1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Between Capitalism, Keynes and Socialism: Finding a New Way

Discussion in 'Economics and Financials' started by maynard, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    EDIT: oops. forgot about this subforum lol

    this topic has been on my mind the past couple of days and its been touched on in the POFO a bit.

    the criticisms of capitalism are usually valid to be honest, though are also unfair. no system has created as much wealth and freedom for man. capitalism has proven to be more resilient and outlast other systems.

    but there are real inequities. we are running out of spatial fixes and capital claims no national preference. blue collar middle class is in serious danger of becoming lower class while the middle educated (BAs BSs) are also becoming undervalued.

    a pure consumer culture hurts society

    most of the critiques come from a marxist perspective that are glowing on paper and little else. socialism creates apathy, entitlement and narcissism. it cant get out of its own weight. it simply isnt innovative enough because it has to satisfy 3 social conditions (race, gender, class). prosperity isnt really its aim. it is simply a failure in practice

    keynes offered a 3rd way. it worked pretty well until the 70's. by putting limits and barriers to capital flows, it brings stability to the system. it may have simply had bad luck. the gas crises, stagflation etc. was the absolute worst timing for it. western europe was unsure of where to hedge its bets: the US or the USSR? despite the popular arguments of the eventuality of Soviet demise, it wasnt quite so clear at that point. then came reagan...and here we are now.

    the problem with the keynes approach that i see is that it seems to be designed for more closed systems. it cant do what it wants in a globalized world. and there is no putting that genie back in the bottle

    so what are we left with? beats me. are there any other models out there for us to turn to? enlighten me :pointlol:
     
    Stringer Bell, DevilFin13 and Fin D like this.
  2. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    National Libertarianism..but Bro..it's past midnight on a game night..
     
  3. Desides

    Desides Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    38,945
    20,022
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    "Between"?

    Sounds to me like you're giving equal validity and weight to capitalism, Keynes, and socialism. These three are not co-equal. One works every time it's tried, two do not.

    Seeking a compromise and calling that a solution is self-defeating.
     
  4. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    enlighten me
     
  5. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    In a ntushell..maximize freedom and liberty for Americans, whilst also trying to avoid the corrosive effects of full on Global Labor Arbitrage.

    Why should steelworkers in IL compete with Singapore and not say..SoCal instead?
     
  6. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    sounds like a keynes approach or something near it

    so we slap tariffs? would we choke places like walmart out of business?

    is such a thing even possible given TNCs?
     
  7. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    i think they are all failures. the new capitalist economy might leave most americans in the dust
     
  8. Desides

    Desides Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    38,945
    20,022
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    "New capitalist"?
     
  9. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    we are in a new economy after the financial collapse. its a different version but still capitalist
     
  10. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    3,977
    2,097
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
    We have not "collapsed"...yet...that part is coming soon.
     
  11. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    3,977
    2,097
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains

    IMHO, you are trying to attach a label or some magic nomenclature in hopes that if you define something systemically then it or the outcome of "it's" policies are more predictable.............what we are left with you ask?

    We are left with obvious and definable examples from historical perspective of policies that work and do not work that entwine different definitions and labels. In a (this) politically charged environment if those time tested and proven policies fall on the wrong side of your self imposed political label then "we" get defensive and those proven policies are packaged semantically as "crazy" Liberal" "conservative" "nutball", "Kenysian", Communist" Socialist" or some other label that has political connotations attached ..........

    From the Roman Empire to every other failed empire to the Fall of the USSR, debt has brought them down......seems pretty simple to me........

    Look at Ceasar, the Khamer Rogue, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Ottoman, Napolianic France, even to the UK granting Rhodesia freedom.... the ONE thing they all have in common is intrusion into financial systems ..... annd greed from the political class.

    Now look at the US whatever label you want to put on the system.......the star has shone brightest in those brief interludes of clarity when government intruded less and regulated more in the financial systems......

    IMHO putting a label on your question is a very tough question........answering it is pretty clear based on history...

    1. Learn from History.
    2. Keep debt low.
    3. Do not interfer in free markets.
    4. Compete.
    5. Government should regulate with a VERY heavy hand and not interfere in markets.
    6. Operate with a long term focus.

    Kenyensian "worked".....that is like saying my lawn mower worked right before I tried to use it and it cut off my hand............. great theory and it will look great FOREVER, just do not try and actually use it...................
     
    maynard likes this.
  12. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts

    Not neccessarily tariffs, I do think existing structures enforcement mechanisms are rarely used, China manipulates it's currency, the Euros give VAT rebates.

    Only in the US do we act as if those things do not exist.

    I also believe the current paradigm is tilted too heavily towards the wealthy.

    There is no "competition" there is merely predation which is creating a ultra wealthy class and everyone else are simply peons and I believe that is by design. For all the mewling about "corporate tax rates" the plain fact is Corporations pay a fraction of the total tax receipts in the US.

    [​IMG]


    Now globalists will typically trot out the blather "a rising tide lifts all boats" or "the pie has grown so there is more money to go around"..

    This recession is more properly called "the Recession for some" the wealthy are doing quite well thank you very much.
     
    FinSane likes this.
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Of course the rich get richer. They got rich in the first place by being smart. As any economy grows, you'll see those with capital, using that capital to grow more capital, etc.

    It's the nature of the beast. Keep in mind those at the bottom working for wages, don't have any wages if those with capital do not employ them. There is no way around it. Short of taking over private enterprise and having the state employ them ...

    Any solution to solve this "problem" inherently kills or harms the system.
     
  14. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    its a huge problem. GDP is up. banks are making nice proifts but they arent putting that money up for anybody

    VAT is similar to a consumption tax? i wouldnt mind something like that, but not on top of taxes now. thats crazy.

    they rich stay rich because they can afford to hire people to help them bend the rules in their favor. im convinced of this. there arent too many working class people hiring tax lawyers and have lobbys working in their behalf
     
    Fin D likes this.
  15. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    i dont care about the rich making money, its the shrinking middle class that i have a problem with
     
  16. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    And they are doing a great job of that..unemployment just hit 9.6% so tell me again why they need a tax cut when they are already raking in money hand over fist?

    So they can hire people..:chuckle:.

    Is that like Santa and the Easter Bunny, oh sure you hear a lot about both, but no one has actually seen either.


    :D

    The same system that required hundreds of billions in taxpayers monies to prop up? The same system that has as it's product the concentration of wealth to the well connected? The same system that is producing shrinking wages and incomes for everyone outside of the top echelon? The same system that has produced unheard of pay for play political leadership that will happily discard the best interests of vast swaths of Americans so a MNC can earn a few more percentage points in profits? The same system that has produced both a record number of bankruptcies and debts it will take decades to pay down, if ever?

    Tell me again why that system should be preserved in the first place?
     
    FinSane likes this.
  17. DevilFin13

    DevilFin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,416
    3,667
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    In general I agree with padre that the maximization of liberty/freedom is the optimal goal. A Marxist would say the same thing. I think there is something to some of the Marxist critiques, but I don't buy the solutions.

    I don't think socialism is the answer. And when I say socialism I mean the state owning and operating businesses and having vast, direct control over the economy. I don't think the state would be good at it in the long run (probably even the short run) and there is way too much potential for corruption. I guess this is why I don't buy the Marxist solution, which requires a progression from capitalism, to socialism, and then to communism.

    I don't know exactly what a Keynesian system would look like. So I can't really address that as a solution.

    But even with the problems of our current capitalist system, I'm not ready to abandon it. I think it just needs tweaking and a more effective state regulating it.

    Getting back to the idea of liberty, the structural criticism Marx offers has influenced the way I feel about freedom and economic systems. I view many of the problems of the poor and people with less freedom as structural issues largely beyond their control. And since much of being caught in that situation is due to luck I think something should be done to try and remedy their problems.
     
    FinSane likes this.
  18. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Bend the rules, or take advantage of the rules given to them?

    I don't buy the whole "all rich people are evil" conspiracy theory stuff. I've come across enough wealthy people who just worked their *** off and saved. The whole bending the rules stuff is BS. Trust me. I would be the guy who they asked to bend the rules. Tax advisor, financial planner, estate planner, money manager. I've been it all. Never once will we "bend the rules"

    That's just an image perpetuated by those wanting class warfare (not you Maynard).
     
  19. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    If you want them to hire people you must give them a carrot. If not, Govt. better hurry up and figure out how to do business well. I wouldn't hold my breath.

    These very same greedy businesses had no problem keeping unemployment at 5% for almost what, a decade or even more. Now all of a sudden they're big greedy companies and won't hire even when they're making money. Theyr'e greedy. You make it so the cost of hiring isn't so expensive, they'll hire more because they're greedy. The more labor you employ, the more money you can make. The profit is made off the back of labor. The more the better. But it's a math decision. At a certain point it isn't more profitable to hire.

    And Obama's policies aren't making the decision easier.


    The system that isn't fracked up by govt. intervention. Mortgages worked just fine for how many years before the sub prime push. govt. wants more subprime, subprime bubble crisis ensues. Govt. wants more minority and low cost housing, so they trade with the republicans. Give the Pubs repeal of glass steagal, get deregulation of Fannie and Freddie, and EXCLUDE them from the capital requirements of banks.

    So you get sub prime housing crisis on steroids. There never was a long depression until govt. intervention. For the first time govt. felt it had to intervene and all of a sudden we had our worst depression ever.

    Every major crisis can be traced to a specific govt. action. Muck with the markets, and the markets react unnaturally.
     
  20. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Here is one of the problems DF, the State is guaranteeing profits, and socializing losses, when Goldman was up to go belly up recall the TARP funds that went to prop them up going to Executive Bonus Pay?

    At the time the excuse was "oh they have a contract" well if Goldman had been allowed to go bankrupt, as it should have, those contracts could be voided.

    Instead, they were paid in full by the taxpayers, meanwhile the decade of faux profits? They went directly into share holders and employees of Goldman's pockets.

    And Goldman Sachs is not the only beneficiary of the public's largesse .

    We have the worst elements of Capitalism and Socialism married in this system and "we the people" not only are closer to poverty as a whole, but our future earnings have been conscripted by the State to pay the people who created this Crony Capitialistic system.

    First thing that has to happen is the State should divorce itself from insuring those financial institutions..no more Taxpayer Backstopping for their ponzi schemes.
     
    FinSane, maynard and DevilFin13 like this.
  21. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts

    Sophistry, the fact is small enterprise hires far more people in the US than Global Corporations do, and yet the cry goes forth "we need a corporate tax rate cut"..why?

    So if some offshore corporation cannot avoid taxation they at least pay at a lower rate?

    please.

    Agreed, if anything Political Economy intervention has made the situation much much worse by attempting to forestall the eventual vomitting that such a sick system needs before it can start over again

    Embedding such costs is madness, plain and simple.




    We have been down this road before Jd, in fact the portion of sub prime that the Govt "asked" the Banks to engage in was less than 1/3rd of the total amount of sub prime loans issued.

    Add in ratings agency were clearly co-opted into rating DDD issues as A's should have led to indictments of Executives at Standard and Poors and Fitch.

    The banks themselves, investment banks, lobbied for and received permission to abandon historically safe cash reserve models for 33 to 1 loan to cash on hand models, ie..a ponzi scheme.


    Hardly, there were reasons why the liquidity market locked down in September of 2008 and it had nothing whatever to do with State intervention.



    Please, so now one tries to wash Multi National Corporations culpability in the last 2 crashes?

    And that is not the half of it, that chart is just as true, even when your System functioned, wages, income, and the middle class all shrank for everyone outside of the top echelon of income earners.

    Would not shed a tear if the whole thing collapsed, personally I'd prefer some Central American "justice" meted out to those crooks in the Investment Banking community.
     
    FinSane and DevilFin13 like this.
  22. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I just typed up a long detailed response, and lost it. Way too lazy to retype this weekend (get out and eat and drink!)
     
    padre31 likes this.
  23. FinSane

    FinSane Cynical Dolphins Fan

    19,861
    5,792
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Melbourne, Fl
    Anyone who doesn't think socialism and capitalism can't work for both workers and business owners ignore the biggest example of it working: professional sports. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, ect. all have the best elements of socialism and capitalism working for the benefit of both workers and owners. Now from time to time they do get unreasonable greedy, but that's what collective bargaining agreement contracts are for. When those agreements run out they can always find a middle ground to balance things out. Right now of course we're seeing owners of the NFL and NBA trying to choke out the unions though I'm not sure how successful they'll be. Yes just like in the real world there are lazy workers who will take advantage of being in a union but there are ways of going around that like in the NFL of non-guaranteed contracts ensures that a player should work hard because they aren't promised a spot on the team unlike the NBA. Salary caps ensures a competitive labor market, as businesses can hire talent on a level field and smaller businesses can remain competitive(instead of just a few companies being dominant in an industry).

    Another example of sociocapitalism is the movie industry. Almost everyone involved is unionized and they're rarely labor disputes(yes I know the Writer's Strike was recent but is still rare). In these environments, everyone who's willing to work and do a good job wins. The more production + profits + revenue sharing measures=everyone making out like bandits. Why should I as a worker who contributes to profits make the same year in and year out with no hope of seeing the benefit of my work? Why cannot I enjoy the fruits of my labor? Did I not contribute to the overall health of this company who is are seeing quarterly increases each year? Why is it when a company's stock tanks the workers are always expected to take a pay cut but not ownership or the board of directors, whose salaries are far inflated, even compared to unionized workers?

    But we have socialism and capitalism mixed, but its socialism for the rich and well off and capitalism for everyone else. Their version of capitalism is you're on your own. But you will gladly pay us via taxes for us to keep our business going while we find ways of eliminating the need for labor.

    I don't think all rich people are evil. I have some family members who are well-off, not multi-millionares or anything but they have some money. I don't think they are evil. From my trade I meet lots of business folk, many whom like they're workers and are willing to hire the best and brightest for their business. Sometimes they're hands are tied because of corporate decisions made from far away without any personal input from their people. My company for example is finding ways of eliminating the need for labor as they automate the business(I'm being laid off later on this month). They do not care if the new system fails or not, they are saving lots of money. That is the new reality of business. They are not interested in customer care and the benefit of their workers and managers, or the benefit of the community. They are solely interested in profits and saving money wherever and however possible. The days of businesses expanding and throwing money at workers to absorb their manpower and brainpower are over. The new reality is workers who will still have jobs be paid the minimum while eliminating the need for management and labor in many areas of business. Everyone will be soon be working service jobs competing with immigrants and other low wage workers for the low paying jobs that will be left. The rich will be the ones shopping in the malls and vacationing and living in the safe neighborhoods and decide who gets to work and who gets to suffer.

    Many ways this new economy will resemble Dawn of the Dead/Land of the Dead. The rich will live behind gates while the wild unemployed will be rabidly looking for jobs and then grow angry as they realize their jobs are now gone and not coming back. It's not a Democratic/Republican thing, Obama is only continuing the long term plan that the richest 1% have planned for us for the past 30 years. It began in the late 70s and continues today. Neither party is represented by workers. We're the only two party system in the first world. There is no labor party here. If you think the Democrats are represented by labor note NAFTA and the WTO was glad signed and supported by Clinton and Obama supports "free trade"(which only benefits multinational corporations not mid-small businesses and workers). Trade unions naively give money and campaign for Democratic politicians who have empty promises. Obama is a Clinton-style Democrat, not a Kucinich-like lefty liberal. In fact the administration constantly attacks the left for demanding Obama steer away from center-right policies. The health care bill for example did nothing to change the way insurance companies do business. In fact, it's just a bigger sized version of the Medicare bill Bush signed while in office, which was just a big giveaway to the health industry. The financial reform being proposed, and still not passed, is a big joke. It does not undo the damage the Glass-Steagal Act and the Bankruptcy Bill of 2005 did to the economy. The green economy has yet been given the financial investment it needs even while jobs remain scarce. The economy is run on taxdollars for R&R anyway, why can't we spend less on the defense for example and more on developing green tech?

    Anyways, it shows who's still really in charge despite a supposed shift to left in politics. IMO Obama was chosen to quiet any disruptions the left might cause while the economy continues to transform to the new zombie economy. I never had any illusions about Obama but I figured he would change some things out of necessity. But it clearly shows that he and Bush are almost two-sides of the same coin.
     
    DevilFin13 likes this.
  24. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    i think thats a good example finsane, but you are also dealing with massively profitable industries. im not sure you would find the same margins in a stell mill or a restaurant or a grocery store
     
    Fin D likes this.
  25. FinSane

    FinSane Cynical Dolphins Fan

    19,861
    5,792
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Melbourne, Fl
    True it would have to be different for differing industries and smaller sized businesses. But there are solutions. I just don't see why workers who are low-skilled should have to live at or below poverty while those with better life circumstances get to live better. Now a completely egalitarian society wouldn't work and I don't think everyone should be paid equally. But I think a fairer wage other than povertly level should be in order. It'll give workers more incentive to do a better job.
     
  26. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Green Tech?

    Eh, disagree, with your thrust FS, the fact is Hollywood farms out as much work as possible now as the costs are prohibitive to film in that environment, and even then as the product is Entertainment, which the Sports Leagues are, the fixed costs are low.

    As for the Bankruptcy Bill, the Banksters sort of got what they deserved, underwater homeowners simply walked away from their negative value properties, no need to file for bankruptcy, just mail the keys to the bank.

    I also happen to believe, and it has been born out, that Joe Avg American is kinda..err... "slow" Globalism and GATT and the WTO are abstract concepts that led to their Economic Diminishment, yet mention them casually in a conversation about the State of the private economy, a sort of glazed over look greets the effort.

    As for solutions, there is a painful re-adjustment coming for Americans, a devolution of a Economic Fortunes, wages will not grow, Incomes will not rise for most Americans for quite some time.

    The way to combat that fact o life for most people is:

    -Squeeze costs, which means less entertainment, less needless travel, less of most of the things Americans have grown used to paying credit for, the savings in interests payments are similar to putting a raise in your pocket.

    -make more things for yourself and family

    -Green Tech means..turn off the AC and get used to the heat..:D

    Since Reagan and "conspicous consumption" came into the lexicon the ability to purchase has been seen as the personal economic indicator of the most importance, what will happen is a the other side of that will grow, the ability to save wherever possible.

    Of course Jd's system will shrink, as the fmr Consumers become Savers, but I suspect the upper echelons of the economy will not change their outlooks.

    As for "Obama is not a Lefty"

    One sounds very much like a GWB supporter saying "he was not a Conservative"

    Welcome to the Reality of the Political Economy..liar liar pants on fire..:D
     
  27. pocoloco

    pocoloco I'm your huckleberry Club Member

    8,231
    5,261
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    North Chicago
    I think there two principal problems with the "new capitalism" that maynard identified.

    The first is that it evolving capitalist economies are much more global and historically unprecedented. That's why 'learn from history' maxims probably carry limited value moving forward. What we will instead confront is a world with the wealthiest entities are corporations, not nations, and they will influence the 'will of the people' in many countries through lobbyists, donations, propaganda (i.e. cable news), threats, etc. Naturally, they prefer deregulation, and prefer that you think so too. They ultimately answer to the stockholders, typically international investors, not to the voter. So in that sense, they will have the capacity to undermine core democratic principles simply through the way they operate. It's odd to argue capitalism can be at odds with democracy, since they developed so closely in US history, but that's one of the worries I see as capitalism moves into its 'steroid era'.

    Second, I think will eventually learn how these evolving economies fundamentally rely on dishonest accounting, and will continue to do so in the absence of real regulation (which is limited to a country by country basis and is therefore ineffective). Therefore they defy textbook supply and demand economics (and whether you want to still call them capitalist is a matter of some debate). I believe the numbers on China's economy are largely fabricated, the value of the Euro and dollar are not really backed by anything tangible, and we've already seen the ongoing result of the dividends game in international banking. It's a house of cards that fundamentally depends on smoke and mirrors, the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the very top, and which answers to practically no one. That is unsustainable, or at least prone to gigantic peaks and crashes.

    Ultimately, I think the result will be more crony capitalism, a facade of a democratic system, profound social injustices, and a deep mistrust of large corporations. This is one of the reasons not to write off socialism as complacent, narcissistic or failed just yet, because socialisms were historically a reaction to these processes, and will therefore continue to evolve alongside them.

    The future is probably somewhere in between the two economic systems. No more of this either/or mentality that defined the Cold War. I can see political parties trying some last ditch measures to regulate, to provide expanded social programs, to basically have more power, etc. That's probably what we'll see in our generation before we die. The big bonus of capitalism is that it has often come with greater economic, political and religious freedoms. I think that's undebatable, even for socialists. The bonus of socialism, at least in some cases, is that it has narrowed the divisions between classes and provided greater access to healthcare, education, housing, etc. than one might otherwise expect. I think that too is undebatable, for capitalists. Since each has some different pros, I can the answer being some mix and match solutions that work with the national traditions of different countries.
     
    FinSane and maynard like this.
  28. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    problem that socialism doesnt solve is that there are the managers and the managed, still relying on a top-down structure. you also have to completely buy into it, or else. buying into it means operating within all the barriers of capital to allow it to flow through all the determined channels. selling a bag of oranges becomes a theoretical process.

    the cronyism will continue if we keep putting wall street guys in charge of the regulating. we need to stop being ruled by harvard MBA's and academics. i think we need more of an "everyman" type rule. find a collection of men or women that have actually produced something in their careers and put them in regulatory positions.

    look to manufacturing and service industry people. it might sound like the ross perot argument, but it hasnt been tried in a while. these used to be the people that had the President's ear.

    the recent bailouts made the problem even worse. the government bails out the banks, but who is there to ensure the solvency of the government? the banks
     
  29. pocoloco

    pocoloco I'm your huckleberry Club Member

    8,231
    5,261
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    North Chicago
    The only point I would quibble with is that hierarchical forms of decision making are nearly universal. You'll find them in a band of gorillas, you'll find them in nearly every government, whether it is based on socialist principles or not.

    It seems to me that the ultimate goal of a 'classless' society advanced by some socialists is only really possible if that managerial segment is recycled often, and if powers are divided (US-style) into checks and balances. Such a system would be relatively unprecedented, historically speaking and probably finds closest analog in today's so-called socialist democracies. But rather than claim that socialism's goal is to abolish class distinctions, one could say its immediate goal would be to practically minimize them.

    Maynard, on a side note, I've enjoyed having these little debates with you. They're always enlightening and always seem to come back around to this topic.
     
  30. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    i only mention it as being one of socialism's contradictions. there are still winners and losers, but it is sold as "justice."

    you present something interesting and it requires quite a bit of faith. this is the sort of implied trust of power that corrupts in its own way. we already know the ugly sides of history this path might lead. of course it could be benign as well.

    but i think what you are getting at is a revaluing of worth. sure, the CEO of home depot has a greater monetary value than a janitor, but maybe its skewed too far

    i enjoy them as well :pointlol:
     
  31. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    i agree. trouble is when you get to an individual level. you cant force people to show up for work. you cant force them to do a good job. you cant force them to give a crap about what they do, etc.

    but for the guy that does those things, i agree. it makes no sense.

    an interesting theory i heard about illegal immigration is that the levels and waves of workers is by design to sink wages for regular americans. capitalism doesnt give a crap about race, gender or class. so in a way, no matter where people fall on the issue, it goes beyond any of the debates our politicians are having. no matter what the repulicans say about enforcement, its not serious. no what democrats say about racism, etc., its a stall job to keep feeding the system cheap labor

    agree or disagree, its a different way of looking at it
     
    Fin D and FinSane like this.
  32. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    eagerly awaiting
     
  33. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    There is no defense against the Truth Maynard.
     
  34. FinSane

    FinSane Cynical Dolphins Fan

    19,861
    5,792
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Melbourne, Fl
    I think so too. Im all for giving less fortunate than us coming here to get a better life but the fact is that big business wants illegal immigration bring down wages and standards of living. Its also a way of busting unions. Its a bipartisian issue, literally.
     
  35. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,945
    21,523
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Capitalism will always survive, so long as socialism is there to bail it out.
     
  36. DevilFin13

    DevilFin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,416
    3,667
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Here is something I came across today that I think relates to padre's concerns about globalization and the immigration thing pocoloco touched on: http://baselinescenario.com/2010/09/06/why-the-education-gap/#more-7991

     
    maynard and FinSane like this.
  37. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I need economics viagra. I typed up a response over 2 days, then I lost it. Now I can't get myself to get it back up. :pity:

    When I have a chance this week I'll take a look again to see if I get "excited"
     
    maynard likes this.
  38. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Not true. Small businesses as defined by the SBA do comprise something like 97% or so of the total businesses in America. However, small businesses only employ roughly 50% of all persons in America. Furthermore, "small business" according to the SBA is 500 employees or less. So there are quite a few bigger companies that are considered Small business. If you consider less than 100 employees small business, we're talking 20% max. I was a writer for Small Business for the san diego www.examiner.com, and ran a small business law blog, these numbers are my forte :)

    Corporate tax cuts are not only for global corporations. Anyone can start a corporation (I know, because I do them for a living :D). Sure most true small business corporations are S-corps so they are pass through entities, but occasionally I run into small businesses that S-corp won't be available, and now we're left with having to run it as a C Corp (if LLC is not available) and now we have double taxation. To put it simply, we'd have a corporate tax of 35% on profits, and if the owners wanted a dividend, another tax. Without using any special tax techniques (of which there are), you're looking at an effective rate up to 57.75%. That's just federal. Anything over $75,000 is taxed at 34%+. $75,000 isn't global conglomerate. It may be mom and pop shop down the street.

    By the way. How the hell did we get into a corporate tax discussion? I was talking about about employment tax, which applies equally to a sole proprietor who hires an assistant all the way up to Microsoft and GE. Nobody escapes the employment tax. Nobody.

    Agreed.






    That CRA defense is a red herring, and completely ignores, once again, the point. Nobody said CRA loans caused the crisis. The CRA push is what caused it. A very subtle but significant difference. Nobody is blaming the CRA loans themselves. But the push to make them, created a new market. Fannie and Freddie were buying these loans, with lower lending standards. How could they in turn refuse more loans of the same type? They couldn't, and they didn't want to. They were given carte blanche by Clinton to buy these loans up the yin yang, with no regards for consequences. So while CRA loans didn't bring the system down, the fact that Clinton made that CRA push, created an artificial market that was a cash cow to EVERYONE involved. You bet your mofo socks everyone partaked, and parlayed.

    As for the banks themselves, of course they did, and you know why they were granted the right to abandon the typical capital requirements? Because it served the purpose, to expand housing. Don't forget, it was Clinton, in exchange for repeal of Glass-steagall, who asked for, and got, an exemption for Fannie and Freddie of the capital requirements. Once again, banks followed his lead, and with his blessing since it served his purpose.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=september 30 1999&st=cse

    Govt. push for a pet project, social justice. Mechanism for greedy companies to do greedy things. Bad things happen.




    Such as? I want to see reasons that the liquidity market locked down, that cannot be traced to specific govt. action.

    Nobody has said that. I've said they were greedy. But when you introduce unnatural mechanisms, you'll get greedy corporations to do greedy things. It isn't an either/or thing. People are greedy. It's human nature. That's why credit standards were so rigid. Banks don't want to risk their money. You fall below the line, and you get charged 3-4% extra interest on top of normal rates. They're greedy, they don't want to lose money. Introduce unnatural mechanism (fannie/freddie immediately buying your risky loan, packaging and selling it, with what everyone knew was full faith and credit from the US) and Gizmo turns into a gremlin.

    "your System." If capitalism is my system padre, may I ask what yours is?

    Or are you arguing for replacing a system, all the while not having a replacement? What is it that you suggest, that is more equitable.
     

Share This Page