What would a socialist America look like?

[LordBrownTrout]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He has and Rs have.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Not at all. When I left the Marine Corps I applied for probably more than 100 positions that told me no, and that happening did not make me want to just quit working, it lead me to try harder and make the choice to expand my skill set and education.

A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing. People that choose to be "long time unemployed" are the problem

Thats noble, Gator.

 

[dblack]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He's "gone downhill" because he's not a Trumpster (ie because he's actually a conservative)

He was headed out 10 years ago under O. As far as conservatives.....what are they? Will ain't one of em. Lol.

Yeah. Apparently you're using a 'special' definition of conservative.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He's "gone downhill" because he's not a Trumpster (ie because he's actually a conservative)

He was headed out 10 years ago under O. As far as conservatives.....what are they? Will ain't one of em. Lol.

Yeah. Apparently you're using a 'special' definition of conservative.

It goes back to the original classical liberalism, circa 1700's, you know, something to strive for but never attaining.

 

[Wyatt earp]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

How does it create more demand if everything cost more?


.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Not at all. When I left the Marine Corps I applied for probably more than 100 positions that told me no, and that happening did not make me want to just quit working, it lead me to try harder and make the choice to expand my skill set and education.

A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing. People that choose to be "long time unemployed" are the problem

Thats noble, Gator.

Seems common sense to me. Got out 9 years ago, in the depths of the recession. All those briefs I went to as part of my separation where they told us everyone wanted to hire a Vet were petty much bullshit, or at least during the recession it was. My wife and looked at our situation and said this was not acceptable. In the next 4 years I finished the bachelors I started while still in the Corps, and got my Masters. My wife went back to school and got her RN which she has now turned into a BSN. Since that time our family income has gone from not much above poverty level to being in the top 10%.

The idea that people saying they did not want to hire me would make me want to sit on my ass is just stupid.

 

[dblack]

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He's "gone downhill" because he's not a Trumpster (ie because he's actually a conservative)

He was headed out 10 years ago under O. As far as conservatives.....what are they? Will ain't one of em. Lol.

Yeah. Apparently you're using a 'special' definition of conservative.

It goes back to the original classical liberalism, circa 1700's, you know, something to strive for but never attaining.

Riiiight

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He's "gone downhill" because he's not a Trumpster (ie because he's actually a conservative)

He was headed out 10 years ago under O. As far as conservatives.....what are they? Will ain't one of em. Lol.

Yeah. Apparently you're using a 'special' definition of conservative.

It goes back to the original classical liberalism, circa 1700's, you know, something to strive for but never attaining.

Riiiight

Sorry,will is no conservative. I would have given him a C- before he started glazing over. Who is a good conservative.....right now?

 

[dblack]

Sorry,will is no conservative. I would have given him a C- before he started glazing over. Who is a good conservative.....right now?

I see. So would you say that Trump is more conservative that Will?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sorry,will is no conservative. I would have given him a C- before he started glazing over. Who is a good conservative.....right now?

I see. So would you say that Trump is more conservative that Will?

Trump isn't conserative. Will isn't conservative. I would need actual conservatives to make a comparison.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Paying people who, for whatever reason CANNOT work is one thing. Paying people who CHOOSE not to work is another.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

You can't hire everybody who wants to work.

 

[dblack]

Sorry,will is no conservative. I would have given him a C- before he started glazing over. Who is a good conservative.....right now?

I see. So would you say that Trump is more conservative that Will?

Trump isn't conserative. Will isn't conservative. I would need actual conservatives to make a comparison.

Good call. In politics, it's often best to avoid making a clear statement. Keep it vague. Keep changing the definitions. Keep dodging.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Not at all. When I left the Marine Corps I applied for probably more than 100 positions that told me no, and that happening did not make me want to just quit working, it lead me to try harder and make the choice to expand my skill set and education.

A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing. People that choose to be "long time unemployed" are the problem

anecdotes; story tellers rely on them.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment, even if everyone is required to obtain a doctorate, to enter the work force.

 

[Timmy]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Don’t forget FEMA and all those waterlogged mooches in Carolina !

 

[danielpalos]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

How does it create more demand if everything cost more?


.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Sorry,will is no conservative. I would have given him a C- before he started glazing over. Who is a good conservative.....right now?

I see. So would you say that Trump is more conservative that Will?

Trump isn't conserative. Will isn't conservative. I would need actual conservatives to make a comparison.

Good call. In politics, it's often best to avoid making a clear statement. Keep it vague. Keep changing the definitions. Keep dodging.

There is no dodging. Why don't you take a look at the spending bill that was just passed in the senate 93-7 and 377-20 in the house, to the tune of 865B. Thats about as clear as I can make it. Then, you'll tell us who runs the senate and house......right now. Then you'll tell us how both sides are fighting for the bottom of the outhouse. I doubt you will though. Keep dodging.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

 

[dblack]

There is no dodging. Why don't you take a look at the spending bill that was just passed in the senate 93-7 and 377-20 in the house, to the tune of 865B. Thats about as clear as I can make it.

I believe you.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.