economy

[Script]

I'm trying to see the morality in one person renting a house they don't need to live in to another person. Nothing to do with envy.

Hah? Maybe rather 'greed' in this case then? The flipside of which is 'envy' (back to post-Lehman discoursive dichotomy of late).

So what's the nearest 'viable' solution? I'm really not interested in theoretical exposés. Is it no more property for anyone, so basically a one-time dispossession? Or can it be forcing owners to rent out for cheaper to 'the disfranchized' including immigrants with little to no means?

 

[tands]

And I'm really not interested in circular reasoning about the failings of the entire human race, it's a finite minority that is greedy and immoral, and I have no reason to base what I think on how they behave, or what they want. Your argument boils down to: 'People suck, so it's quite proper to have a society that sucks too. There's no point in trying to do any better, because people suck you know, and they would ruin it all eventually." It's a convenient belief for the defense of Capital and it's actions, so it's used for that. I disagree obviously, and one time dispossession would be fine with me.

 

[Script]

So you followed the discourse. Good. What you describe is exactly the end of what I think the cultivated greed/envy dichotomy that I tried to descibe is perversely achieving.

(1) Insistence on greed by some to usher in inertia.
(2) Insistence on greed by others to built up non-compromising antagonism.

Consequently, both don't help people in real life but simply obfuscate.

 

[Script]

Really what we should look at is which system provides the best net benefit for the most people. [...] But anyway, on that note then, would any system provide less of the negatives you mentioned? I think the key to answering that lies partially in semantics (unfortunately).

That can hardly be called irrelevant, can it? And I'm not interested in semantics. I've seen this word dropped so many times now as a kind of 'killer argument' and, really, I don't know what it is meant to say. Discussing connotations? Disseminating how certain words are used within a certain school? I'm not into semantics -- I'm into syntax, practical syntax, actually one that does not strictly follow an ideal system of communication or (philosophical) thinking.

OK, any system can be improved to provide more of what it does provide. There are limits to any system, of course, and then a contraption needs an overhaul. We generally first disagree on the effectiveness of a system and then on the new design. In everyday politics, realistically, this is ever so slow a process. I hope we agree. Anyway, I don't see a shift in paradigm (not only in politics and economic outline, but also in human thinking and behavior) simply fall from the skies like a shooting star, no matter how insistent we are on old (read: ahistorical) 'proven' systems. All worth discussing? Sure, I think that's what this thread is also about. But I’m more into practical approaches.

Moreover, and this was my point, constructing new antagonisms as has been done in the latest greed/envy dichotomy (check the wordfield in most newspapers since 2009) doesn't help much. On the contrary, it obfuscates. In its extreme consequence it's a call to arms, with many 'disfranchized' (single moms with four kids etc etc etc etc) not making it even half way. It's the saviors calling for other people's self-sacrifice (religious undertone intended). In its milder form, propagating time and again that saving money or having a bit of money (or capital or property or just 'means' -- yes, semantics only) and that taking part in the system economically by 'investing' (no matter how small or into what, including stocks, property or old-age savings plan etc) automatically makes that person 'greedy' and 'evil' and ‘part of that system’ – well, this is what we sometimes seem to have come to by now – this insistence is absolutely detrimental to most people's real-life situation.

Said differently: Studying Marx doesn't help a worker at all. A worker really doesn't need to read Marx to know where personal limits are. And studying Marx, anti-capitalism and other theoretical stuff just to be 'allowed' to sit at the table is downright snobbish -- look at how that has worked out in history. Japan is just another case in point. They had strong and huge left groups shortly after WWII who started to engage in street fights against one another, only to the effect that the left is virtually inexistent in Japan today. I understand that the US is somewhat similar, though for different reasons, in that there is no real public realm for left-leaning political discussion. It's a shame and mistake I think.

Nepotism for example, as well as corruption, relies heavily on the system providing the means for it.

Is that an argument for or against the system we have now? I'd think that either way it’s better than feudalism or absolutism.
As a practical aside here: Allowing private sponsorship of political candidates was probably one of the biggest mistakes in recent US history. Get rid of it.

[...] on the other hand Anarchism in a sense does away with a huge amount of such opportunities. So if this is a big issue Anarchism scores highly here.

Maybe it does. Question here is: Will it 'work' on a large scale? With 'work' I mean (and meant in my previous post): Will it 'function' on a nation-state scale? If so, what does present-day politics have to implement as ideas, laws and regulations to warp the 'system' slowly into what would be equivalent to Anarchism? Or will it not work/function and we have to get rid of the nation-satet first? And can the former be done without resorting to antagonistic verbiage and thinking, including repeating words like greed, Anarchism, anti-capitalism  etc etc all the time, as many people simply associate different and sometimes wrong things with them, whereas some other words are simply (historically) overcharged? See, practical syntax, with an emphasis on practical.

By being a subset of Socialism people in Anarchist societies cooperate and co-organize voluntarily. There is no coercion that forces it, and thus simply opting-out of exploitative relationships becomes a viable option.

That's nice. But does it really work when facing antagonism? You say it didn't historically (as in Spain) because it was attacked from the outside. How would that then be different today despite information technology? So Anarchism would function if the entire world turned to Anarchism at the same time? Unlikely. Please don't take offence, cos I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I really want to hear more about Anarchism and how it could be made to work in our present-day system, but please without being referred to the library. Rather I'm interested in hearing first-hand practical ideas and solutions that could just as well be implemented today rather than in some utopian future.

So yes, greed is a problem, but the solution to it isn't talking about human nature, the solution is understanding human nature and then picking a system that is good.

OK, no more theory then and instead practical suggestions, please. Again, I meet many rich people through my job, for better or worse. Just a few days ago a guy who owns an entire lake with adjacent estate for running factories. He said: “The coming inflation in Europe will make rich people less rich -- and that is good!” The first part is debatable without changes in policies, but the underlying trajectory in human nature is there. Said differently: Piss these people off and you have your revolt with little chance of winning. Yes, I think it's that bad by now.

And as for "envy"; yeah, I think that's partially true, but I think only to a small part. It hink to a large degree a lot of this "envy" really is an innate subconscious understanding of things simply not being fair.

Sure, it wasn't that much in the 1950s and 1960s, when the promises were fresh and wages/income rose. It sure also is an underlying understanding of things being innately unfair. My point is that recently it's actively being cultivated for different purposes -- by media for creating sales, maybe by some of the 'greedy rich' to provoke that final clash (mainly among the lower strata of society), a clash it needs to cement the status quo, but it is also cultivated by political activists to gain momentum (both right and left). And the question here is: To what end?

Again, I'd prefer to hear practical suggestions that take today's reality into account and could be implemented under the present system – with the idea to change it and make it more just etc in the short, mid, long term. But I'd insist on viability first, please, as I'm fed up with too much theory and alternate bubble realities (had my full load of that a long way back at university). Pointing out dismerits of a system is fine, but it's only half the job -- as criticizing is the easy part after all. 

 

[tands]

Hey, perversely acheiving is my middle name. I can't make sense of your convoluted insinuations, but I think your envy/greed theory is a bit thin. I'd like to point you to the concept of the false dichotomy.

false dichotomy (plural false dichotomies)

    A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.

 

[tands]

Here's some ideas for you to chew on anyway.

ECONOMICS

The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations. Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries.

• We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and Trans Pacific Partnership.

• We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.

• We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

• We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.

• We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for reregulation of the banking and insurance industries.

• We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum.  We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.

• We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale.

• We call for compensation to communities-- and compensation, re-training, and other support service for workers-- affected by plant and military base closings as stop-gap measures until we reach our goal of creating a socialist society totally separate from the global capitalist economy.

• We oppose the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization as instruments of capitalist oppression throughout the world.

• We demand cancellation of Third World debt.

• We call for a National Pension Authority to hold the assets of private pension funds, and a levy against corporate assets for any pension fund deficits.

• We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.

• We support a program of massive federal investment in both urban and rural areas for infrastructure reconstruction and economic development.

• We support tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners.

• We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare.

• We oppose the court-created precedent of “corporate personhood” that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings.

LABOR

The Socialist Party stands for the right of all workers to organize, for worker control of industry through the democratic organization of the workplace, for the social ownership of the means of production and distribution, and for international solidarity among working people based on common opposition to global capitalism and imperialism.We believe that the international organ-ization of labor is the only way of combating the exploitation of workers in a global capitalist economy. Working people have no country, but rather an international bond based on class. Workers throughout the world have far more in common with each other across national boundaries than with their bosses in their own countries. Ultimately a socialist revolution must be an international revolution that cannot survive if confined to individual countries amidst capitalist imperialism.

• We support the right of any number of interested workers in a workplace to form a union with no limits on the subjects upon which employees and unions may bargain with employers.

• We support the right of public sector workers to strike.

• We call for recognizing a union based on cards signed.

• We call for the democratic control of all unions by their membership, and independent of employer domination and influence.

• We support the right of all workers to engage in collective action and self-representation regardless of union status.

• We support militant, united labor action including hot cargo agreements, and boycotts, factory committees, secondary and sympathy strikes, sit-down strikes, general strikes, and ultimately the expropriation of workplaces.

• We support the right of workers to hold shop meetings on company premises, elect their immediate supervisors, and administer health and safety programs through the formation of shop councils.
• We call for the repeal of the Hatch Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, the "hot cargo" provision of the Landrum-Griffin Act, and all so-called "right-to-work" laws.

• We call for the same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers. 

• We call for increased health and safety regulation of business, and for increasing the size and enforcement power of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

• We support the creation of a fund for workers which would pay a worker’s full wages and health insurance as well as necessary educational and/or retraining costs if that worker loses a job due to environmental transition, down-sizing, corporate dismantlement, or capital flight.

• We call for a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation.

• We call for unions to stop using union funds for electing candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties.

• We call for the end of the decades-long exclusion of farm workers and domestic workers from receiving overtime pay.

And that's not all.

http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html

http://www.dsausa.org

 

[JohnRoberts]

Capital does equal Evil, let's not pretend otherwise.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S2

http://rbutler.sdsu.edu/gurely2.htm

Capital is not good or bad, it just is and whether it does good or bad depends on how it is used.

Attacking capital is a veiled form of class warfare, to stir up a larger group for political purposes (probably). By definition there will always be less people that are very wealthy so it is more productive to organize those who don't feel wealthy. Sadly we don't realize how wealthy most of us are compared to centuries past.

(no link added because I post my own thoughts. We all have google,)

JR

 

[dmp]

Attacking capital is a veiled form of class warfare,

Labeling thoughts you oppose is a classic political strategy (like "class warfare", "identity politics", "racist" etc) to defect away from specific, valid discussion.
It would be more interesting to argue the merits of the issue than turn it into name calling.
The issue is how to allocate Capital resources. The current (nearly entirely unregulated) form of Capitalism has severe drawbacks. I think this is apparent to everyone who looks into it. It is only accepted because it overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest and most powerful.
And the implication with "class warfare" is that people who criticize the status quo are in the 'other' (poor) class.  I suspect most people here (well educated, etc) are in the 'wealthy' class. Just because someone benefits from the status quo doesn't mean they can't see the flaws and argue for reform.

I saw a graph showing 38% of Republicans do not believe the Earth's climate is changing at all - in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Maybe a similar concept - we don't want to believe reality because we prefer the fantasy. There's a phrase going around "red pill", referring to the movie the Matrix. Take the blue pill, and you keep living your pleasant fantasy - take the red pill and you see the truth.

 

[tands]

Capital is not good or bad, it just is and whether it does good or bad depends on how it is used.

Attacking capital is a veiled form of class warfare, to stir up a larger group for political purposes (probably).

Not veiled by me! Nothing wrong with class warfare from my end, capital does it all day every day so the last thing I'll do is roll over. Marx wrote a big book analysing and critiquing the habits and function of Capital. It was called Capital, and Nobody has credibly argued he's wrong in his analysis.

Capital is bad. Unless you're Capital. Then it's still bad, but it seems good to you.

Refute this.

A worker sells his labor power- his mental and physical capabilities- to a capitalist for its value, and the capitalist uses the labor power to obtain commodities which have a value higher than that of the labor power purchased. Thus, the secret of surplus value is that labor power is a source of more value than it has itself. The capitalist is able to capture the surplus value through his ownership of the means of production and his historically established right to purchase labor power as a commodity, to control the work process, and to claim the product as his property. This surplus value, according to Marx, is the measure of capital's exploitation of labor.

 

[mattiasNYC]

this was my point, constructing new antagonisms as has been done in the latest greed/envy dichotomy (check the wordfield in most newspapers since 2009) doesn't help much. On the contrary, it obfuscates. In its extreme consequence it's a call to arms, with many 'disfranchized' (single moms with four kids etc etc etc etc) not making it even half way. It's the saviors calling for other people's self-sacrifice (religious undertone intended). In its milder form, propagating time and again that saving money or having a bit of money (or capital or property or just 'means' -- yes, semantics only) and that taking part in the system economically by 'investing' (no matter how small or into what, including stocks, property or old-age savings plan etc) automatically makes that person 'greedy' and 'evil' and ‘part of that system’ – well, this is what we sometimes seem to have come to by now – this insistence is absolutely detrimental to most people's real-life situation.

Said differently: Studying Marx doesn't help a worker at all.

It seems like you're really first just complaining about the media, which is profit-driven, but then move on from that to make a conclusion that simply doesn't follow.

I think the fundamental question here is a) do we want a free press, in which case the objections above are noted but ultimately change nothing, and b) do we want an educated population or not....

A worker really doesn't need to read Marx to know where personal limits are. And studying Marx, anti-capitalism and other theoretical stuff just to be 'allowed' to sit at the table is downright snobbish -- look at how that has worked out in history.

I think you're completely wrong about that. Completely.

First of all, historically, if you're actually looking at truly Socialist movements the management of resources were in large part done by the working classses, just organized differently than today. The very process in which it was done, particularly in Anarchist societies, was far more democratic and required far less than what we require today. Surely you would agree that the CEO or any other "manager up high" in a corporation such as IBM or Ford or whatever needs a good education, yes? So why is it that meritocracy is fine as long as it's in the name of capitalist for-profit corporations, yet not in politics? And mind you, I'm actually not arguing for it being a requirement in both cases, I'm just noting a discrepancy here.

Secondly, if the alternative is that you have an uneducated population who thinks that Obamacare = Socialism then you're guaranteed to get a population that votes on things they don't fully understand. So these practical changes you're looking for can't happen because people can't vote for them because they can't understand what they're voting for.

In a sense it seems you're advocating something that really is a sort of oxymoron: People should choose practical solutions wisely but not have the knowledge to know what they are. Might as well flip a coin at that point, were it not for the for-profit media we dislike.

Is that an argument for or against the system we have now? I'd think that either way it’s better than feudalism or absolutism.

You asked me to show you a system that is less prone to nepotism, and Anarchism is such a system. You brought it up so I'm not sure why you're asking the question above. It's as if I countered your concern over some aspect of Anarchism with "Wouldn't you agree that Anarchism is better than WWII-era National Socialism in Germany?" Well, it's not one or the other, we have other  options.

(and yes, I do think it's an argument against the current system, and yes, we do agree that the influence of money in politics is hugely problematic, regardless of whether it's Trump or Clinton that's guilty of it...)

Anarchism in a sense does away with a huge amount of such opportunities. So if this is a big issue Anarchism scores highly here.

Maybe it does. Question here is: Will it 'work' on a large scale? With 'work' I mean (and meant in my previous post): Will it 'function' on a nation-state scale? If so, what does present-day politics have to implement as ideas, laws and regulations to warp the 'system' slowly into what would be equivalent to Anarchism? Or will it not work/function and we have to get rid of the nation-satet first? And can the former be done without resorting to antagonistic verbiage and thinking, including repeating words like greed, Anarchism, anti-capitalism  etc etc all the time, as many people simply associate different and sometimes wrong things with them, whereas some other words are simply (historically) overcharged? See, practical syntax, with an emphasis on practical.
------------------
That's nice. But does it really work when facing antagonism? You say it didn't historically (as in Spain) because it was attacked from the outside. How would that then be different today despite information technology? So Anarchism would function if the entire world turned to Anarchism at the same time? Unlikely. Please don't take offence, cos I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I really want to hear more about Anarchism and how it could be made to work in our present-day system, but please without being referred to the library. Rather I'm interested in hearing first-hand practical ideas and solutions that could just as well be implemented today rather than in some utopian future.

I don't think it can be implemented in the US or the west today simply because these "antagonistic" capitalist forces stand to lose power and wealth by implementing such a system. That's the practical reality. Look, even what was essentially benign Socialism in central America was fought violently by western capitalist powers simply because it was absolutely clear that if it worked it would pose a huge problem; it would have shown people that there was an alternative to the system that fed those in control in the west. So it was in that sense an "ideological cancer" that needed to be cut out.

I foresee only more of that, and I foresee that people who feel disenfranchised will rise up against the system eventually. Once they do they'll either create more of the same because they don't know any better (did't "read the books") or they'll create something different by chance or because of knowledge.

So, since you prefaced your question with "that works" and that won't be beaten down any and all suggestions of how it could practically work would simply be successfully opposed by stating that those in power would simply beat down this movement.

Now, you might then conclude that "well then what's the point in proposing something we can't make work?", but my point is that these things can change when there is an awareness in the population of what is truly going on, which in turn requires an education and thus understanding of the actual system. That's why we need a theoretical discussion about what is going on.

I'd prefer to hear practical suggestions that take today's reality into account and could be implemented under the present system – with the idea to change it and make it more just etc in the short, mid, long term. But I'd insist on viability first, please, as I'm fed up with too much theory and alternate bubble realities (had my full load of that a long way back at university). Pointing out dismerits of a system is fine, but it's only half the job -- as criticizing is the easy part after all.

Ok, but it all sounds like you're saying "Well, tell me if there is a better system. But if there is we both know we won't get that system, so tell me how to make the current system better." and that latter statement makes the former request not really genuine. In other words; asking if there's something better than Capitalism and then insisting on only suggestions that improve Capitalism is intellectually 'unfair'.....

To conclude; I'm a "realist" ("pessimist" to some) regarding where we're heading. I think things will only get worse and that capitalism is unsustainable. Therefore something has to give. It will take a long time before it changes and it won't happen peacefully in most capitalist nations. That's my prediction. (not that you asked)

 

[mattiasNYC]

By definition there will always be less people that are very wealthy

You don't know that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Labeling thoughts you oppose is a classic political strategy (like "class warfare", "identity politics", "racist" etc) to defect away from specific, valid discussion.
It would be more interesting to argue the merits of the issue than turn it into name calling.

point taken

The issue is how to allocate Capital resources.

do you mean OPM (other people's money) redistributed by government force?

The current (nearly entirely unregulated) form of Capitalism has severe drawbacks.

there is strong disagreement as evidenced by the 2016 election whether there is enough regulation or too much. I have long said we need some regulation to check the excesses of capitalism, but the last 8 years look like too much to me.

I think this is apparent to everyone who looks into it. It is only accepted because it overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest and most powerful.

I don't consider myself wealthy or powerful, unless compared to the me from centuries ago.

And the implication with "class warfare" is that people who criticize the status quo are in the 'other' (poor) class.  I suspect most people here (well educated, etc) are in the 'wealthy' class. Just because someone benefits from the status quo doesn't mean they can't see the flaws and argue for reform.

This is an extremely old argument, with examples (mostly in europe or scandinavia) that people draw different conclusions about.

I saw a graph showing 38% of Republicans do not believe the Earth's climate is changing at all - in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

cute... that is a straw man, but i don't doubt that most people don't even understand the real questions about climate change. "Is it man caused, and will the government actions make a difference to the climate?" (maybe, and no).

Maybe a similar concept - we don't want to believe reality because we prefer the fantasy. There's a phrase going around "red pill", referring to the movie the Matrix. Take the blue pill, and you keep living your pleasant fantasy - take the red pill and you see the truth.

Sorry I have no response for that one... you sound a little angry and less reasoned than usual.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Labeling thoughts you oppose is a classic political strategy (like "class warfare", "identity politics", "racist" etc) to defect away from specific, valid discussion.
It would be more interesting to argue the merits of the issue than turn it into name calling.
The issue is how to allocate Capital resources. The current (nearly entirely unregulated) form of Capitalism has severe drawbacks. I think this is apparent to everyone who looks into it. It is only accepted because it overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest and most powerful.
And the implication with "class warfare" is that people who criticize the status quo are in the 'other' (poor) class.  I suspect most people here (well educated, etc) are in the 'wealthy' class. Just because someone benefits from the status quo doesn't mean they can't see the flaws and argue for reform.

I completely agree.

I saw a graph showing 38% of Republicans do not believe the Earth's climate is changing at all - in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Scary..... That's why the US needs worse education, to maintain....

 

[JohnRoberts]

You don't know that.

At least the way I define  "very wealthy" there are far less of them than those "not very wealthy" . 

I feel pretty confident about this, while using global standards for poverty (something like $1 day) we are probably all wealthy, but the qualification "very" wealthy, suggests a smaller subset of all wealthy.

JR

 

[tands]

They are miserably poor, actually. I've no doubt I'm exploiting them somehow. Underwear, ever try to buy underwear not made in a hellscape free trade zone? Their oil is probably in the buses. Their coltan in the cell phones.

Etc.

 

[dmp]

do you mean OPM (other people's money) redistributed by government force?

No, it goes back to before the wealth is first generated and distributed. Say you have a community of 100 people producing something of value and 1 person has the power to decide how much everyone makes. Is the allocation likely to be fair? Now say you have a 'capital asset' that underpins this work 100 people can do to produce things of value (i.e. a natural resource like a forest, for example) and 1 person "owns" that natural resource.  This 1 person has power to suppress the income and wealth of the other 99 only to the limit of what other opportunities the 99 have by leaving their community, in this example. How is it reasonable that 99 people in a community work in such an imbalance to the 1 in power? Why does a small minority of people "own" the Capital and thereby hold the power of wealth allocation?

There is a good documentary called "commanding heights". It is a little dated at this point, but gives a lot of background on Capitalism and different economic theories. The commanding heights of the economy are the pillars like steel production, oil, etc and have classically either been privatized or state owned. And it is fiscally conservative & pro-Capitalism for easy consumption by a less progressive audience.

cute... that is a straw man, but i don't doubt that most people don't even understand the real questions about climate change. "Is it man caused, and will the government actions make a difference to the climate?" (maybe, and no).

A straw man means: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
If  I said my neighbor observed the ice freeze a week earlier than normal so the climate must not be warming, that would be a straw man. Instead I cited a statistic about 1/3 of Republican's believing something that is easily seen to be factually incorrect. I don't think it is just a Republican issue, but yeah, I think there is some dismissal of obvious truths by people based on there own self interest.

Whether Climate change is human caused is a separate and more difficult question. It is harder for someone to look at the evidence without a strong scientific background and make a well reasoned judgment. With a M.S. in engineering specializing in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, I agree with the scientific consensus - that human behavior is affecting the climate. (can we reverse it? I don't know) But I don't expect the preponderance of average people to make the same judgment, especially when it is highly politicized.

    Maybe a similar concept - we don't want to believe reality because we prefer the fantasy. There's a phrase going around "red pill", referring to the movie the Matrix. Take the blue pill, and you keep living your pleasant fantasy - take the red pill and you see the truth.

Sorry I have no response for that one... you sound a little angry and less reasoned than usual.

Nah, not sure where you got that from. Back to name calling? (i.e. "you sound a little defensive" etc...)

 

[tands]

c6T

 

[Script]

Tands,

that was a good list... Although your introductory words sounded a bit antagonistic in themselves. Me insinuating? Not sure what you mean. But sorry if you felt compelled to get defensive -- that was not my intention.

I skipped  over the bullet points and TBH, there is not that much for me to chew on as a European, apart maybe from the 'revolution' and especially 'international revolution' part on the DSA website, which do sound outdated by a century. Overall, all excellent for starters.

And exactly that makes me wonder why people not only in the US in the last elections, but also across Europe seem to increasingly lean toward and vote for the opposite lately. It's all capitalism's fault? If only all things were that simple. If really so, after Lehman, people should indeed have voted for the program in your quote, at least across Europe. But maybe they just didn't chew on it long enough? So where are the alternate options?

Anyway, I poject that people will grow sick of Brexit proponent campaigns, rumbunctiousness a la Trump, word twisting (as is common among European right-wing parties and all ideologues for that matter) as well as being fed ideology and reality snippets out of context rather sooner than later, and that what is needed next is interpreters, not metaphors, tooters, blurbs, blogs and tweets.

 

[JohnRoberts]

No, it goes back to before the wealth is first generated and distributed. Say you have a community of 100 people producing something of value and 1 person has the power to decide how much everyone makes. Is the allocation likely to be fair? Now say you have a 'capital asset' that underpins this work 100 people can do to produce things of value (i.e. a natural resource like a forest, for example) and 1 person "owns" that natural resource.  This 1 person has power to suppress the income and wealth of the other 99 only to the limit of what other opportunities the 99 have by leaving their community, in this example. How is it reasonable that 99 people in a community work in such an imbalance to the 1 in power? Why does a small minority of people "own" the Capital and thereby hold the power of wealth allocation?

rule of law and the right to own property is the engine for economic growth. Government capture of private wealth (presumably to redistribute after they get a taste) typically just dissipates that wealth over time making more people poor.

There is a good documentary called "commanding heights". It is a little dated at this point, but gives a lot of background on Capitalism and different economic theories. The commanding heights of the economy are the pillars like steel production, oil, etc and have classically either been privatized or state owned. And it is fiscally conservative & pro-Capitalism for easy consumption by a less progressive audience.
A straw man means: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
If  I said my neighbor observed the ice freeze a week earlier than normal so the climate must not be warming, that would be a straw man. Instead I cited a statistic about 1/3 of Republican's believing something that is easily seen to be factually incorrect. I don't think it is just a Republican issue, but yeah, I think there is some dismissal of obvious truths by people based on there own self interest.

Whether Climate change is human caused is a separate and more difficult question. It is harder for someone to look at the evidence without a strong scientific background and make a well reasoned judgment. With a M.S. in engineering specializing in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, I agree with the scientific consensus - that human behavior is affecting the climate. (can we reverse it? I don't know) But I don't expect the preponderance of average people to make the same judgment, especially when it is highly politicized.

It is using the wrong question to gin up consensus. Sorry if I cited the wrong logical fallacy I am not a master-debater  8). Yes the earth is warming now, that is empirical fact, so denying that is just ignorant (and many people are ignorant probably more than 38%). That is a separate question from what is causing change  (the sun) and what to do about it, if anything. There was a good treatment several years ago made by some well known Chicago economists about ways we could actually cool the planet if that becomes desireable. I remain unconvinced that this is our highest priority, or that we should take actual remedial action (actively cool the planet) casually without a lot more study.  Actually doing something about this without complete understanding could have unintended consequences. For now it's just government actors using it as a bogeyman to scare the public and take more control over the energy economy but not doing anything impactful other than raising energy costs.

My local "clean coal" (cough) power plant is due to come online next month (but I've heard that before). Only 7 years and $7B to build a coal power plant that could have been done using cheaper natural gas for only $700M.  As a ratepayer for that electricity I expect to be charged for >$4B in cost overruns (thank you EPA).

Nah, not sure where you got that from. Back to name calling? (i.e. "you sound a little defensive" etc...)

Back to the regulations discussion, an unintended consequence surrounding excessive regulation is that it gives big business (who can afford the extra staff to satisfy the regulators and pass the cost for that along to customers) a significant advantage over small businesses who can not afford to comply.

Small business IMO is much preferable to big business... Big business can also afford lobby legislators and win even more advantages over small competitors AKA crony capitalism. Big government or big business is not beautiful IMO.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

At least the way I define  "very wealthy" there are far less of them than those "not very wealthy" . 

I feel pretty confident about this, while using global standards for poverty (something like $1 day) we are probably all wealthy, but the qualification "very" wealthy, suggests a smaller subset of all wealthy.

JR

I didn't object to your definition of "very wealthy" but with " By definition there will always be less people that are very wealthy ".