Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Agreed. But is that how it should be? Pyro seems to think so.
Money Talks.. we'll see what happens..
Did you guys watch Bernie on Saturday night live this last Friday was pretty good..
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
SNL was on Friday this past week?
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
SNL was on Friday this past week?
Brandon- the pussywillow
I used the DVR watched it on Friday.. duh.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Um, Bernie was on SNL TWO NIGHTS AGO! Friday was THREE NIGHTS AGO! Does your DVR have a fully functioning flux capacitor?
You seem to be cracking, Pyro. Maybe try taking a break and reading a book or something?
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Um, Bernie was on SNL TWO NIGHTS AGO! Friday was THREE NIGHTS AGO! Does your DVR have a fully functioning flux capacitor?
-1 for stupid comments
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I think a candidate's net worth can be relevant, but only if they're in business trying to provide a service or good that others want. I have no trouble with a true altruist who has little means seeking public office. In Bernie's case, his financial situation represents his view of how the world should be -- we all work for the government, and retire with a comfortable pension plus enough extra to have some fun.
I think most Americans of his age would envy his financial situation. The problem is that if every American followed Bernie's example, no one would have that sort of financial security, because our GDP wouldn't support it. I particularly love how his supporters cite the Scandinavian countries as the economic model of what socialism produces, but ignore, say, Italy and France, which are much closer to reality. I've read at least one study that argues that the economic growth of the socialist Scandinavian countries occurred before the enactment of their welfare states. The socialist policies cut their growth rates in half.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/21463-debunking-the-myth-of-socialist-success-in-scandinavia
What I find more relevant is Bernie's total disconnect from the productive economy. Still, we need to balance that against his sincerity and, to me, his willingness to take on the most powerful political machine of our time.
John
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
as misguided as your view might be
How is a statement of fact a view? There's no value judgement there unless you mis-read
"I wish there was a way to avoid us having to rely on noblesse oblige as the
primary determinant of candidacy."
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
The problem is that if every American followed Bernie's example, no one would have that sort of financial security, because our GDP wouldn't support it.
+1 John..
also I read ur email about the Start up thread.. Thank you.. I'm drafting picture will update ASAP..
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
In Bernie's case, his financial situation represents his view of how the world should be -- we all work for the government, and retire with a comfortable pension plus enough extra to have some fun.
I don't think that's a fair assessment of his views. If you read Thomas and Harrington you'll note that small business in particular would do very well under democratic socialism. Workers and small business both suffer under capitalism, as the capitalist class appropriates the wealth that others create.
Socialism rewards work, not slackers.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Socialism rewards work, not slackers.
No Comment..
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
small business in particular would do very well under democratic socialism.
You've clearly not lived in Scandinavia or Europe - the bureaucratic and financial obstacles to
starting and running a small business are immense beyond comprehension.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I don't think that's a fair assessment of his views. If you read Thomas and Harrington you'll note that small business in particular would do very well under democratic socialism. Workers and small business both suffer under capitalism, as the capitalist class appropriates the wealth that others create.
Socialism rewards work, not slackers.
You must be speaking about something different from the left-wing reactionary policies espoused by Bernie and, say, Elizabeth Warren. As just one thought exercise, imagine Bernie's tax policies and Warren's regulatory policies in place in, say, 1970. Would the personal computer or the wireless communications industries exist as they do now?
I rather doubt it, because the Sanders/Warren policies have a bias to preserve the status quo. The confiscatory taxes on high incomes would prevent the creation of new wealth in new individuals, choking off the capital needed to develop new industries. The regulatory hostility to business would add expensive barriers to new industry formation, and harass any new business that succeeds.
Your last sentece, Gary, really states the root of the intellectual defect of socialism: it ignores every factor of production except labor. In order to produce something useful, we need more than labor. We need, among other things, resources, capital and bearers of the entrepreneurial risk. Socialism fails to reward any of these other inputs, and consequently has too little of them (in the case of bearers of entrepreneurial risk) or misuses them (in the case of resources).
Quite simply, people who a true believing Marxist would call a leech provide indespensible value. If no one spent less than they made, how would we have the capital needed to start a new business? If no one took an entrepreneurial risk, who would start a new business? For that matter, without those two inputs, who would continue an existing business?
I know from personal experience that not everyone wants to bear the entrepreneurial risk of an enterprise. My wife is the daughter of an entrepreneur, whose income fluctuated, so I assumed when we married that she knew how to live with a lawyer whose income fluctuated. Wrong! She would rather have a fixed, lower, income on which she could depend rather than a higher, but variable, income.
I can't think of anyone who is indifferent between having the same total income over time, where one is completely regular and predicable, and the other one is paid in random amounts at random times. Everyone I've ever run across would prefer the former. The reason entrepreneurs get an extra return for bearing risk is the same reason people get paid for working but not lazing -- they're doing something they would not normally do for free.
The same is true of a return on capital. The only way to build capital is to forego consumption. Those who consume now don't get the same return as those who consume later because those who consume later do something people normally don't do for free. Socialism rewards neither of these activities.
The same is true of resource use. If I decide that petroleum, say, is more valuable if it's not refined into fuel, so I simply want to keep in in the ground, I forego current income compared with those who are pumping and selling now. I won't forego the current income inless I expect a greater return for waiting. Again, socialism would pay nothing for waiting to use a resource differently.
In theory, a government could spread the entrepreneurial risk, raise the capital, and decide on resource allocation without the need for those nasty entrepreneurs, capital owners, and resource owners. In a democracy, though, overnmental economic policy tends to be reactionary, because any change in the economic status quo will hurt a well-defined group of voters, who will take it out on those who allowed the change to take place. Those policies would perpetuate the economy of the middle ages if we hadn't evolved into capitalism and freedom.
The genius of capitalism is its ability to transmit useful information through prices. Any system of government control needs information on peoples' abilities, wants, needs and preferences in order to make intelligent decisions on what to produce. So far, no system of governmental control provides that information with as much accuracy, and at as low a cost, as capitalism. Socialism is just one big free lunch -- and there ain't no such thing.
John
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Socialism rewards work, not slackers.
Must be pure joy working a litle harder to pick up the slack of slackers who get paid the same as you.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
John, I'm old school. I read Norman Thomas and Michael Harrington and what Eugene Debs left us.. That's what I know.
I rather doubt it, because the Sanders/Warren policies have a bias to preserve the status quo. The confiscatory taxes on high incomes would prevent the creation of new wealth in new individuals, choking off the capital needed to develop new industries.
Wealth, or capital, is created when resources and labor is combined. Capital does not create labor, labor creates capital.
The regulatory hostility to business would add expensive barriers to new industry formation, and harass any new business that succeeds.
Any regulatory hostility that business encounters is because business has proven many times that it deserves those regulations, unfortunately.
Your last sentece, Gary, really states the root of the intellectual defect of socialism: it ignores every factor of production except labor. In order to produce something useful, we need more than labor.
Absolutely. Labor includes more than physical effort. Managers, coordinators are very important to any organization.
We need, among other things, resources, capital and bearers of the entrepreneurial risk.
True! What we don't need is a class of self-entitled accumulators of wealth created by all of us.
We already have a system that socializes the losses, why not socialize the profits?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
We have a system that socializes some of the losses and profits, but if it solcialized all of the losses, the insolvency bar would be out of business. We aren't.
Conservatives are no fans of socializing losses or profits, but I would tend to agree that to the extent the public bears the loss, it should obtain the profit attributable to the share of entrepreneurial risk.
I obviously think Thomas, Debs, et al., miss the mark in their assumption that labor creates capital -- it does not. Labor may be a necessary condition for capital accumulation, but it is not a sufficient one. Saving is capital's sine qua non. To the extent savers receive interest, it rewards their delay in consumption. To the extent investors receive a return on investment, it rewards their taking on risk.
I've never been able to get a useful definition of "a class of self-entitled accumulators of wealth created by all of us." The only way to accumulate wealth (as opposed to income) is to spend less than you make. How does anyone else contribute to that?
Income, in contrast, has many parents, but the mix of reward is entirely up to the individual. Do you want an investor's return? Then invest. That requires most of us to save, which we don't like to do. One of capitalism's many virtues is the freedom we have to participate in the economy. Sure, those who benefit from the generosity of others (e.g. forebears) have more opportunities, but very few have no real choice. An economy, taken as a whole, tends to perform better if its actors behave as if their actions affect their rewards. Socialism has too big a disconnect between action and reward.
John
P.S. Are you ever up this way? I would love to treat you to lunch or dinner and, if you're willing to climb with a known coward, share a rope.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Socializing profits are their MAIN concern.
"The confiscatory taxes on high incomes would prevent the creation of new wealth in new individuals, choking off the capital needed to develop new industries. The regulatory hostility to business would add expensive barriers to new industry formation, and harass any new business that succeeds."
Well no sense expanding upon that ,there.We just have an overload of upward mobility right now.
Edit;It really is going to suck for the older folks here when millennials start running things in about 6 -10 years.[or earlier]
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Socialism has too big a disconnect between action and reward. +1 john
what don't you want to be EQUALLY POOR..!?!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
The only way to accumulate wealth (as opposed to income) is to spend less than you make. How does anyone else contribute to that?
Because unless you start with a small fortune, the best, possibly only way to make a large fortune, is to have others do the work!
Capitalism is no more or less flawed than any other -ism, except pragmatism.
TE
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Because unless you start with a small fortune, the best, possibly only way to make a large fortune, is to have others do the work!
WRONG I started with nada and NOW I'm thinking of a start-up go figure..
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Let us know when you have a Large Fortune .
Till then,that Ice needs cleaned and I am building a roof.
Remember Labor does not create wealth![or a necessary condition for capitol accumulation ]
Well said TradEddie.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!