Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[phoenyx]

I'm not so sure that the rich couldn't be taxed more. The U.S. has actually been taxing the rich less and less for decades. As to his other point, it's not that hard to understand what makes it work for Nordics. He mentions provides a good clue in his article:
**I think there’s reasons that it won’t work, one of them simply being geography. The U.S. is just too large a place to be shipping 15% (another 15%!) of GDP off to Washington DC for it then to be redistributed in nice things from the bureaucrats. There really are good reasons why Denmark does much of this at the commune level, a grouping of as few as 10,000 people.**

At this point, from the first sentence, I get the feeling you just have wealth envy. What makes you think that the business owners shouldn't keep their money? They earned it,

Did they really? Money isn't created by labour. Most of it is created by the banks, and only a small fraction (5% or less) is created by the government printing bills and coins. From what I've heard, banks create 95% of the money in the U.S. and 97% of the money in the UK; I imagine the percentage is similar in most other countries as well. They are not "earning" that money, they are simply creating it out of the signatures of those who come to them for loans in one form or another. The following video explains it quite well within the first 2 minutes or so:


I imagine you've heard of the "golden rule"? Just in case you haven't heard of it, I'll include a brief excerpt from wikipedia:
**
The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself. It is a maxim of altruism seen in many human religions, human cultures, and animal kingdoms.[1][2] The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:

• One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).[1]
• One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).[1]
• What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).[1]**

Source: Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The banks and their ilk, however, operate by a different "golden rule", one mentioned in a certain movie with Kevin Costner in it whose name escapes me: "He who has the gold makes the rules". The rules have been tailored to essentially steal from the lower classes to further enrich the rich. And so, whatever companies have the favour of the banks are allowed to borrow money from the banks, and thus be able to employ people of their choosing. Businesses must then return the money they borrowed, plus interest. But since most people are not bankers, where are they going to acquire this extra money? They generally have to borrow it, once again, from the banks. And so the cycle continues...

 

[CultureCitizen]

In my opinion, to answer the question OP original stated, the most EFFICIENT way to run an economy is through almost pure capitalism. If you understand supply and demand it is almost irrefutable to try to say anything but pure free markets create the most EFFICIENT means of an economy. I think the reason this scares peoples is because pure capitalism is quite literally survival of the fittest, and slavery for those who can't think of a way to rise up. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that pure capitalism is practical in all cases. There are regulations in certain industries such as child labor, indentured servitude, and other markets for a variety of factors, mostly good ones.

Child labor creates issues where the child is unaware of the potential risks, as are parents. They are typically also desperate which makes their decision making process unreasonable, and unjust. Indentured servitude is much the same way along with others. Even with pure capitalism, it should theoretically sort these issues out over time, such as giving consumers choices about where to employ their children, and the companies that are providing the most unsuitable conditions for children (mining) would eventually be forced to abandon such a tactic as consumers boycott them, and other options for child labor arrive that provide more suitable conditions. There is a flip side to child labor in many poorer countries that isn't being discussed, and that is some of these citizens are quite literally so poor they NEED their children to make some income to help the family.

On the flip side, in favor of capitalism, look at what it has brought us. Even the poorest of poor families today, the homeless, and others, have a standard of living that is leaps and bounds what it was even 50 years ago. The internet has prospered, given us quite literally access to the same learning opportunities as anyone who goes to college. There is something to be said with how this marvelous invention, the internet is being used in a society such as the US today. People use it for Facebook, Twitter, etc. These uses provide almost no benefit to society, YET the citizens that have access to the internet DO have the opportunity to learn through Khan academy, numerous articles, journals, and many many other ways. They choose to remain ignorant, and that is mostly their own fault.

To take a look at socialism, and socialism like policies, those are in my mind the LEAST EFFICIENT way to run an economy. The destruction of incentives through free money is a horrible idea. It is worse slavery than even capitalism creates in many scenarios. People who are subjected to this type of indirect servitude become submissive. They don't want to move on to potentially better ideas as they are afraid of losing out on the free goods and services that were provided to them before. That is the free side of socialism, to look at the other side, the government mandated side, it is also highly inefficient. Much more so than any rational free market could be. Where are the incentives for drug companies to produce new medicines, if they know that the government will pay them less than cost to research, develop, and market this new drug? It drives innovation way down as the movers and shakers that actually make things happen in an economy are incentivized to do the exact opposite. Why would I start a business in Socialist Russia when I know for a fact I can make more money doing the same business in America? No rational person is going to opt to do that. It also affects supply and demand in a horrible way, the government mandating creation of houses in an area happens BEFORE the actual market transactions happen. The affect? Either the government produces to little, or too much and creates inefficiency in the supply and demand curve.

I'm not advocating pure capitalism, I am in favor of some regulations, but I hope a few examples I provided might sway opinions on socialism at least. I truly do not understand the liberal fascination with this idea that has become so prevalent as of late. It is horribly ineffective at driving an economy, especially a partly capitalist economy. Do you really think that by artificially letting every student in America go to college for free that there isn't going to be a rubber band effect? It will happen in the form of jobs paying less for students with degrees as everyone has one. It will also mean the less driven, less motivated become the future generation of teachers who in turn create less and less efficient teachings for the students that are supposed to be getting a QUALITY education. There is a cause and effect for everything.

Withn a company competition is a driving force, but also planning and common goals. Many companies invest in trainning for their employees and making sure they are insured.

Scale it up to a country level: you still have competition, but some basic rules and goals must be set in place. In a modern economy education is a must, automation is rolling out industrial jobs faster than ever. As population ages and resources become scarce healthcare and recycling wil become more important.

With the current technology it is easier to set goals, and create incentives towards such goals and have feedback if there is a deviation.

Housing, healthcare and education are all going through bubble stages right now. And while the housing bubble can be traced back to low interest rates, the cases for healthcare and education are completely different.

Other countries with similar level of quality in these areas can achieve similar results with less resources , this should at least hint the fact that there is a market failure.

 

[phoenyx]

I certainly believe that the U.S. government's budget should take some massive cuts. The U.S. spent almost $600 billion dollars last year in its military budget. China came a distant second at $145 billion, Saudia Arabia came third at $88 billion, and Russia only spent a little less then $66 billion. Despite this, I think most would agree that Russia is the U.S.'s primary military opponent, not China.

Source: List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have 160 worthless government agencies,

Where'd you get that number?

and regressive government programs out the wazu,

Such as?

and you want to cut defense?

Fixing the world seems like a more important task then destroying it, but you still seem to think that the U.S. military budget is primarily for "defense", so I have a feeling this isn't an argument that I'll win easily -.-

I'll include an article that makes the case for it just in case you're interested...
Why we must reduce military spending (Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul)

 

[CultureCitizen]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

From time to time I tend to think about how economy works within a company and within our bodies. Our bodies are amazing: we have a limited amount of resources, the cells from different tissues are different and each require a different set of resources and each one gets what it needs to work.Nnormally malignant cells self destruct , and to some degree this cells can be destructed by the immune system and excess resources are stored for later use. Furthermore : every member of the body has energy generators ( mitochondria ) , production means ( ribosomes) and free information ( DNA).

Of course, this model has limitations as technology and innovation are not part of the body, but I find it is an amazing example of efficiency.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Where'd you get that number?

I was actually trying to ballpark the number, but it turns out there are roughly 400 Federal Government agencies.
A | A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies | USAGov
Federal Register | Agency List
List of federal agencies in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Such as?

Every welfare program, all subsidies. Obamacare. The Solar and Wind industries.

Fixing the world seems like a more important task then destroying it, but you still seem to think that the U.S. military budget is primarily for "defense", so I have a feeling this isn't an argument that I'll win easily -.-

I'll include an article that makes the case for it just in case you're interested...
Why we must reduce military spending (Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul)

It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Imagine if we reduced spending on the Military(Which is basically using mostly outdated equipment), and we actually got attacked. Having a weak military is EXTREMELY dangerous.

 

[phoenyx]

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

That's actually a statement which requires to be proven by factual data. According with that theory the best governments would be :
Bangladesh 15.9
Central African Republic 15.5
Paraguay 14.8
Cambodia 13.9
Guatemala 13.7
Turkmenistan 12.3
Burma 8

And the worst :

Zimbabwe 97.8
Cuba 78.1
Maldives 63.1
Micronesia 62.3
Iceland 57.8
France 52.8
Sweden 52.5
Denmark 51.8

You might argue that Paraguay is better than Cuba or Zimbabwe, but...
Can it really be said that Denmark is in worse shape than Paraguay or Cambodia?
Honesty , transparency and accountability seem to play a more important role than the amount spent by the government.

List of Government Spending as % of GDP | Economics Help

 

[phoenyx]

So people are failures for taking the only jobs available to them? You think most people -want- to work at a Walmart or a fast food chain? But there's another point that I see you're not addressing- what happens when Federal Aid is cut off? You really want to see the U.S. turn into a third world country, starving children and all?

That wouldn't turn the US into a third world country, that thought process is laughable.

I'm not laughing.

Without regulations, there would be so many jobs, businesses would never have enough employees. If anything, removing Federal Aid would cause businesses to pay their employees more, and cause them to hire more employees and expand faster.

What draws you to these conclusions?

Federal Aid is a waste of taxpayer money. Even the few people who actually end up on the street would still be fine, because food pantries exist,

Food pantries are already streched to their limits with the food stamp cuts that have recently been instituted in the U.S.:
Food pantries stretched to breaking point by food stamp cuts

The tragedy here is that government is offloading what should be its responsibility to those who care so much that they're willing to volunteer their time and donate their resources to feeding the poor. If the poor didn't require their help, they could be getting a better education, furthering their careers, but unlike their cold hearted government, they care too much to not try to avoid these people from facing malnourishment or even starvation.

and there are, again, programs that show people how to write resumes and get them interviews on their behalf.

If it were so easy, why are there news stories like the following:
'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

As I explained before, the solution is to get people jobs, not to give them money.

I agree. However, to do that, the banks and others who lend out money at interest have to stop siphoning it away from the lower classes. If the lower classes don't have money, they won't spend money, and if they don't spend money, there's no reason to have that many jobs.

I strongly disagree with that, and once again ask you to consider how the poor fair in countries that don't have subsidies and federal aid: people die, many of them children. I found an article the addresses your viewpoint, that subsidies make people 'lazy'. It doesn't really get into the 'lazy' bit, but it does say that people generally can't get out of poverty without help:
Does welfare provide assistance or encourage laziness?

Refer to previous paragraph. Without Regressive policies destroying the economy, there are far more than enough jobs for everyone to be able to get one. There are programs that get people interviews on their behalf, and those that can't keep, or find another, job, then they have only themselves to blame.

Even -employers- don't always blame their employees for losing their job. Here is a "top 10" list for the reasons for layoffs, none of which blame the employee:
Top 10 Reasons for Company Layoffs

Tell that to the starving africans who also receive no federal aid.

Africa has a lot of problems, and lack of Federal Aid is not one of them.

Yes, Africa has a lot of problems. If Africans could rely on government support to stave off malnutrition and starvation, you don't think that would help them?

Having Federal Aid would not suddenly make Africa not garbage.

Africa isn't "garbage". It just has a lot of problems, many of which were caused by colonization. There's a movie of Africa called "Out of Africa" that touched my heart, which was loosely based on some autobiographical books by Karen Blixen. It offers only a fleeting glimpse of the damage colonization did to Africa, but it also offers a lot of its beauty. Here's the trailer to it:


Another movie that I believe captures Africa's beauty is "The English Patient", which starts in the period shortly before World War I and ends shortly after the war is over:

Have you taken a look at the job market out there? A lot of them are positively horrendous. I think it can easily be argued that someone with strong ethics would rather die of starvation then take them. Most people try to get jobs anyway, though. This doesn't mean that they all succeed, are able to keep them, or that those jobs pay all the bills. Take a look at this tragedy of someone trying to make due by holding 4 part time jobs:

http://gawker.com/woman-working-four-part-time-jobs-dies-in-car-while-try-1627956779

You can thank Obama's Regressive policies for people being unable to work full time.

What exact policies are you referring to?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

That's actually a statement which requires to be proven by factual data. According with that theory the best governments would be :
Bangladesh 15.9
Central African Republic 15.5
Paraguay 14.8
Cambodia 13.9
Guatemala 13.7
Turkmenistan 12.3
Burma 8

And the worst :

Zimbabwe 97.8
Cuba 78.1
Maldives 63.1
Micronesia 62.3
Iceland 57.8
France 52.8
Sweden 52.5
Denmark 51.8

You might argue that Paraguay is better than Cuba or Zimbabwe, but...
Can it really be said that Denmark is in worse shape than Paraguay or Cambodia?
Honesty , transparency and accountability seem to play a more important role than the amount spent by the government.

List of Government Spending as % of GDP | Economics Help

Spoiler

I never said that any small government was better by default, it depends on the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has. If you're not going to take this debate seriously and just strawman, you can go find someone that won't call you out on it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What draws you to these conclusions?

The fact that most regulations cause businesses to lose money, and limit their market potential.

Food pantries are already streched to their limits with the food stamp cuts that have recently been instituted in the U.S.:
Food pantries stretched to breaking point by food stamp cuts

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...-stretchedtobreakingpointbyfoodstampcuts.html
I already explained that the Food Stamps were being used by businesses to pay lower amounts, of course more people would head to food pantries due to that problem. Food Stamps shouldn't have been introduced in the first place.

The tragedy here is that government is offloading what should be its responsibility to those who care so much that they're willing to volunteer their time and donate their resources to feeding the poor. If the poor didn't require their help, they could be getting a better education, furthering their careers, but unlike their cold hearted government, they care too much to not try to avoid these people from facing malnourishment or even starvation.

No, the tragedy is that Socialist policies are forcing people to rely on them due to the nature of regressive policies. It causes problems when implemented, then causes withdrawal when reigned in or removed. when those withdrawals occur, Socialists claim it's a result of getting rid of those regressive policies, and demand they be put back where they were, or increased. An example of government causing a problem, then demanding more power to 'fix' that problem.

If it were so easy, why are there news stories like the following:
'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

Because the Socialist policies have taken away the incentive to work, as I keep explaining they tend to do, and also because they damage the economy more, making jobs harder to find. I'm not sure what part of this simple concept you're failing to understand.

I agree. However, to do that, the banks and others who lend out money at interest have to stop siphoning it away from the lower classes. If the lower classes don't have money, they won't spend money, and if they don't spend money, there's no reason to have that many jobs.

They have to pay people to work for them, and that puts the money back into the economy. They also have to buy things themselves.

Even -employers- don't always blame their employees for losing their job. Here is a "top 10" list for the reasons for layoffs, none of which blame the employee:
Top 10 Reasons for Company Layoffs

Riveting, but that doesn't mean employees are never to blame. I also said that business tax, minimum wage increases, and regulations like the ones Obama has been implementing are job-killers, as well. Read Kroot's post.

What exact policies are you referring to?

Every business regulation he has implemented thus far, including the ones in Obamacare, which does contain several, including an extra tax on businesses per-employee. We have more people on Federal Aid under Obama than any other president in history. He also forced benefits for employees working full time, which resulted in cutbacks, and attempted to force businesses to pay time and a half in several circumstances. Of course, businesses are just going to dodge these, which will result in further damage on the middle class. Someone with even a tiny bit of sense would have known that beforehand, and I'm sure Obama did. He is intentionally attempting to attack businesses, then blaming businesses when they don't fall in line, which allows him to stir up more hate towards employers. We can thank Prez B.O. for our divided America.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

That's actually a statement which requires to be proven by factual data. According with that theory the best governments would be :
Bangladesh 15.9
Central African Republic 15.5
Paraguay 14.8
Cambodia 13.9
Guatemala 13.7
Turkmenistan 12.3
Burma 8

And the worst :

Zimbabwe 97.8
Cuba 78.1
Maldives 63.1
Micronesia 62.3
Iceland 57.8
France 52.8
Sweden 52.5
Denmark 51.8

You might argue that Paraguay is better than Cuba or Zimbabwe, but...
Can it really be said that Denmark is in worse shape than Paraguay or Cambodia?
Honesty , transparency and accountability seem to play a more important role than the amount spent by the government.

List of Government Spending as % of GDP | Economics Help

Spoiler

I never said that any small government was better by default, it depends on the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has. If you're not going to take this debate seriously and just strawman, you can go find someone that won't call you out on it.

Sory, but then you should have been more precise in your arguments in your post instead of throwing the straw man card:

" a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing."

Admitedly, you didn't say a small government was good, but you did say that a "powerful government is bad" and that "it has always been a bad thing", had your post said anything regarding : the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has, I would have kept my wits to myself laddie.

 

[phoenyx]

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

That's actually a statement which requires to be proven by factual data. According with that theory the best governments would be :
Bangladesh 15.9
Central African Republic 15.5
Paraguay 14.8
Cambodia 13.9
Guatemala 13.7
Turkmenistan 12.3
Burma 8

And the worst :

Zimbabwe 97.8
Cuba 78.1
Maldives 63.1
Micronesia 62.3
Iceland 57.8
France 52.8
Sweden 52.5
Denmark 51.8

You might argue that Paraguay is better than Cuba or Zimbabwe, but...
Can it really be said that Denmark is in worse shape than Paraguay or Cambodia?
Honesty , transparency and accountability seem to play a more important role than the amount spent by the government.

List of Government Spending as % of GDP | Economics Help

Spoiler

I never said that any small government was better by default, it depends on the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has. If you're not going to take this debate seriously and just strawman, you can go find someone that won't call you out on it.

Sory, but then you should have been more precise in your arguments in your post instead of throwing the straw man card:

" a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing."

Admitedly, you didn't say a small government was good, but you did say that a "powerful government is bad" and that "it has always been a bad thing", had your post said anything regarding : the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has, I would have kept my wits to myself laddie.

The laddie is actually a lass, but other then that, I think you were spot on there .

 

[phoenyx]

I don't get the train of thought that leads a person to think that not dropping money in people's laps suddenly destroys a Nation enough to become a third world country. You have to be completely delusional.

Before their was a welfare system, sure. A welfare system is a Socialist policy and what caused and extended the Depression were Socialist policies. The same train of thought is what caused it to start with is what I'm saying.

The welfare system was created because people (especially CHILDREN) were dying of starvation and medical illnesses.

Due to other Socialist policies implemented beforehand.

Such as?

Pretty much every single thing about the NRA, and he established that agency the first year he was in office.

I think that would have been in response to the depression which started (officially) in 1929.

This may have been the trigger that set things off, but things happened both before and after that sealed the deal. Personally, I believe that wealth inequality was the major determinant, with the poor having little or nothing, while the wealthy prospered, much like today:
**
The stock market crash on October 29, 1929 set in motion a series of events that led to the Great Depression, but in fact, the American economy and global economy had been in turmoil six months prior to Black Tuesday, and a variety of factors before and after that fateful date in October caused and exacerbated the Great Depression.

Click here for facts about the causes of the Great Depression.

False Sense Of Prosperity Before The Great Depression
The 1920s, known as “The Roaring Twenties” marked a time when America was overdependent on production, automobiles were the leading industry, and there was a great disparity between rich and poor. More than 60% of the population was living below poverty levels, while a mere 5% of the wealthiest people in America accounted for 33% of the income, and the richest 1% owned 40% of the nation’s wealth. This uneven distribution of wealth was mirrored in the unequal distribution of riches between industry and agriculture.**

Source: Causes of The Great Depression | Great Depression Facts Effects

Today, the top 1% is once again reaching the heights of the roarding 20s, owning 36% of the nation's wealth, and the bottom 40% owning next to nothing. Here is the wealth distribution of the U.S.:

Source: Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

That's actually a statement which requires to be proven by factual data. According with that theory the best governments would be :
Bangladesh 15.9
Central African Republic 15.5
Paraguay 14.8
Cambodia 13.9
Guatemala 13.7
Turkmenistan 12.3
Burma 8

And the worst :

Zimbabwe 97.8
Cuba 78.1
Maldives 63.1
Micronesia 62.3
Iceland 57.8
France 52.8
Sweden 52.5
Denmark 51.8

You might argue that Paraguay is better than Cuba or Zimbabwe, but...
Can it really be said that Denmark is in worse shape than Paraguay or Cambodia?
Honesty , transparency and accountability seem to play a more important role than the amount spent by the government.

List of Government Spending as % of GDP | Economics Help

Spoiler

I never said that any small government was better by default, it depends on the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has. If you're not going to take this debate seriously and just strawman, you can go find someone that won't call you out on it.

Sory, but then you should have been more precise in your arguments in your post instead of throwing the straw man card:

" a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing."

Admitedly, you didn't say a small government was good, but you did say that a "powerful government is bad" and that "it has always been a bad thing", had your post said anything regarding : the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has, I would have kept my wits to myself laddie.

No, a small government IS better, just not ANY small government. Like ours, it needs checks and balances, but unlike ours, those checks and balances need to actually be enforced. During FDR's dynasty, the Supreme Court decided it was cool to wait several years, and let him get away with many things he shouldn't have. Same with Prez B.O., they had/have been able to run practically entirely unchecked. I also mean type because obviously if a Socialist government managed to somehow be small, it would be awful by default because it's Socialist.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Considering all of the problems the government is attempting to solve is caused BY the government, no, a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing.

That's actually a statement which requires to be proven by factual data. According with that theory the best governments would be :
Bangladesh 15.9
Central African Republic 15.5
Paraguay 14.8
Cambodia 13.9
Guatemala 13.7
Turkmenistan 12.3
Burma 8

And the worst :

Zimbabwe 97.8
Cuba 78.1
Maldives 63.1
Micronesia 62.3
Iceland 57.8
France 52.8
Sweden 52.5
Denmark 51.8

You might argue that Paraguay is better than Cuba or Zimbabwe, but...
Can it really be said that Denmark is in worse shape than Paraguay or Cambodia?
Honesty , transparency and accountability seem to play a more important role than the amount spent by the government.

List of Government Spending as % of GDP | Economics Help

Spoiler

I never said that any small government was better by default, it depends on the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has. If you're not going to take this debate seriously and just strawman, you can go find someone that won't call you out on it.

Sory, but then you should have been more precise in your arguments in your post instead of throwing the straw man card:

" a powerful government is not a "good" thing. I already explained multiple times why powerful government is bad, we've been experiencing powerful government since the 1930s, and it has always been a bad thing."

Admitedly, you didn't say a small government was good, but you did say that a "powerful government is bad" and that "it has always been a bad thing", had your post said anything regarding : the type of government, the scope of each power of the government, and which powers it has, I would have kept my wits to myself laddie.

No, a small government IS better, just not ANY small government. Like ours, it needs checks and balances, but unlike ours, those checks and balances need to actually be enforced. During FDR's dynasty, the Supreme Court decided it was cool to wait several years, and let him get away with many things he shouldn't have. Same with Prez B.O., they had/have been able to run practically entirely unchecked. I also mean type because obviously if a Socialist government managed to somehow be small, it would be awful by default because it's Socialist.

Maybe, but then some changes would be required. Firstly : political campaigns would have to be shortened and parties should run their campaigns using only public funding with a very low ceiling.

A socialist government can also be small if some small policies are enacted:

1. Minimum income for every adult ( I've thought of some variations like limiting it to 5 or 10 years).
2. Actively promoting cooperatives - Arguably this requires a big change in education, as it would require that every highschool student adquires an entrepreneurial toolkit ( accounting + management + mkt)

 

[phoenyx]

I think you're way too optimistic as to the odds of getting a job. And then there are those who can't get a regular job (or hold it) for various reasons.

There are always jobs, businesses are ever expanding,

Sure, there are always jobs available, but they aren't for everyone. Meanwhile, many higher education graduates are finding themselves unable to get anything but menial jobs:
Drop in U.S. temp workers signals tough job market for new grads

Richard Branson, Virgin entrepreneur and new owner of Northern Rock believes businesses should transform themselves along ethical lines:
Richard Branson: 'Capitalism has lost its way'

the problem comes when Socialist policies slow that expansion, then jobs are harder to find, but they're still there. It's not that I'm optimistic, it's that I'm realistic. Of course, finding a job would be significantly easier if Socialist policies weren't causing them to leave the nation to start with.

And you believe that the 'socialist policies' that you allege are slowing the expansion is to blame are things like helping the poor financially?

Your solution is already enacted in various third world countries. Here are the results:

A shocking development; Not dumping money in people's laps suddenly degrades your government, economy, and natural resources, even though doing so positively effects each of those things. People who end up on the streets in a nation like America simply aren't trying and choose not to help themselves.

Can you prove this assertion of yours? I strongly believe that everything everyone does are spurred by 2 motivations: the wish to maximize their happiness and minimize their unhappiness. Would you agree with that philosophy?

There are people who don't succeed entirely because they choose to believe they can't.

One of google's definitions for belief is "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something", a definition that sums up my own thoughts on the subject. As I'm sure we agree, what people believe is not always what is true. Wikipedia has a nice graphic that I think sums it up:

As to whether people "choose" their beliefs, I'm sure there is some truth to that. That being said, I believe beliefs are something like walking in a maze- there are times when the maze forks, and you have to decide what to believe in order to continue- initially, it is easy to retrace one's steps, but as time goes by and you go further down the maze, it becomes harder and harder to retrace those steps- you may forget the exact path you came from and find yourself unable to retrace the path you originally came down on. Wikipedia delves into the complexity of belief formation here:
Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frequently, people need a helping hand, in more ways then one. Ofcourse help finding a job is one step, but frequently something else that is required is help in becoming motivated to find a job, and there being work out there that one can take pride in.

If they starve to death, somehow, then good riddance. Fewer useless oxygen thieves poisoning the world with their laziness and stupidity.

Have you ever had a friend who has lived in a shelter? I have. I think if you had, you would not be talking this way about a fellow human being. Society, as a general rule, shies away from the types of things you have said above. As a matter of fact, I frequently think they go too far the other way, with assisted suicide being illegal in most parts of the world. The U.S. has only 4 U.S. states where assisted suicide is definitely allowed:
Assisted suicide in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am proud that my own country (Canada) has recently become a country where assisted suicide is indeed allowed:
Carter v. Canada and the road to choice

That being said, this is for people who -want- to die, not those who die due to malnutrition or outright starvation. I believe the case that people be allowed to die of malnutrition and/or starvation would only be ethically acceptable if there simply wasn't enough wealth in the world to feed everyone. This is definitely not the case.

You really don't know, do you?
**
Poor Sally. She has spent tens of thousands of dollars and four long years to get her college degree and has $26,000 in student loans to pay off, yet she can’t find a job that puts her degree to good use. Sally and her parents may be asking whether college was “worth it.”

Sally epitomizes many of her fellow college graduates who wonder why college graduates can’t find good jobs.

The experts give all sorts of explanations for Sally’s plight.

One of the most perplexing and frustrating explanations is that Sally is over-educated.

Think of the psychology major who brewed your Starbucks coffee this morning, or the Uber driver with the degree in philosophy who took you home last night.

Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.**

Source: Why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree | Washington Post

Guess she should have gotten a useful degree, in field there's actually a demand for, like internet technology.

The article strongly suggests that Sally is a fictional person, as when it states: "The experts give all sorts of explanations for Sally’s plight". I think some statistics given in the article make it clear that "Sally"'s plight is hardly an abnormal one:
**One of the most perplexing and frustrating explanations is that Sally is over-educated.

Think of the psychology major who brewed your Starbucks coffee this morning, or the Uber driver with the degree in philosophy who took you home last night.

Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.**

There are many jobs out there that simply don't require the level of education that many students get.

The article continues:
"While it might have been rare to see college graduates in these low-quality jobs a few years ago, they’re increasingly the norm these days. That same New York Fed study found that more and more recent college graduates are taking low-wage jobs and working part-time while fewer and fewer of them are working full-time at high-quality jobs."

And now, for the punchline:
**Wharton School professor Peter Capelli tried to figure out whether the problem in the labor market is because the jobs don’t require the skills that candidates are offering or because workers don’t have the proper skills that employers are seeking.

Here’s what he found. The main problem with the U.S. job market isn’t a gap in basic skills or a shortage of employees with particular skills, but a mismatch between the supply and the demand for certain skills. There’s a greater supply of college graduates than a demand for college graduates in the labor market.**

The fact of the matter is, the current job market simply doesn't need so many college graduates. Which should make something patently obvious: people should be paid more for the jobs that -are- available, regardless of whether or not they require a higher education degree. That being said, as I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of forcing employers to raise their wages- the minimum wage is just -one- of the problems, and raising it could, in theory, lead to other issues, such as less jobs available. I maintain that the biggest problem is the high concentration of money in the top percentiles of American society, as well as most other societies, particularly if there is little if any effort to trying to maintain a more egalitarian approach to income distribution amoung societal members.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Trick question.

Economies cannot possibly be run from a central location, let alone be run efficiently from without.

Economies are forces of nature. They are the "weather", so to speak, of billions of people exchanging perceived value for perceived value.

Even though you can lead horses to water, you cannot make them drink. You cannot push a rope. Anyone who tells you that you can do such things is a charlatan.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Sure, there are always jobs available, but they aren't for everyone. Meanwhile, many higher education graduates are finding themselves unable to get anything but menial jobs:
Drop in U.S. temp workers signals tough job market for new grads

Richard Branson, Virgin entrepreneur and new owner of Northern Rock believes businesses should transform themselves along ethical lines:
Richard Branson: 'Capitalism has lost its way'

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/nov/18/richard-branson-capitalism-lost-way
That's why college exists, TO MAKE THOSE JOBS FOR YOU. When you apply for a job, you're selling those services. when a service doesn't suit its own intentions, in this case that being applying for certain jobs, they either target a demographic that better suits it, or they change their service to fit the demographic its targeting. Blaming businesses for not finding what they want in certain people when, honestly, businesses are owned by individuals with free will, who should be allowed to choose who they do or do not hire, when they hire, whether they hire at all, and what they do with their money, is just silly. As many people who are actually grounded firmly in reality seem to understand, Socialists don't comprehend free will. Socialist doesn't work because of free will. Communism doesn't work because of free will. Well, and the way an economy functions in general, because neither Communists nor Socialists understand that either, but mostly free will.

And you believe that the 'socialist policies' that you allege are slowing the expansion is to blame are things like helping the poor financially?

Of course, and I've already explained why, you just don't comprehend the economy. If you did, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Kroot explained it, too.

Can you prove this assertion of yours? I strongly believe that everything everyone does are spurred by 2 motivations: the wish to maximize their happiness and minimize their unhappiness. Would you agree with that philosophy?

And most people wish to maximize their happiness by limiting themselves to a meaningless life, and a meaningless death. Hence all the self-entitled, lazy people that are demanding a 'living wage' for flipping burgers. Actually, many nations already proved my assertion;

Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

Socialists just don't learn from history.

Frequently, people need a helping hand, in more ways then one. Ofcourse help finding a job is one step, but frequently something else that is required is help in becoming motivated to find a job, and there being work out there that one can take pride in.

Rewarding people for doing nothing does not motivate them to find a job. As expected of a Socialist; backwards logic. As with the rest of the world, if someone doesn't help themselves, they can expect to be very disappointed in life. Paying people for being lazy will just encourage them to sit and soak up tax dollars.

Have you ever had a friend who has lived in a shelter? I have. I think if you had, you would not be talking this way about a fellow human being. Society, as a general rule, shies away from the types of things you have said above. As a matter of fact, I frequently think they go too far the other way, with assisted suicide being illegal in most parts of the world. The U.S. has only 4 U.S. states where assisted suicide is definitely allowed:
Assisted suicide in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide_in_the_United_States
No, I've never had anyone I consider a friend. Having a 'friend' in a shelter wouldn't change my mind, anyway. I apply the same standards to every human being, if they fail those standards it's their own fault. Failing is always your own fault, and it's always up to yourself to rise above that failure.

Too far in the other way being the government giving any form of hand outs to failures.

That being said, this is for people who -want- to die, not those who die due to malnutrition or outright starvation. I believe the case that people be allowed to die of malnutrition and/or starvation would only be ethically acceptable if there simply wasn't enough wealth in the world to feed everyone. This is definitely not the case.

Because you think people should be forced to be charitable with their hard earned money. In other words, you believe in legalized thievery of anyone who's successful. Socialists love trying to make punishment of success and rewarding failure sound like something that's okay to do.

The article strongly suggests that Sally is a fictional person, as when it states: "The experts give all sorts of explanations for Sally’s plight". I think some statistics given in the article make it clear that "Sally"'s plight is hardly an abnormal one:
**One of the most perplexing and frustrating explanations is that Sally is over-educated.

Think of the psychology major who brewed your Starbucks coffee this morning, or the Uber driver with the degree in philosophy who took you home last night.

Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.**

There are many jobs out there that simply don't require the level of education that many students get.

The article continues:
"While it might have been rare to see college graduates in these low-quality jobs a few years ago, they’re increasingly the norm these days. That same New York Fed study found that more and more recent college graduates are taking low-wage jobs and working part-time while fewer and fewer of them are working full-time at high-quality jobs."

And now, for the punchline:
**Wharton School professor Peter Capelli tried to figure out whether the problem in the labor market is because the jobs don’t require the skills that candidates are offering or because workers don’t have the proper skills that employers are seeking.

Here’s what he found. The main problem with the U.S. job market isn’t a gap in basic skills or a shortage of employees with particular skills, but a mismatch between the supply and the demand for certain skills. There’s a greater supply of college graduates than a demand for college graduates in the labor market.**

The fact of the matter is, the current job market simply doesn't need so many college graduates. Which should make something patently obvious: people should be paid more for the jobs that -are- available, regardless of whether or not they require a higher education degree.

It's up to businesses to decide how much they want to pay someone for their skills, and it's up to employees to decide how much their skills are worth, not the government. Someone seeking a college degree should be willing to compete for positions, or find a less populated skill market.

That being said, as I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of forcing employers to raise their wages-

Flummery. You have been advocating the government deciding how much the businesses should pay their employees, despite the fact that the government wouldn't have a clue what the market looks like, or how much the skills are worth. You want totally clueless people to run the market. Whether it's the government or the employees themselves, that's an outright nonsensical advocation.

the minimum wage is just -one- of the problems, and raising it could, in theory, lead to other issues, such as less jobs available. I maintain that the biggest problem is the high concentration of money in the top percentiles of American society, as well as most other societies, particularly if there is little if any effort to trying to maintain a more egalitarian approach to income distribution amoung societal members.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you. Thievery as not the answer, as much as you love touting literally all of the clueless Socialist taglines. If you want to punish success, legalize thievery from businesses, reward failure, and generally doom your economy and nation as a whole, move to Russia. They've already done it before.

 

[phoenyx]

You'd be attempting, and failing, to stop 'thievery' by the banks by replacing them with government thievery.

No, that isn't what I had in mind. Have you heard of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? That's not run by governments. I think that would be the best solution. The government could print out bitcoins, but so could other enterprises. The horrible amount of debt we have from our current monetary system would vanish.

Elaborate, I'm curious.

It's not that easy to do. First, I think you would need to be fairly familiar with the way the current monetary system works. I encourage you to take a look at this 45 minute animated accounting of this system:


The proposition that digital money can be the cure for the current monetary system is proposed in the second in the Money as Debt series, beginning at 1:06:33: