Jump to content


Photo

question for capitalists here


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#21 snafu

snafu

    Thriving (sometimes)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:37 AM

isnt that almost starting to happen now with welfare and the incredible efficiency of modern production I guess that is the fundamental question my whole issue is regardless of whether you agree with capitalism or socialism or a mix of both isn't it inevitable that socialism and social programs in general would flood the government because of certain economic interest mainly the middle class and poor people simply voting in their interest.If this is the case then could one logically make the argument at given how reality is down with resources and human labor in the necessity of government that socialism is the only outcome possible with maybe some gradient notion of private property still existing possibly private property meaning businesses and capital

How do you account for philanthropy and charitable donations and private groups who administer programs in their particular interest? People economically vote (for lack of a better way of putting it) in this way, too, by spending extra income and time toward these endeavors. They choose what interests them.

Higher taxes and governmental control over these matters is less efficient and would stifle this large segment of the economy, no? I'm of the opinion that individuals want to say where their resources go and not have a governmental agency take that choice away. I don't believe that socialism is inevitable because there are other proven ways of administering social programs.

I think you're right in observing that this is the direction our federal government is heading, and has been for 200 years. In 1800 there were 4 cabinet positions. In 1900 there were 8, and today I think the number is 24. Not the way I prefer it to be, but obviously the trend it to identify a social issue and then create a whole Administrative arm of government to eff it up.

Edited by snafu, 27 April 2017 - 07:44 AM.


#22 Watkins_deep

Watkins_deep

    Practice Squad

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 142 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:46 AM

How do you account for philanthropy and charitable donations and private groups who administer programs in their particular interest? People economically vote (for lack of a better way of putting it) in this way, too, by spending extra income and time toward these endeavors. They choose what interests them.

Higher taxes and governmental control over these matters is less efficient and would stifle this large segment of the economy, no? I'm of the opinion that individuals want to say where their resources go and not have a governmental agency take that choice away. I don't believe that socialism is inevitable because there are other proven ways of administering social programs.

I think you're right in observing that this is the direction our federal government is heading, and has been for 200 years. In 1800 there were 4 cabinet positions. In 1900 there were 8, and today I think the number is 24. Not the way I prefer it to be, but obviously the trend it to identify a social issue and then create a whole Administrative arm of government to eff it up.

so is socialism inevitable because of disadvantaged intetest groups

#23 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 08:49 AM

so is socialism inevitable because of disadvantaged intetest groups

 

the better nature of decent people don't mind putting up a safety net for those disadvantaged or those who fall into catastrophic circumstances not their fault

 

a pendulum swings for society of largesse and then cutting back when enough is enough



#24 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:01 AM

Used to do tax returns for the clients of a very liberal and progressively active law firm.

 

The average % of charitable donation for income by those in this club, who took bows all the time, was half of 1%.



#25 Azalin

Azalin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,858 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:03 AM

so is socialism inevitable because of disadvantaged intetest groups

 

Do you mean a full-scale switch from a capitalist to a socialist economy?



#26 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:05 AM

It's tough to have a capitalist society, with free market abilities, without a democratic voting system

 

no matter how fake or sucky any of those 3 realities happen to be at a given time



#27 TPS

TPS

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,561 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:20 AM

Former Reaganite PCR has been way out there, but this piece addresses one of the central weaknesses in the belief of "unfettered free markets."

The Looting Machine



#28 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:33 AM

there are no unfettered free markets, nobody believes in them

 

The goal is the best realistically attainable society, not the most imagined (but unrealistic) one.



#29 GoBills808

GoBills808

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:36 AM

It's tough to have a capitalist society, with free market abilities, without a democratic voting system

 

no matter how fake or sucky any of those 3 realities happen to be at a given time

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy, either. In fact, they're eminently complimentary. 

 

It's an economic system wherein the means of production and surplus capital are owned by the many. That's the basic difference. You'd still hold elections and need representatives much like we do today.

 

But to your second point...people DO believe that 'unfettering' the capitalist economy by removing regulations and government intervention would produce a society capable of letting the free market determine preferable outcomes for its people, which I believe to be a dangerous falsehood. 



#30 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:55 AM

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy, either. In fact, they're eminently complimentary. 

 

It's an economic system wherein the means of production and surplus capital are owned by the many. That's the basic difference. You'd still hold elections and need representatives much like we do today.

 

But to your second point...people DO believe that 'unfettering' the capitalist economy by removing regulations and government intervention would produce a society capable of letting the free market determine preferable outcomes for its people, which I believe to be a dangerous falsehood. 

 

again it's all about this imaginary world that doesn't take into consideration the reality of human nature

 

i still have people whining that Communism is the best system but everyone ruins it who forced it on people, okay.... another billion people tortured and needlessly murdered coming right up....



#31 /dev/null

/dev/null

    All Glory to The Hypnotoad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,972 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:02 PM

 
While a machine would be able to make ice-cream (or even find better ways to do it) it would have no desire to try putting bacon into it.
 


Adding bacon is a sign of sentience.

#32 Magox

Magox

    Carbon Based Lifeform

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,590 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:19 PM

 

Not sure I follow you on this - do you mean increased government regulation and oversight of the deployment and use of emerging technologies? By my experience, technology tends to develop more quickly and affordably without government involvement.

 

 

I'm not speaking of a desired outcome but what I believe will end up happening.  I don't know what the timeline will be but I don't believe it is unreasonable to believe that within 30 years you will have well over half of the population that either are not employed or doing basic menial tasks due to increased automation, robotics and general advances in technology.

 

That the vast majority of revenues collected by the government will come via corporations.  That there will be an increased role from government in assisting humans through various means of subsidization.    

 

I could be way off but this is what I believe is in the cards.



#33 Azalin

Azalin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,858 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:40 PM

 

 

I'm not speaking of a desired outcome but what I believe will end up happening.  I don't know what the timeline will be but I don't believe it is unreasonable to believe that within 30 years you will have well over half of the population that either are not employed or doing basic menial tasks due to increased automation, robotics and general advances in technology.

 

That the vast majority of revenues collected by the government will come via corporations.  That there will be an increased role from government in assisting humans through various means of subsidization.    

 

I could be way off but this is what I believe is in the cards.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I don't necessarily disagree, but I do suspect that the need for employees with at least an associate's level tech degree will increase with the evolution of robotics and tech into various industries. That could provide an opportunity for more people to get themselves into a potentially lucrative career path with only a 2-year community college program, or in some cases, vocation-based high school training.



#34 Magox

Magox

    Carbon Based Lifeform

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,590 posts

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:04 AM

 

Thanks for the clarification. I don't necessarily disagree, but I do suspect that the need for employees with at least an associate's level tech degree will increase with the evolution of robotics and tech into various industries. That could provide an opportunity for more people to get themselves into a potentially lucrative career path with only a 2-year community college program, or in some cases, vocation-based high school training.

 

Yes, I agree.   However, why would a corporation employ robotics and advanced automation that reduces the need for functions that humans used to do to only replace it with the same amount of human capital but with higher educated more costly technicians to help run their operations?  There may be more of the positions you are talking available in the future but in my opinion the net result will be less jobs.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I view it as inevitable.  



#35 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:13 AM

 

 

I'm not speaking of a desired outcome but what I believe will end up happening.  I don't know what the timeline will be but I don't believe it is unreasonable to believe that within 30 years you will have well over half of the population that either are not employed or doing basic menial tasks due to increased automation, robotics and general advances in technology.

 

That the vast majority of revenues collected by the government will come via corporations.  That there will be an increased role from government in assisting humans through various means of subsidization.    

 

I could be way off but this is what I believe is in the cards.

 

Sorta joking, but you are well past 50% of the INVOLUNTARILY eligible workforce out or work of grossly under-employed, have been for decades now.


 

Yes, I agree.   However, why would a corporation employ robotics and advanced automation that reduces the need for functions that humans used to do to only replace it with the same amount of human capital but with higher educated more costly technicians to help run their operations?  There may be more of the positions you are talking available in the future but in my opinion the net result will be less jobs.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I view it as inevitable.  

 

There are factors inherent in firing entire towns at the only place that hired 100s for decades.

 

Doesn't show up in the profit charts, but it can go to the voting booth with power, and will continue doing so.


People are getting really fed up and its going to get unbelievably real out there, sparked by something that didn't seem all that bad..


Edited by row_33, 29 April 2017 - 10:12 AM.


#36 Azalin

Azalin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,858 posts

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:57 AM

 

Yes, I agree.   However, why would a corporation employ robotics and advanced automation that reduces the need for functions that humans used to do to only replace it with the same amount of human capital but with higher educated more costly technicians to help run their operations?  There may be more of the positions you are talking available in the future but in my opinion the net result will be less jobs.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I view it as inevitable.  

 

You're probably right - I don't mean to say that I think automation won't cause a net loss of jobs, only that the positions created by automation are often not considered in conversations on the subject.

 

When I was in a robotics program 25 years ago, they were teaching that the main uses for robotics was in assembly, usually performing dangerous or extremely repetitive tasks, and doing so at a rate of one completed action per minute. Those numbers may have changed since my school days - I don't know, but even if they haven't those are still attractive numbers: 480 consistent and accurate spot-welds per eight hour shift with no fear of injury to employees is good.

 

What we were not taught about back then was using robotics to replace employees in an effort to reduce labor costs. It just wasn't being done at the time, at least not to any significant extent. In my view, the argument about automation working it's way into food preparation shows that the dollars per hour labor cost for unskilled work is being artificially inflated. The increasing demand to pay a living wage for unskilled labor is going to inflate labor costs to a point where restaurants will not be able to afford it unless they do automate. As I see it, this is the current issue. Automation will continue as time passes regardless, but an adoption and implementation of a living wage will hasten the process big time. 



#37 Tiberius

Tiberius

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,034 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 09:56 AM

Is this the government's job? 

 

http://money.cnn.com...-fixing/?iid=EL

 

Telling businesses how to set prices? 



#38 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,641 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 10:21 AM

Price fixing and predatory pricing is something that North American society has deemed to be a corporate evil.

 

So agencies are set up to investigate complaints and sometimes they bring the hammer down.

 

Did a few files on Combines Investigations, it was more fun back in the day to enter with a warrant that was little more than a fishing expedition...

 

The secretaries ALWAYS kept an extra copy of documents that were under instruction to "destroy upon reading"... still have a copy of some of the greatest smoking guns on theatre ticket prices, brand name luncheon meats at grocery stores and a few others more sensitive.

 

One has a skull and crossbones warning to destroy immediately, but they didn't, bless them...


Cartels were the most fun to investigate.

 

Meetings where the 7 bosses swore death oaths on their own mothers and children (so to speak) to not sell for less than $2.50 per unit.

 

Then 3 seconds later they were on their phones telling their people to sell at $2.40 per unit.

 

Until it got back down to $1.00 and required another meeting of blood oaths.



#39 grinreaper

grinreaper

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 10:24 AM

Is this the government's job? 

 

http://money.cnn.com...-fixing/?iid=EL

 

Telling businesses how to set prices? 

You completely missed the point in your own !@#$ing post, you imbecile.



#40 Tiberius

Tiberius

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,034 posts

Posted 09 May 2017 - 10:26 AM

Price fixing and predatory pricing is something that North American society has deemed to be a corporate evil.

 

So agencies are set up to investigate complaints and sometimes they bring the hammer down.

 

Did a few files on Combines Investigations, it was more fun back in the day to enter with a warrant that was little more than a fishing expedition...

 

The secretaries ALWAYS kept an extra copy of documents that were under instruction to "destroy upon reading"... still have a copy of some of the greatest smoking guns on theatre ticket prices, brand name luncheon meats at grocery stores and a few others more sensitive.

 

One has a skull and crossbones warning to destroy immediately, but they didn't, bless them...


Cartels were the most fun to investigate.

 

Meetings where the 7 bosses swore death oaths on their own mothers and children (so to speak) to not sell for less than $2.50 per unit.

 

Then 3 seconds later they were on their phones telling their people to sell at $2.40 per unit.

 

Until it got back down to $1.00 and required another meeting of blood oaths.

Neat!!  :thumbsup:

 

Leaky deals that are hard to hide and impossible to enforce. 


You completely missed the point in your own !@#$ing post, you imbecile.

No