So you want better paying jobs?

[danielpalos]

dears, it is your own incompetence. I don't have that problem. I make sure I under the concepts if I want to debate something.

Stop it.

We understand the concepts. NO one understands your style of presenting your position and ideas.

This is about you and your issue, whatever it is.

like I said I don't have your problem I make sure I understand the concepts.

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

You don't communicate clearly enough for me to have an opinion on that.

Dear, it is you who doesn't understand the concepts. Who's fault is that.

NOpe. Try again.

Yup. I got it right the first time.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, simply having a public sector is a form of socialism.

so then if you are an utterly retarded liberal, you have anarchy or you have socialism. Is there one other liberal stupid enough to agree with you???

Only the clueless and the Causeless don't agree with me.

Wow. That's the weakest assertion argument I have ever seen.

Dude. YOu are not arguing your points, just repeating yourself.

Your behavior is much like that of a troll.

Dear, that is not an argument, but a statement of fact.

Claiming your opinion is a fact is not a logical argument. It is you being a troll.

Statement of fact, dear. Only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.​

 

[danielpalos]

dear only the clueless and the Causeless claim what you claim.

why not find a definition that says true capitalism only has a private sector or admit to being nuts?

Dear, capitalism involves voluntary social transactions that have capital consideration. The coercive use of force is baser Socialism.

Or it could be crony capitalism, or imperialism, or simply tyranny.

You are using such broad meanings of your words, that they have no meaning.

Dear, anything but the truest capitalism involves some socialism.

Nonsense. The world is not black and white. Stop playing games.

dear, diversion is still a fallacy, no amount of color can change it for you.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, anything but the truest capitalism involves some socialism.

And anything but the truest communism involves some govt. So?? Do you have any idea what point you are trying to make?

The point is dear, that socialism starts with a social Contract. And we should be solving for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, by using socialism to bail out Capitalism, like usual.

 

[Boss]

i think that is WHY he is so incoherent, because he knows that he cannot make his case honestly.

not sure I'd bet he sees himself as a psychologist slowly leading us to the truth in a way such that we will be there before we are aware of it and then can't deny that we have taken his position after all.

That way he can trick himself into feeling he doen't have to make an honest straight forward case, and that it must indirect because of our obstinence.

Mmm, interesting...

But not a psychologist, a visionary leader.

I'm still going with Jr. high computer bot program gone bad.

 

[Boss]

The point is dear, that socialism starts with a social Contract. And we should be solving for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, by using socialism to bail out Capitalism, like usual.

Social Contract is a theory that dates back to the Age of Enlightenment and actually involves about a dozen various models depending on who's theory of Social Contract you are observing. Our model, for example, is mainly patterned from John Locke. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense. The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed."

The theory starts with Grotius postulations on individual natural rights and natural law. This evolved into the Social Contract theory, first espoused by Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract. The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights
so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".

But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was also anarchic (without leadership) with respect to each other. Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force.

This brings us to Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) who most agree is the fundamental basis for our form of government. Others had variations on the theory, Rousseau, Proudhon, Rawls, Gauthier.

A true Socialist government is probably more in line with Rousseau's version which calls for complete surrender of individual rights to governing authority and holds that the laws imposed by the state are designed to "build character" in the individual. However, according to Karl Marx, Socialism is merely the segue to Communism and under a Communist government there is no social contract.

Capitalism has no inefficiency and Socialism never bails it out. Socialism without Capitalism was attempted by Mao Zedong in China. More political prisoners (i.e.; citizens) died under his rule than any other dictator in history with the possible exception of Stalin. Mao's plan was essentially followed by Pol Pot in Cambodia with the same results on a smaller scale. Everywhere on the planet where Socialist government has been attempted with large populations, the results have been horrific... on an inhuman scale of horrific.

Anyone with an IQ over 50 who thinks Socialism is a system we should give a whirl, is totally insane. So we must surmise, you are either someone who is really not very smart or you are someone who is mentally not stable.

 

[Correll]

The point is dear, that socialism starts with a social Contract. And we should be solving for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, by using socialism to bail out Capitalism, like usual.

Social Contract is a theory that dates back to the Age of Enlightenment and actually involves about a dozen various models depending on who's theory of Social Contract you are observing. Our model, for example, is mainly patterned from John Locke. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense. The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed."

The theory starts with Grotius postulations on individual natural rights and natural law. This evolved into the Social Contract theory, first espoused by Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract. The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights
so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".

But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was also anarchic (without leadership) with respect to each other. Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force.

This brings us to Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) who most agree is the fundamental basis for our form of government. Others had variations on the theory, Rousseau, Proudhon, Rawls, Gauthier.

A true Socialist government is probably more in line with Rousseau's version which calls for complete surrender of individual rights to governing authority and holds that the laws imposed by the state are designed to "build character" in the individual. However, according to Karl Marx, Socialism is merely the segue to Communism and under a Communist government there is no social contract.

Capitalism has no inefficiency and Socialism never bails it out. Socialism without Capitalism was attempted by Mao Zedong in China. More political prisoners (i.e.; citizens) died under his rule than any other dictator in history with the possible exception of Stalin. Mao's plan was essentially followed by Pol Pot in Cambodia with the same results on a smaller scale. Everywhere on the planet where Socialist government has been attempted with large populations, the results have been horrific... on an inhuman scale of horrific.

Anyone with an IQ over 50 who thinks Socialism is a system we should give a whirl, is totally insane. So we must surmise, you are either someone who is really not very smart or you are someone who is mentally not stable.

Very well said.

And no amount of obfuscation will change that.

 

[danielpalos]

i think that is WHY he is so incoherent, because he knows that he cannot make his case honestly.

not sure I'd bet he sees himself as a psychologist slowly leading us to the truth in a way such that we will be there before we are aware of it and then can't deny that we have taken his position after all.

That way he can trick himself into feeling he doen't have to make an honest straight forward case, and that it must indirect because of our obstinence.

Mmm, interesting...

But not a psychologist, a visionary leader.

I'm still going with Jr. high computer bot program gone bad.

I am going with just shillery due to y'alls lack of clues and lack of Causes.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is dear, that socialism starts with a social Contract. And we should be solving for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, by using socialism to bail out Capitalism, like usual.

Social Contract is a theory that dates back to the Age of Enlightenment and actually involves about a dozen various models depending on who's theory of Social Contract you are observing. Our model, for example, is mainly patterned from John Locke. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense. The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed."

The theory starts with Grotius postulations on individual natural rights and natural law. This evolved into the Social Contract theory, first espoused by Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract. The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights
so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".

But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was also anarchic (without leadership) with respect to each other. Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force.

This brings us to Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) who most agree is the fundamental basis for our form of government. Others had variations on the theory, Rousseau, Proudhon, Rawls, Gauthier.

A true Socialist government is probably more in line with Rousseau's version which calls for complete surrender of individual rights to governing authority and holds that the laws imposed by the state are designed to "build character" in the individual. However, according to Karl Marx, Socialism is merely the segue to Communism and under a Communist government there is no social contract.

Capitalism has no inefficiency and Socialism never bails it out. Socialism without Capitalism was attempted by Mao Zedong in China. More political prisoners (i.e.; citizens) died under his rule than any other dictator in history with the possible exception of Stalin. Mao's plan was essentially followed by Pol Pot in Cambodia with the same results on a smaller scale. Everywhere on the planet where Socialist government has been attempted with large populations, the results have been horrific... on an inhuman scale of horrific.

Anyone with an IQ over 50 who thinks Socialism is a system we should give a whirl, is totally insane. So we must surmise, you are either someone who is really not very smart or you are someone who is mentally not stable.

Dear, socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution s. And, we have had a mixed-market economy from inception. Only the right doesn't get it. Shillery?

 

[shadow355]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Supply and demand. The market economy. You can sell more computer keyboards for $15.00 than the person selling them for $20.00. Some corporations worry too much about a huge profit, rather than profit. Corporations can get greedy also - causing them business, sales and reputation.

Foreign countries in my opinion......have a better work ethic "IN General" than most corportions and large businesses. This makes them more successful.

Shadow 355

 

[Boss]

Supply and demand. The market economy. You can sell more computer keyboards for $15.00 than the person selling them for $20.00. Some corporations worry too much about a huge profit, rather than profit. Corporations can get greedy also - causing them business, sales and reputation.

Foreign countries in my opinion......have a better work ethic "IN General" than most corportions and large businesses. This makes them more successful.

Shadow 355

We have to comprehend the difference in economic systems of various foreign countries. For instance, you know who has a very strong "work ethic" and virtually no unemployment? North Korea. Of course, if you are not productive they kill you. Back in the 1800s, slaves on plantations in the South had great "work ethic" but when your choice is to work or be beaten, it motivates you to work.

In free market/free enterprise systems like ours, there seems to be a direct correlation between work ethic and personal benefit. People have strong work ethic because they desire more money, material things, quality of life. There may be some instances where cultural environment influences this... Japan, for example. Workers often live at the place they work, they rise at daybreak and do calisthenics in preparation for the day ahead, they may work 12-16 hr. shifts. This is a matter of honor and pride for them where other cultures may lack this.

As I said earlier, there is really no such thing as "greedy capitalists" in a true free market system. (Not talking about corporatists). A free market capitalist who gets too greedy will quickly discover a less greedy capitalist has taken his business. So "greed" regulates itself through market competition. However, I mentioned "corporatists" and these are would-be capitalists who exploit political influence and power to advantage their interests over the competition. It is actually these corporatists who give capitalism a bad name. From my perspective, we have to combat corporatism as much as we combat socialism to preserve a free market system.

 

[danielpalos]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

 

[Correll]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Supply and demand. The market economy. You can sell more computer keyboards for $15.00 than the person selling them for $20.00. Some corporations worry too much about a huge profit, rather than profit. Corporations can get greedy also - causing them business, sales and reputation.

Foreign countries in my opinion......have a better work ethic "IN General" than most corportions and large businesses. This makes them more successful.

Shadow 355

I don't buy it.

Plenty of Americans have a great work ethnic, and we have a great university system.

But we almost always lose when it comes to trade.

That doesn't sound like Free Trade, that sounds like a Trade War where we aren't defending ourselves.

 

[Correll]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

I can't be bothered to try to interpret your words.

 

[danielpalos]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

I can't be bothered to try to interpret your words.

Only shills without a clue or a Cause, say that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

gibberish from liberal illiterate

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is actually these corporatists who give capitalism a bad name..

Yes, they call it crony capitalism when really it is crony socialism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

I can't be bothered to try to interpret your words.

you should block him rather than enable him. he lacks the writing ability to be here and thus degrades USMB and us all with his inane gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

gibberish from liberal illiterate

Only incompetent shills say that.

 

[Correll]

Is the right finally recognizing that socialism Requires a work ethic while capitalism must rely on voluntary, freedom of association and Contract in Any at-will employment State.

I can't be bothered to try to interpret your words.

Only shills without a clue or a Cause, say that.

You really need to consider that I might be offering you constructive criticism.