business. You have to exploit your workers. You have to brag about your products to consumers - and lie if you can get away with it - in order to increase sales. You have to be willing to fire people, without regard for their personal hardship or their families, if that's what it takes to keep your business profitable. In a word, you have to act evil.

And people who spend a lot of time acting evil, generally become evil people, even if they weren't that way when they started out.

That's not evil nor necessarily greedy, that's economic survival. What's wrong with showing how great your product is? As for firing people and not taking their families into consideration, well, it's an us vs. them situation. Not a happy one but in order to make sure that your own family eats, a business owner may need to lay someone off. And if the employee was good, hopefully help find him another job.

You're right, those things are necessary for economic survival (in capitalism). Which is one of the reasons why I advocate a system in which those things would NOT be necessary for economic survival.

If capitalism requires people to do bad things in order to survive, that's an argument against capitalism.

[Donut section]

Even socialism would require legal recognition of some kind. Unless you are an anarchist, perhaps.

I meant no legal recognition for private businesses. Obviously, other types of organizations would have legal recognition.

Pretty sure drugs, a niche consciousness altering product has been out competing other niche consciousness altering products for a while now without legal recognition.

True, but I'm pretty sure that drugs remain a niche product, and although many people use heroin, there are no massive heroin corporations threatening to take over the US economy.

I'm not certain how the heroin market share is held, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of non legally recognised corporations called organised crime gangs/syndicates having a large stranglehold on it. And expanding into other sectors.

[Constantinopolis]

I meant no legal recognition for private businesses. Obviously, other types of organizations would have legal recognition.


True, but I'm pretty sure that drugs remain a niche product, and although many people use heroin, there are no massive heroin corporations threatening to take over the US economy.

I'm not certain how the heroin market share is held, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of non legally recognised corporations called organised crime gangs/syndicates having a large stranglehold on it. And expanding into other sectors.

And if they get large enough to become a serious threat to the legal economy, the state will presumably move in to destroy them. As it should. But as long as they remain small, they may continue to exist on the black market.

I imagine that market socialists envision something similar for private businesses in their market socialist economy.

But as for me, since I'm a state socialist and I have no problem with the use of force by the state... well, you know.

[Liencia]

Why am I scum? Not gonna lie, as a fellow Christian, I'm kinda hurt

By "capitalists" I meant private business owners, not advocates of capitalism.

Private business owners are scum because market competition pretty much ensures that you have to be a selfish, greedy bastard in order to be successful in business. You have to exploit your workers. You have to brag about your products to consumers - and lie if you can get away with it - in order to increase sales. You have to be willing to fire people, without regard for their personal hardship or their families, if that's what it takes to keep your business profitable. In a word, you have to act evil.

And people who spend a lot of time acting evil, generally become evil people, even if they weren't that way when they started out.

Business owners are not inherently evil, these are usually the entrepreneurs of society. Entrepreneurship is good it is the driving force of a market economy. Socialism seeks to cultivate the entrepreneurship of the people by making the highest amount of equality of opportunity and lowest cost of entry as possible. A freer market is positive and completely in line with socialist socio-economic analysis....if not the greatest expression of Socialism.

[Donut section]

I'm not certain how the heroin market share is held, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of non legally recognised corporations called organised crime gangs/syndicates having a large stranglehold on it. And expanding into other sectors.

And if they get large enough to become a serious threat to the legal economy, the state will presumably move in to destroy them. As it should. But as long as they remain small, they may continue to exist on the black market.

I imagine that market socialists envision something similar for private businesses in their market socialist economy.

But as for me, since I'm a state socialist and I have no problem with the use of force by the state... well, you know.

Government is powerless as the competitors take over the destroyed parties share.
And it has no overall change besides more and more shooting galleries and less and less scotch bars opening.

[Constantinopolis]

By "capitalists" I meant private business owners, not advocates of capitalism.

Private business owners are scum because market competition pretty much ensures that you have to be a selfish, greedy bastard in order to be successful in business. You have to exploit your workers. You have to brag about your products to consumers - and lie if you can get away with it - in order to increase sales. You have to be willing to fire people, without regard for their personal hardship or their families, if that's what it takes to keep your business profitable. In a word, you have to act evil.

And people who spend a lot of time acting evil, generally become evil people, even if they weren't that way when they started out.

Business owners are not inherently evil, these are usually the entrepreneurs of society. Entrepreneurship is good it is the driving force of a market economy. Socialism seeks to cultivate the entrepreneurship of the people by making the highest amount of equality of opportunity and lowest cost of entry as possible. A freer market is positive and completely in line with socialist socio-economic analysis....if not the greatest expression of Socialism.

Uhhhh... no? Not at all?

You do realize that the entire point of the socialist movement for the 150 years of its existence has been to overthrow the bourgeoisie, yes? The bourgeoisie is made up of business owners. Business owners are the enemy that we are fighting. Socialism is against private business owners practically by definition.

Pro-business socialism is like a republic led by a king. An inherent contradiction in terms. The bourgeoisie is the enemy.

And this vague notion they call "entrepreneurship" is like the divine right of kings. It's the bullshit excuse they use to justify their dominant position in society. There is no such thing as entrepreneurship. There is only work. When business owners do some work, they call it "entrepreneurship" to make it sound as if it's somehow superior to the work that everyone else is doing.

[Liencia]

And if they get large enough to become a serious threat to the legal economy, the state will presumably move in to destroy them. As it should. But as long as they remain small, they may continue to exist on the black market.

I imagine that market socialists envision something similar for private businesses in their market socialist economy.

But as for me, since I'm a state socialist and I have no problem with the use of force by the state... well, you know.

Government is powerless as the competitors take over the destroyed parties share.
And it has no overall change besides more and more shooting galleries and less and less scotch bars opening.

Not to mention, state driven centrally planned economies have historically proven to be inferior. A centralized economy cannot keep pace with domestic demand for consumer products. State socialism is fake socialism and is doomed to fail in the long run.

[Constantinopolis]

And if they get large enough to become a serious threat to the legal economy, the state will presumably move in to destroy them. As it should. But as long as they remain small, they may continue to exist on the black market.

I imagine that market socialists envision something similar for private businesses in their market socialist economy.

But as for me, since I'm a state socialist and I have no problem with the use of force by the state... well, you know.

Government is powerless as the competitors take over the destroyed parties share.
And it has no overall change besides more and more shooting galleries and less and less scotch bars opening.

And this is why no government has ever been able to stop organized crime syndicates from doing everything they want, right? Oh wait...

[Liencia]

Business owners are not inherently evil, these are usually the entrepreneurs of society. Entrepreneurship is good it is the driving force of a market economy. Socialism seeks to cultivate the entrepreneurship of the people by making the highest amount of equality of opportunity and lowest cost of entry as possible. A freer market is positive and completely in line with socialist socio-economic analysis....if not the greatest expression of Socialism.

Uhhhh... no? Not at all?

You do realize that the entire point of the socialist movement for the 150 years of its existence has been to overthrow the bourgeoisie, yes? The bourgeoisie is made up of business owners. Business owners are the enemy that we are fighting. Socialism is against private business owners practically by definition.

Pro-business socialism is like a republic led by a king. An inherent contradiction in terms. The bourgeoisie is the enemy.

And this vague notion they call "entrepreneurship" is like the divine right of kings. It's the bullshit excuse they use to justify their dominant position in society. There is no such thing as entrepreneurship. There is only work. When business owners do some work, they call it "entrepreneurship" to make it sound as if it's somehow superior to the work that everyone else is doing.

No, you are absolutely wrong.

The entrepreneurship (aka the creativity) of the bourgeoise is not what we are opposing. It is the barriers, high cost, and inequality of opportunity to express and implement creative energies we are opposing. Socialism encourages creativity and entrepreneurship to as many as possible.

Many socialists have a warped view of what work/labor is. I ask you as a fellow socialist, what is labor?