Why The Left Loves Socialism

[Boss]

Go into detail then about what a CEO does.

So you want me to give you a "cheat sheet" in case someone asks you this question again? I think I will pass on this and let you do some research on your own. I'll just say it's a much tougher job than you give it credit for. Good CEOs are worth every penny they make... if they weren't, they wouldn't be paid so much.

Now think about it a hot second.... Why would capitalists who's objective is bottom line profits, willingly overpay a CEO massive amounts of money that would otherwise be profit? If the CEO didn't bring a value, the capitalist would have no reason to pay them so much. A CEO is paid in accordance to how much value he provides to the capitalist. If they could achieve the same results with a cheaper CEO, they would.

 

[The Original Tree]

Liberals are great at assigning homework to others that, they themselves are never willing to do.
It's a debate tactic to keep you busy, while they deflect and avoid actual discussions.
Liberals just are not intellectually honest, and are wholly disingenuous.

 

[Boss]

I tend to be biased against obscene greed.

That's funny if you're a Socialist because that's all Socialism is.

Free market capitalism has no place for greed. What happens to a greedy free market capitalist is he soon discovers a less-greedy free market capitalist who is more than happy to steal his market share. It's called competition.

 

[JoeNormal]

Go into detail then about what a CEO does.

So you want me to give you a "cheat sheet" in case someone asks you this question again? I think I will pass on this and let you do some research on your own. I'll just say it's a much tougher job than you give it credit for. Good CEOs are worth every penny they make... if they weren't, they wouldn't be paid so much.

Now think about it a hot second.... Why would capitalists who's objective is bottom line profits, willingly overpay a CEO massive amounts of money that would otherwise be profit? If the CEO didn't bring a value, the capitalist would have no reason to pay them so much. A CEO is paid in accordance to how much value he provides to the capitalist. If they could achieve the same results with a cheaper CEO, they would.

I'll give anyone who makes it up the corporate ladder far enough to be within striking distance of the CEO credit for being great at self promotion. However, the fact is that the people who value management the most are others in management. Our company recently went through a re-org where it became obvious that they felt that any of the cogs in the trenches could be replaced with lower priced talent, or consolidated into fewer positions, or 'managed' into getting more done with less and it was a complete disaster. We are hanging on by our fingernails now and the primary architects of this debacle have either been fired, forced into early retirement or saw the writing on the wall and moved on. Since then, one was even fired from the position he moved to.

The free market scenario that you describe favors those who either have a lot of money to start with (the capital part of the equation) or have acquired connections in frat-boy manner that have allowed them to move up. And even with those advantages, sometimes it's still not enough.

And don't worry about the "cheat sheet". It's obvious that you pull 'facts' out of your ass on demand.

 

[JoeNormal]

Liberals are great at assigning homework to others that, they themselves are never willing to do.
It's a debate tactic to keep you busy, while they deflect and avoid actual discussions.
Liberals just are not intellectually honest, and are wholly disingenuous.

Boss was the one who wanted to know what a CEO does. Criticize him for his homework debate tactic.

 

[Theowl32]

This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.

I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.

Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.

Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.

The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.

Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.

In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.

Boil it down to that they believe in the fake promises and think good intentions are the same as good policy.

 

[danielpalos]

This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.

I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.

Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.

Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.

The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.

Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.

In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.

the simple answer is, socialism can get us to a Commune of Heaven on Earth; all it requires, is sufficient social morals for free.

 

[Penelope]

The elites have their own social program, called inheritance. Most of us die with little Passover, look at the Devos, rich and inherited it and then Amway, multi level marketing. I don't care

Sounds like you are describing Trump, born with a silver spoon, and now has his sons running his business, and has his SIL as his special advisor.

No correlation whatsoever and if you want to whine about Trump, find another thread please.

How about this then, a man who inherits money from his dad has good contacts because of his dad and then has his kids work in his business, sound like anyone you know.

Is that socialism, the wealthy have their own built in socialism.

 

[Boss]

Go into detail then about what a CEO does.

So you want me to give you a "cheat sheet" in case someone asks you this question again? I think I will pass on this and let you do some research on your own. I'll just say it's a much tougher job than you give it credit for. Good CEOs are worth every penny they make... if they weren't, they wouldn't be paid so much.

Now think about it a hot second.... Why would capitalists who's objective is bottom line profits, willingly overpay a CEO massive amounts of money that would otherwise be profit? If the CEO didn't bring a value, the capitalist would have no reason to pay them so much. A CEO is paid in accordance to how much value he provides to the capitalist. If they could achieve the same results with a cheaper CEO, they would.

I'll give anyone who makes it up the corporate ladder far enough to be within striking distance of the CEO credit for being great at self promotion. However, the fact is that the people who value management the most are others in management. Our company recently went through a re-org where it became obvious that they felt that any of the cogs in the trenches could be replaced with lower priced talent, or consolidated into fewer positions, or 'managed' into getting more done with less and it was a complete disaster. We are hanging on by our fingernails now and the primary architects of this debacle have either been fired, forced into early retirement or saw the writing on the wall and moved on. Since then, one was even fired from the position he moved to.

The free market scenario that you describe favors those who either have a lot of money to start with (the capital part of the equation) or have acquired connections in frat-boy manner that have allowed them to move up. And even with those advantages, sometimes it's still not enough.

And don't worry about the "cheat sheet". It's obvious that you pull 'facts' out of your ass on demand.

CEOs have much more going for them than the art of self-promotion. I can't comment on your company because I know nothing about it and I kinda doubt you know everything about it yourself. I do know about CEOs.

"Free markets" don't favor anyone or anything on any basis other than competition, supply and demand. CEOs don't walk into board rooms with an AK-47 and demand to be installed as CEO. They make a purely voluntary exchange of their services for remuneration.

It's interesting your comments here reveal once again that your underlying problem is a lack of confidence in your own ability to compete with others. CEOs who obviously compete better than you... well, they have to be turned into frat boys and silver spoon divas who come from money. It's not because they worked hard to get to where they are and earned their positions.

The problem with your reasoning is, if the CEO didn't legitimately deserve to be in their position, their company would fail and the entire objective of the capitalists who own the company would be pointless and moot. Again, the objective of ALL capitalists is to maximize profits. If they could do this with a cheap CEO, they would.... if they could do it with a wealthy frat buddy, they'd do it... but I would think their wealthy frat buddy would be far more likely to cut them a break on his salary.

 

[bt404]

You say this thread is not about demonizing socialism, yet the only case you make for why people like me agree with Socialist elements are because we are just too insecure with ourselves to compete with others. That's a huge deductive leap you make there as well as a pretty premature value judgement.

I never said you were too insecure with yourself. I said you lack the confidence to believe you can compete with others. You are probably quite secure in your lack of confidence... that's precisely why most socialists cling to Socialism. It is deductive but it's not a leap at all. In fact, I dissected your response to me to show you how what you are saying fits this reasoning to the tee. You may not like hearing it... I realize most people don't like hearing their flaws. It's not intended to insult but rather to help you.

Left or right, I think most of us believe that we are part of a greater good or in some ways contributing to some greater good (though that greater good will vary from person to person). But I'm going to assume that, for example, you believe that you are doing your part in society by partaking in a job or industry that helps propel the economy forward, hence keeping the "machine" that keeps things civilized moving forward, whilst utilizing your "natural" comparative advantage. What I'm trying to get at is that whether one is socialist, capitalist, or mixture of both, people want to believe that they are helping, in some way, to move society "forward" (again, what "forward" is will vary).

I am not really concerned with "moving society forward" (i.e.; progressivism) to be honest. I don't work for the sake of the economy, I do it for personal gain and self-fulfillment. And so do you... I doubt if your boss suggested you voluntarily forfeit 2% of your check because the economic report said the economy declined 2%, you'd go along with that idea. I believe the "greatest good" we can do is promote individual liberty and personal property rights and that includes the right to keep most of the fruits of your labor.

This whole idea that you need to "help" is predicated on your own lack of confidence in your ability to compete. You assume just as many people as you are unable to compete and society needs to act or we're going to have problems. And the way you want them to act is by taking some of the gains of others who competed better than you. To you, they must have gained an advantage by cheating or gaming the system somehow, not through their own hard work and effort, better education and choices. This is how you deal with your own inadequacies.

Two: that whenever one is pointing out ever-increasing wealth inequality, childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world), one is essentially blaming society.

Well who else do you blame? You don't seem to want to blame the individual. So is it the successful person's fault? We've had over 80 years of progressive policies intended to help those in poverty but we still have poverty. This should show you these policies simply don't work.

First of all, this entire "wealth inequality" thing is Socialism 101. If you go study Mao Zedong and his revolution, it's the exact same argument. Wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working as it is designed. People gaining wealth is a GOOD thing, not something to wring our hands about and worry over. It's the natural results of people being economically prosperous. Second, and even more importantly... Wealth is not finite. It's not like there is only one big pie and a certain number of pieces exist... the pie is constantly growing. People are constantly creating new wealth through their innovations, talents, skills, labor, etc. There is no solution to wealth inequality because it's not a problem, it's a result of free enterprise working... the best way to mitigate the widening of it is to motivate and "train-up" those at the bottom, not to hobble or punish those at the top.

But you see... this requires you to have confidence in your ability to compete. It all goes back to that.

We've already addressed the "poor children" meme.. children are incapable of earning incomes, so we can't do anything about that. You know, once was a time when a poor kid could go down to the docks and unload fishing boats to make a little money but we outlawed that. We took any ability they may have had to earn something on their own away because progressives said this was inhumane. Progressives did the same with poor black people when they implemented minimum wage laws which made it cost just as much to hire a black man as a white man. At the time of the Davis-Bacon Act, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment, afterwards it shot up to over 25% and it has historically been higher than white unemployment ever since.

I believe it is society's responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity (which isn't the same as 'everyone being equal' or some strawman like that).

Well, we have laws on the books and the Justice Dept. has a telephone... just call them if someone is being discriminated against and not given an equal opportunity. It's a matter of Federal Law. What Socialists often mean when they whine about "equal opportunity" is actually equal outcome. Outcome is a matter of personal effort and responsible decision making.

Before delving deeper, I think you and I would agree that it would be best if we define our terms before going forward. Otherwise, again we'd be talking in cross-purposes.

What's your definition of "progress"--is it a society that ensures the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people?

Again, I am not a Progressive so I am not concerned with "progress." I believe the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people comes through having a vibrant free enterprise, free market capitalist system, where the constitution is applied and government gets the hell out of the way. In such an environment, I believe people will progress economically because they always have.

I never said you were too insecure with yourself. I said you lack the confidence to believe you can compete with others. You are probably quite secure in your lack of confidence... that's precisely why most socialists cling to Socialism. It is deductive but it's not a leap at all. In fact, I dissected your response to me to show you how what you are saying fits this reasoning to the tee. You may not like hearing it... I realize most people don't like hearing their flaws. It's not intended to insult but rather to help you.

Pointing out the intrinsic inhumanity of our current system isn't revealing any lack of confidence. Again, you make deductive leaps towards the personal which pretty much ends the argument since it's tantamount to back-and-forth labeling/name calling. Your "dissection" of my response simply reveals your attitude about the issues I raise, nothing more. I could say that my "dissection" of your response shows me that your reasoning fits into my labeling you as "selfish" or "lacking empathy." But seeing how I've never met you personally, it would be meaningless to make such a deductive leap. Again, we can go back and forth with this but it would be a waste of time.

This whole idea that you need to "help" is predicated on your own lack of confidence in your ability to compete. You assume just as many people as you are unable to compete and society needs to act or we're going to have problems. And the way you want them to act is by taking some of the gains of others who competed better than you. To you, they must have gained an advantage by cheating or gaming the system somehow, not through their own hard work and effort, better education and choices. This is how you deal with your own inadequacies.

The way I want to act is by taking the gains of others who don't need those gains and wouldn't be affected at all by losing a small kernel of those gains. I'm not implying that we should raise taxes on small business owners or middle class families trying to put their kids in school. We should raise taxes on people who wouldn't be that affected by it. For instance, a man making ten million dollars a year probably wouldn't have his life changed one bit if he instead made 8 million a year (he might have to hold off on buying that expensive yacht...), as compared to, say, a working class father who just lost his manufacturing job and whose kid needs medicine for his asthma. In other words, those who aren't willing to spare a meaningless dime to help those less fortunate than them simply on the grounds that "it's MINE I EARNED it".... are indeed selfish to put it mildly. To your assumption that I think those with wealth gained an advantage by "cheating" is false. They gained wealth through hard work, sure (there are plenty of poor people who work really hard too), but a good deal of luck was involved, such as being born in circumstances where you have access to good schooling.

Well who else do you blame? You don't seem to want to blame the individual. So is it the successful person's fault? We've had over 80 years of progressive policies intended to help those in poverty but we still have poverty. This should show you these policies simply don't work.

80 years of progressive policy? Progressive policy had virtually stopped in the late 1970s and was swiftly replaced by right-wing neoliberal economic policies implemented by Reagan, and then put even more forward by Clinton. Incidentally, this was when wealth inequality started to rise and when financial crashes became more abundant. Saying "progressive policies" don't work is just reductive because it's such a broad blanket statement. Progressive policies helped spur the civil rights movement, which enfranchised the black population and allowed them to vote, as well as mobilize the working class to earn a living wage. In addition, it was the ideological bedrock of Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal policies and G.I bill. You need to be more specific on which progressive policies your'e talking about.

First of all, this entire "wealth inequality" thing is Socialism 101. If you go study Mao Zedong and his revolution, it's the exact same argument. Wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working as it is designed. People gaining wealth is a GOOD thing, not something to wring our hands about and worry over. It's the natural results of people being economically prosperous.

A couple of dogmas need to be dismantled here.

Saying that "wealth inequality" is socialism 101 doesn't progress your argument at all. Your Mao Zedong example for instance is irrelevant. I've already stated above why Mao's China and Stalin's Russia weren't socialist in practice so no need to repeat myself unless you want me to.

You say wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working by design, that it's all just a "natural" result. That's completely false. Again, it rests on the assumption that the "free market" is this machine in which human beings have no control over or rather a force of nature, like a hurricane or sand storm. The only reason why the American economy even exists in the form we see today is because of state intervention/our tax dollars. I mentioned earlier about the G.I bill that helped build the middle class, which you say doesn't count. But it goes way beyond that. The interstate highways, railway systems, and so on were all funded by tax dollars. Even today, our "market" is heavily state subsidized. Boeing for example receives more than 10 billion dollars from the government. Intel receives about four billion and General Motors about 3 billion. In addition, Goldman Sachs and various other criminal banks were virtually nationalized after they knowingly collapsed the economy, destroying savings and pension funds from millions of working class Americans including veterans. So we can stop with the myth about markets being completely free of government intervention. Governments WILL ALWAYS intervene in some form. It's a matter of who they intervene for...the business class or the general populace. This was perfectly understand by even the "pioneers" of classic economics/capitalist philosophy such as Adam Smith and F.A Hayek.

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."-- Adam Smith

"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law" -- F.A Hayek

Second, and even more importantly... Wealth is not finite. It's not like there is only one big pie and a certain number of pieces exist... the pie is constantly growing. People are constantly creating new wealth through their innovations, talents, skills, labor, etc. There is no solution to wealth inequality because it's not a problem, it's a result of free enterprise working... the best way to mitigate the widening of it is to motivate and "train-up" those at the bottom, not to hobble or punish those at the top.

This is why you need to define terms. If you mean that wealth, in the sense of, say, how comfortable or free our population is, then yeah it probably is not finite. We can do A LOT to increase the level of freedom, comfort, and opportunity for people and decrease the level of unjust coercion in society (as well as wealth inequality which you disregard completely). But if you mean wealth in the abstract social capital sense, there is a limit.

If we want to take your "free market" ideology in a literally, those with the most social capital would essentially be the ones who dictate policy. There would be no democracy because there would be nothing to stop private industries from pushing policies that would benefit them and only them. Meaning, the more we try to create meaningless abstract wealth, the more the rest of the population will be removed from getting to decide what policies get to implemented. It would soon evolve to the point where society would consist of a small population who live inside giant sealed off gated communities and a majority who live in slums....history has shown this to be true. t would make our 21st century society no different from fascist dictatorships or monarchies....

But to get back to the real world. Currently, more than 50 percent of the population have absolutely zero say on policy (Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens). And it's been increasing. So if you really do believe in complete government-free markets, then you can't really be for democracy. If so, there's no further argument as I tend to believe that democracies are the only forms of governance that really work.

To the most urgent issue, wealth inequality. I've cited the reasons above as to why I think wealth inequality is a major concern for ALL. You say we can't do anything about it but I've already stated what we can do, tax those who only have their egos to lose, namely those who can EASILY afford to have their taxes raised (and who might have to hold off on buying that yacht or private jet for a year...god forbid). "Punishment" implies being materially harmed or made vulnerable by taxes. None of the wealth brackets that should have their taxes raised would be "punished" in any real or meaningful sense.

We've already addressed the "poor children" meme.. children are incapable of earning incomes, so we can't do anything about that. You know, once was a time when a poor kid could go down to the docks and unload fishing boats to make a little money but we outlawed that. We took any ability they may have had to earn something on their own away because progressives said this was inhumane.

Again, you keep saying we can't do anything. Same answer as above. No need to repeat myself.

You're second point. Are you seriously implying that we should outlaw child labor laws? Personally, I don't think kids at all should work for slave labor. Children are supposed to learn how to think and how to be creative when they're younger--they should also have a little fun--which is intrinsic in human nature, the ability to be creative. If you're suggesting that we should go back to 19th century industrial England, where children as young as eight years old were put to work in factories for 12 hours a day, and you don't see the utter despicable inhumanity of that, then I have to say that we may just have different ethical viewpoints....no further discussion there.

I believe the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people comes through having a vibrant free enterprise, free market capitalist system, where the constitution is applied and government gets the hell out of the way. In such an environment, I believe people will progress economically because they always have.

This is the third time you've made this statement so I think it's time it's been addressed. As I've stated above, there has never been and there will never be a completely free market capitalist system, just by the fact that human beings are not machines. History also proves your last sentence completely false. By 'people', do you mean the rulers of a society? In which case, yes, those who are most willing to exploit and enslave and give themselves illegitimate power will progress as they always have....if you mean by "people" as in overall population, as history has shown, progress for the rich have always been at the majority's expense...we can go further into the history of this if you'd like.

Overall, it seems to me you believe in the abolition of child labor laws, abolition of freedom and democracy for the majority of the population, and ownership of the state by private corporations. Correct?

Okay, you're going to need to be a little more concentrated in your replies because I can't debate War and Peace every post. So what I am going to attempt is to go through this and address certain points you've made that I feel are important.

Pointing out the intrinsic inhumanity of our current system isn't revealing any lack of confidence. Again, you make deductive leaps towards the personal which pretty much ends the argument since it's tantamount to back-and-forth labeling/name calling. Your "dissection" of my response simply reveals your attitude about the issues I raise, nothing more. I could say that my "dissection" of your response shows me that your reasoning fits into my labeling you as "selfish" or "lacking empathy."

There is no intrinsic inhumanity with our system. It's the most humane, empathetic and least selfish system ever devised by man. I didn't label you or presume anything about you, I simply evaluated what you said, and what you continue to say. It is quite clearly a lack of confidence in your ability to compete when you assert our system is inhumane, selfish or lacking in empathy. That worldview comes from someone who has convinced themselves they have no chance without some outside help. I can make this determination because anyone should be able to understand a voluntary free market system with free enterprise and a constitutional republic protecting rights endowed by a Creator, is an intrinsically humane system.

The way I want to act is by taking the gains of others who don't need those gains and wouldn't be affected at all by losing a small kernel of those gains. I'm not implying that we should raise taxes on small business owners or middle class families trying to put their kids in school. We should raise taxes on people who wouldn't be that affected by it. For instance, a man making ten million dollars a year probably wouldn't have his life changed one bit if he instead made 8 million a year (he might have to hold off on buying that expensive yacht...), as compared to, say, a working class father who just lost his manufacturing job and whose kid needs medicine...whine, blubber, whine...

See how you are portraying these hand-picked examples to make your point? No, we don't need to raise taxes on people, they need to be taxed less. It doesn't matter what their story is. It's not your business if someone wants a yacht for self-fulfillment. You don't get to decide how much money I need or when I am content with how much I have. That's you being selfish due to your lack of confidence in your ability to compete. Someone has to build yachts. Someone will have to service and maintain it. Those are jobs...maybe the job of the father who needs medicine for his sick child!

Again... socialists want to interfere because they lack the confidence in their ability to compete... and we see this over and over in every "heartbreaking" analogy you give. You don't seem to comprehend, the more you tax anything, the less of it you'll get. This doesn't hurt the wealthy, they've already earned their wealth. It hurts the working class more than anyone. And it's all the result of your selfish lack of confidence and jealousy of those who compete better than you.

80 years of progressive policy? Progressive policy had virtually stopped in the late 1970s and was swiftly replaced by right-wing neoliberal economic policies implemented by Reagan, and then put even more forward by Clinton.

This is more bullshit. Progressive policies from the 1930s are STILL with us! We don't ever get rid of them. And we haven't stopped adding them. Bush added Medicare Part B. and No Child Left Behind. Obama added nationalized health care. Trump wants to add nationalized child care. OWS protesters demanding $15hr. min. wage... so what universe are you living in where Progressive policies stopped?

Saying that "wealth inequality" is socialism 101 doesn't progress your argument at all. Your Mao Zedong example for instance is irrelevant.

Nope. It's the same exact "1% vs. 99%" rhetoric we hear today. No difference.

You say wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working by design, that it's all just a "natural" result. That's completely false. Again, it rests on the assumption that the "free market" is this machine in which human beings have no control over or rather a force of nature, like a hurricane or sand storm.

Well it IS a true statement and it DOESN'T rest on any such assumption. Free markets are wholly voluntary and totally controlled by human beings. No one forces you to buy things or sell things, no one forces you to participate. Thomas Sowell points out, before free market capitalism, wealth was mostly the result of confiscation by kings and rulers. With free market capitalism, wealth became acquired through helping your fellow man by providing products and services he wants, needs and desires.

Wealth inequality is the result of people gaining wealth, mostly through free enterprise and free market capitalism. The gap widens naturally because some are more motivated than others. It widens further through Progressive policies which keep the lower half down, prisoners to poverty they can't escape because they're penalized or they are simply enabled to remain impoverished.

This is why you need to define terms. If you mean that wealth, in the sense of, say, how comfortable or free our population is, then yeah it probably is not finite.

Last I checked, there is only one definition of wealth. And regardless, it's not finite. People create wealth through their talent, skills, innovations, labor, etc. When you've convinced yourself that you can't compete, that's when you create this mindset of finite wealth... that man over there has more pie than he deserves, his piece is too big... I deserve my share of the pie. But the pie is always growing.

If we want to take your "free market" ideology in a literally, those with the most social capital would essentially be the ones who dictate policy. There would be no democracy because there would be nothing to stop private industries from pushing policies that would benefit them and only them.

Now you're not talking about free market capitalism anymore. You're talking about corporatism. That's where business colludes with all-powerful government to leverage an advantage over competition and it's just as detrimental to free market capitalism as socialism... in fact, it's probably worse. This is why we need small and limited government which only provides the essential things outlined in Article I Sec. 8.

Are you seriously implying that we should outlaw child labor laws? Personally, I don't think kids at all should work for slave labor. Children are supposed to learn how to think and how to be creative when they're younger--they should also have a little fun--which is intrinsic in human nature, the ability to be creative. If you're suggesting that we should go back to 19th century industrial England, where children as young as eight years old were put to work in factories for 12 hours a day, and you don't see the utter despicable inhumanity of that, then I have to say that we may just have different ethical viewpoints....no further discussion there.

Slave labor is when you work for nothing and are owned by a master. I don't favor that. Here again, you leap to the most extreme image you can conjure up to attack something I said. I merely pointed out that once was a time a poor kid could make a buck unloading fish boats down at the docks, or shining shoes, or whatever. Progressives criminalized that. You're exploiting it now to make me out to be some kind of cruel and heartless person. What is wrong with allowing a poor kid to do some job they volunteer to do in order to earn a little money? I see nothing immoral or wrong with that, it could help to build character and work ethic and at the very least, help poor kids by allowing them to earn incomes they would otherwise never realize.

But no... you don't want to allow that... you had rather take money from people who competed better than you and set up a scenario where the poor kid has no other choice but to take your "benevolent" handout. That makes you feel better about yourself and your inadequacies.

As I've stated above, there has never been and there will never be a completely free market capitalist system, just by the fact that human beings are not machines.

I think we've been through this already. There is no such thing as a "pure" anything when it comes to civilized societies. Purity is a non sequitur. We can never reach purity in ANY system because humans are individuals. The idea America was built upon was the right of the people to self-govern. It is accomplished through a free enterprise, free market capitalist system, with a constitutionally protected set of rights that are endowed by something greater than man. Purity not withstanding, that should be our objective.

Overall, it seems to me you believe in the abolition of child labor laws, abolition of freedom and democracy for the majority of the population, and ownership of the state by private corporations. Correct?

No, and I frankly don't know where you get this stuff from. I believe people should be free to make their own decisions. I believe in private property ownership by the individual. I believe people are entitled to the fruits of their labor. I believe in smaller limited government that allows more freedom and not less. I don't believe in crony corporatism, socialism or progressivism. I believe in a free enterprise, free market capitalist system, with a constitutionally protected set of rights that are endowed by something greater than man.

I'm not sure if you're getting at my argument because you keep reverting back to the same talking points/dogmas about "free markets", and then go on to say that the reason why I don't like "capitalism" is because I don't believe in myself and that socialism is some abstract form of primitivism even though we both agreed that there will never be a system that's purely capitalist or socialist.

It's the most humane, empathetic and least selfish system ever devised by man. I didn't label you or presume anything about you, I simply evaluated what you said, and what you continue to say. It is quite clearly a lack of confidence in your ability to compete when you assert our system is inhumane, selfish or lacking in empathy. That worldview comes from someone who has convinced themselves they have no chance without some outside help. I can make this determination because anyone should be able to understand a voluntary free market system with free enterprise and a constitutional republic protecting rights endowed by a Creator, is an intrinsically humane system.

There's too much I disagree with here. You say capitalism is the most humane, empathetic and least selfish system? Says who? What proof do you have of this and on what grounds can you make that value judgement? You've stated before you don't believe in "progress", just "me"...so are you grounding it on the basis that YOU yourself are living comfortably? Are you grounding it on the basis of a few wealthy business owners? Be specific as to WHY you think it's the least "selfish" system.

I"m going to disregard your tedious value judgement of my "low confidence to compete" since I've already stated, repeatedly, that it's as useless as me "evaluating" what you say as "clearly a lack of empathy and consideration for other human beings." I say our system is inhumane and selfish, savagely so in fact, precisely for the reasons I stated above, reasons which you refuse to respond to and continue to neglect on the basis that "that's just how things work". I'll continue with this more below since it connects.

Your last statement is also grounded on absolutely nothing. What do you mean by a 'creator'? Are you speaking of a deity that directly intervenes in the affairs of human beings? And why would that make it intrinsically humane? Don't deists believe that we were created by something outside of nature? I'm assuming you're a Christian?

See how you are portraying these hand-picked examples to make your point? No, we don't need to raise taxes on people, they need to be taxed less. It doesn't matter what their story is. It's not your business if someone wants a yacht for self-fulfillment. You don't get to decide how much money I need or when I am content with how much I have.

I fail to see how my examples were "hand picked", as it's clear that you've demonstrated way more "hand picking" than I did and do, considering how most of your argument rests on the fantasy that most rich people got where they are because they worked their way up from "nothing." My anecdote is simply a reflection of what's reality. Forget the whole "buying yacht" thing. Most rich people in NO circumstances would be hurt by making 8 million instead of 9 million. What right do you have to keep an excessive amount of wealth (in which if taxed, wouldn't hurt that rich person ONE BIT) while others struggle for access to education, healthcare and so on? Unless one finds a cure for Cancer or ends global poverty, asbolutely no level of work in society is worth the amount of money that the one-percent make, most of whom make most of their money off rent extraction.

Again... socialists want to interfere because they lack the confidence in their ability to compete... and we see this over and over in every "heartbreaking" analogy you give. You don't seem to comprehend, the more you tax anything, the less of it you'll get. This doesn't hurt the wealthy, they've already earned their wealth. It hurts the working class more than anyone. And it's all the result of your selfish lack of confidence and jealousy of those who compete better than you.

My analogies are based off reality (and my ability to step into another person' shoes). I tend to think people are human beings and not just numbers. The fact that you condescendingly refer to them as "heartbreaking", and continue to do so throughout the argument, says a lot more about you than you think. And I think it's kind of funny that you say "liberals" always appeal to personal attacks and so on instead of arguing the ideas/content when you summarized the entirety of my arguments as resulting of my "selfish lack of confidence and jealousy of those who compete better than you." Again, nothing worthy of content there and is simply ad hominem.

I fail to understand the notion that the more you tax anything, the less you'll get.... to my understanding, that's not how taxes work. I'm assuming you mean that the more you tax, the more it goes to the government?

Progressive policies from the 1930s are STILL with us! We don't ever get rid of them. And we haven't stopped adding them. Bush added Medicare Part B. and No Child Left Behind. Obama added nationalized health care. Trump wants to add nationalized child care. OWS protesters demanding $15hr. min. wage... so what universe are you living in where Progressive policies stopped?

"No Child Left Behind" is not progressive at all. It's a policy that instead of helping children educate and grow, tries to fulfill quotas to give people the illusion that children are being educated and growing. I'm not going to argue on the merits of Obamacare since it's an overly convoluted system, mainly because it tries to balance private and public healthcare. Personally, I think a full one-payer system would reduce costs and insure more people, as it's done in the Scandavian countries. Healthcare, as recognized by the U.N and W.H.O, is a universal human right. This was perfectly understood by Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, and Nixon. In fact, it was perfectly understood by most Americans back then. So in what universe am I living where Progressive policies stopped? The universe called reality.

And if we were to follow wage trends with inflation, we should actually be paying 20 dollars an hour for min wage. The wage is remained stagnant since the 80s. In 1968, workers were paid almost 11 dollars an hour, adjusted for inflation (Minimum Wage - U.S. Department of Labor - Chart1). And that was all just for standing in the same spot pushing buttons in a factory.

Thomas Sowell points out, before free market capitalism, wealth was mostly the result of confiscation by kings and rulers.

"Before free market capitalism, wealth was mostly the result of confiscation by kings and rulers." That sounds exactly like what happened in the financial crisis. Corporate banks, which practically own the country, confiscated millions and millions of pension funds, savings, jobs etc.

Overall, you say you believe in capitalism as opposed to corporatism which makes your entire argument a little clearer. But I have to disagree with you on the relative distinctions between the two. A "pure" capitalist system would inevitably lead to corporatism. As I stated above, a system built purely on the purpose of amassing social capital will eventually allocate that capital to a specific portion of the population (mostly privileged) whom will then use that social capital to push policies that would inevitably lend themselves more power at the expense of the population. This could, for instance, lead to private companies buying roads/highways and forcing people to pay tolls (which is already happening in places like Massachusetts, Ohio, Conn.)

What you're really for are market systems, which as I've said before, do not go against socialist principals and which nobody said they were against. We both agree that there is and can never be a pure "socialist" or "capitalist" system yet you seem to only want pure "capitalist" systems, and completely disregard its intrinsic inhumanities. Both systems have both good and bad values inherent in them but you only seemed to be concerned with the "bad" values in socialism.

My point about the labor laws is supposed to be historic. In your purely "capitalist" view, it would follow that you don't believe governments should impede on the "freedoms" of big business owners to hire child labor. During the 18th century France for example, manufacturers denounced factory inspectors for infringing on their rights to allow children to work for 12 hours. I'm merely stating historical trends that still exist today.

Now you end off by stating that you believe in smaller limited government that allows more freedom and not less. Ok. Well, a government that provides healthcare and quality education doesn't seem to me to be overreaching its bounds and is, in fact, perfectly capable of going those lengths without "infringing" anyone's freedom. In fact, I argue that it would create more freedom because there would be a greater population who didn't have to worry about finding education and healthcare and instead focus on working, "competing", or doing whatever else they think fulfills them.

 

[Boss]

Boil it down to that they believe in the fake promises and think good intentions are the same as good policy.

I really did once think this and perhaps there is a grain of truth to it, but as I pointed out in the OP, there is an underlying issue that motivates some people to gravitate toward these socialistic solutions. Simply put, it is their lack of confidence in their own ability to compete with others. Their remedy for this lack of confidence is to make us all part of a giant collective where their own inadequacies can be hidden and those who are better achievers can carry most of the load.

 

[Theowl32]

Boil it down to that they believe in the fake promises and think good intentions are the same as good policy.

I really did once think this and perhaps there is a grain of truth to it, but as I pointed out in the OP, there is an underlying issue that motivates some people to gravitate toward these socialistic solutions. Simply put, it is their lack of confidence in their own ability to compete with others. Their remedy for this lack of confidence is to make us all part of a giant collective where their own inadequacies can be hidden and those who are better achievers can carry most of the load.

Oh I agree with all of that. Hey, it is natural imo to lack confidence. I do think that they gravitate towards the robin hood fairy tale because they want to believe it. Meaning, we see WHAT WE WANT to see. However, what they believe in are the lies. The fairy tale. The FAKE PROMISES cause those FAKE PROMISES appeal the very thing you say.

You are describing water to a drowning person. I think what they need is to be told the fairy tale is the notion of this myth of a utopia. Known as socialism. Where to them there are no rich people, no poor people. We are all living under a big tree in perfect harmony. Maybe we are even blue creatures with wings.

You see where I am going. The fairy tale. They need to know they are brainwashed and they also need to know how much of a friend the free market has been and would be to the middle class and poor class. That, is the reason why so many from those so called socialist paradises are so desperate to get here, and not the other way around.

 

[Boss]

There's too much I disagree with here. You say capitalism is the most humane, empathetic and least selfish system? Says who? What proof do you have of this and on what grounds can you make that value judgement?

On the basis that a free market capitalist system is completely voluntary and mutual. No one is forced to participate, every transaction is voluntary, price is determined by laws of supply and demand as well as free market competition. A typical free market transaction goes like this: I have something you want more than the money in your pocket. I want the money in your pocket more than what I have. We mutually agree to an exchange and free market capitalism happens. We both got what we wanted, so how is that unfair? How is that selfish? If I am there with something you want and you're there with something I want, how is that not empathetic?

I"m going to disregard your tedious value judgement of my "low confidence to compete"...

It's obvious you're going to disregard it. People generally don't like to hear what's wrong with them. I will tell you, I have no intention of debating War and Peace every time you post. You've made your point, you disagree with the OP.

I fail to see how my examples were "hand picked", as it's clear that you've demonstrated way more "hand picking" than I did and do, considering how most of your argument rests on the fantasy that most rich people got where they are because they worked their way up from "nothing."

No, that is actually a fact. Only 33% of wealth is inherited. Two-thirds is created from people who come from moderate or low income childhoods.

"Before free market capitalism, wealth was mostly the result of confiscation by kings and rulers." That sounds exactly like what happened in the financial crisis.

Except that is not what happened. The financial and housing crisis was the result of corporatism. Big government collusion with crony corporatists to leverage advantages over the competition. This is NOT free market capitalism.

Overall, you say you believe in capitalism as opposed to corporatism which makes your entire argument a little clearer. But I have to disagree with you on the relative distinctions between the two. A "pure" capitalist system would inevitably lead to corporatism.

We've already discussed how "purity" is a non sequitur. I've already illustrated the difference and distinction between corporatism and free market capitalism. I see no point in continuing to repeat myself in this conversation. It doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread anyway. We're discussing why some people are attracted to Socialism while others aren't.

It's obvious to me that you are going to continue to deny the underlying reasons I pointed out in the OP and lobby for why it's "okay" for you to support your views.

Well, a government that provides healthcare and quality education doesn't seem to me to be overreaching its bounds and is, in fact, perfectly capable of going those lengths without "infringing" anyone's freedom. In fact, I argue that it would create more freedom because there would be a greater population who didn't have to worry about finding education and healthcare and instead focus on working, "competing", or doing whatever else they think fulfills them.

No, any time you grant government more power and authority it comes at the expense of your freedom.

...a greater population who didn't have to worry about...

Again, dovetailing nicely with the point in the OP. You lack confidence in your ability to compete, therefore, you embrace Socialism as a means to make your path easier... so you don't have to "worry" about things. If you had confidence, you wouldn't be worried.

 

[Michelle420]

Thanks Boss, I do love socialism.

 

[Boss]

Oh I agree with all of that. Hey, it is natural imo to lack confidence. I do think that they gravitate towards the robin hood fairy tale because they want to believe it. Meaning, we see WHAT WE WANT to see. However, what they believe in are the lies. The fairy tale. The FAKE PROMISES cause those FAKE PROMISES appeal the very thing you say.

You are describing water to a drowning person. I think what they need is to be told the fairy tale is the notion of this myth of a utopia. Known as socialism. Where to them there are no rich people, no poor people. We are all living under a big tree in perfect harmony. Maybe we are even blue creatures with wings.

You see where I am going. The fairy tale. They need to know they are brainwashed and they also need to know how much of a friend the free market has been and would be to the middle class and poor class. That, is the reason why so many from those so called socialist paradises are so desperate to get here, and not the other way around.

I don't think they are brainwashed as much as they are enabled by Socialism or the idea of Socialism. I used to think the same as you... they've been brainwashed... they haven't studied history... the believe in fairy tales and Utopian fantasies... but it's much deeper. I liked your water analogy but it's really more like alcoholics and Socialism is their booze. They've convinced themselves there is no chance of them competing without some help, just as an alcoholic convinces himself he needs that drink to make it through the day. You try to take their Socialism bottle and they're ready to fight you.

 

[there4eyeM]

The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?

The CEO of any corporation is paid by a board of directors and their stockholders. They are paid in accordance with free market principles of supply and demand. Good CEOs are expensive... like quarterbacks or head coaches on an NFL team. You may think $19 million sounds excessive but if the company makes $380 million, it's not much. Regardless, it's not your decision to make. If you want to start a company to compete with Mylan, and you wish to hire a CEO for $50k a year, go for it! No one is stopping you! If you think that's a better game plan, you're free to give it a whirl.

Nine times out of ten, when I debate some idiot about CEO salaries, I ask them one simple question they can never sufficiently answer... What does a CEO do? Can you tell me? Just give me a rough outline of what a typical CEO does... daily, weekly, monthly and annually. I find that 90% of the time, those who complain about CEO salaries simply have no clue what they do.

So the stockholders who know even less about the technologies involved determine a CEO's salary according to free market principles? I fever there was an argument that decouples the correlation between compensation and merit, it's that.

I'm a stock holder and I've never been given the option of determining a CEO's compensation. Yeah, you can vote for one of maybe 7 or 8 candidates but compensation is never one of the choices given.

And how is a CEO's time spent? Cheerleading for their companies, looking for other companies to acquire, keeping track of budgets at the 50,000 foot level, interviewing candidates for their inner sanctum...

"Inner sanctum"!! Very good.

 

[JoeNormal]

Go into detail then about what a CEO does.

So you want me to give you a "cheat sheet" in case someone asks you this question again? I think I will pass on this and let you do some research on your own. I'll just say it's a much tougher job than you give it credit for. Good CEOs are worth every penny they make... if they weren't, they wouldn't be paid so much.

Now think about it a hot second.... Why would capitalists who's objective is bottom line profits, willingly overpay a CEO massive amounts of money that would otherwise be profit? If the CEO didn't bring a value, the capitalist would have no reason to pay them so much. A CEO is paid in accordance to how much value he provides to the capitalist. If they could achieve the same results with a cheaper CEO, they would.

I'll give anyone who makes it up the corporate ladder far enough to be within striking distance of the CEO credit for being great at self promotion. However, the fact is that the people who value management the most are others in management. Our company recently went through a re-org where it became obvious that they felt that any of the cogs in the trenches could be replaced with lower priced talent, or consolidated into fewer positions, or 'managed' into getting more done with less and it was a complete disaster. We are hanging on by our fingernails now and the primary architects of this debacle have either been fired, forced into early retirement or saw the writing on the wall and moved on. Since then, one was even fired from the position he moved to.

The free market scenario that you describe favors those who either have a lot of money to start with (the capital part of the equation) or have acquired connections in frat-boy manner that have allowed them to move up. And even with those advantages, sometimes it's still not enough.

And don't worry about the "cheat sheet". It's obvious that you pull 'facts' out of your ass on demand.

CEOs have much more going for them than the art of self-promotion. I can't comment on your company because I know nothing about it and I kinda doubt you know everything about it yourself. I do know about CEOs.

"Free markets" don't favor anyone or anything on any basis other than competition, supply and demand. CEOs don't walk into board rooms with an AK-47 and demand to be installed as CEO. They make a purely voluntary exchange of their services for remuneration.

It's interesting your comments here reveal once again that your underlying problem is a lack of confidence in your own ability to compete with others. CEOs who obviously compete better than you... well, they have to be turned into frat boys and silver spoon divas who come from money. It's not because they worked hard to get to where they are and earned their positions.

The problem with your reasoning is, if the CEO didn't legitimately deserve to be in their position, their company would fail and the entire objective of the capitalists who own the company would be pointless and moot. Again, the objective of ALL capitalists is to maximize profits. If they could do this with a cheap CEO, they would.... if they could do it with a wealthy frat buddy, they'd do it... but I would think their wealthy frat buddy would be far more likely to cut them a break on his salary.

I'm perfectly confident in my ability to create value in my company. A portfolio of patented and patentable material is evidence of that.

Here's the thing, not everyone is motivated by money alone. Most engineers like me prefer the creative and intellectual challenges of what we do and if being able to skip endless boring meetings and soul sucking tedium results in a few less dollars then so be it. I'll even admit to the necessity of having management to keep our ducks in a row, look for new opportunities, allocate resources, etc. (How's that?) However, since management controls the purse strings and considers themselves vastly more important than those of us who create the technologies and products upon which the company is based, I see a problem. Who do you think this group will tend to reward? Being nickeled and dimed at every turn so that a few people can get an extra juicy bonus is a good way to turn a previous conservative into a progressive. This attitude is particularly acute at the moment seeing how catastrophic the 'management is all that matters' mindset turned out to be.

 

[Boss]

I'm perfectly confident in my ability to create value in my company. A portfolio of patented and patentable material is evidence of that.

Here's the thing, not everyone is motivated by money alone. Most engineers like me prefer the creative and intellectual challenges of what we do and if being able to skip endless boring meetings and soul sucking tedium results in a few less dollars then so be it. I'll even admit to the necessity of having management to keep our ducks in a row, look for new opportunities, allocate resources, etc. (How's that?) However, since management controls the purse strings and considers themselves vastly more important than those of us who create the technologies and products upon which the company is based, I see a problem. Who do you think this group will tend to reward? Being nickeled and dimed at every turn so that a few people can get an extra juicy bonus is a good way to turn a previous conservative into a progressive. This attitude is particularly acute at the moment seeing how catastrophic the 'management is all that matters' mindset turned out to be.

You are confident in your perception that your contribution creates value. The OP doesn't conclude otherwise. I never argued you don't contribute value or that you lack confidence in your ability to do so. I said people who embrace Socialism lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. You admit that you're not motivated by money and don't want to be a manager and have to go to meetings and be bored... but then... you chastise those who are motivated to do so, who do seek monetary reward.

So it's kind of like the unpopular kid at school saying... meh, I didn't want to be popular anyway because they're all a bunch of jerks! Because you lack confidence in your ability to compete with others, you have to tear them down as a means to feel validated. You've made this acceptable in your mind as a coping mechanism.

A reasoned observer could realize an attitude of "management is all that matters" would result in a company full of managers which would be a pointless endeavor. Obviously, this is an untrue statement.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm perfectly confident in my ability to create value in my company. A portfolio of patented and patentable material is evidence of that.

Here's the thing, not everyone is motivated by money alone. Most engineers like me prefer the creative and intellectual challenges of what we do and if being able to skip endless boring meetings and soul sucking tedium results in a few less dollars then so be it. I'll even admit to the necessity of having management to keep our ducks in a row, look for new opportunities, allocate resources, etc. (How's that?) However, since management controls the purse strings and considers themselves vastly more important than those of us who create the technologies and products upon which the company is based, I see a problem. Who do you think this group will tend to reward? Being nickeled and dimed at every turn so that a few people can get an extra juicy bonus is a good way to turn a previous conservative into a progressive. This attitude is particularly acute at the moment seeing how catastrophic the 'management is all that matters' mindset turned out to be.

You are confident in your perception that your contribution creates value. The OP doesn't conclude otherwise. I never argued you don't contribute value or that you lack confidence in your ability to do so. I said people who embrace Socialism lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. You admit that you're not motivated by money and don't want to be a manager and have to go to meetings and be bored... but then... you chastise those who are motivated to do so, who do seek monetary reward.

So it's kind of like the unpopular kid at school saying... meh, I didn't want to be popular anyway because they're all a bunch of jerks! Because you lack confidence in your ability to compete with others, you have to tear them down as a means to feel validated. You've made this acceptable in your mind as a coping mechanism.

A reasoned observer could realize an attitude of "management is all that matters" would result in a company full of managers which would be a pointless endeavor. Obviously, this is an untrue statement.

There has been created a culture in this country where if you want to make more money, you need to get into management. This has created a plethora of companies that are top heavy because people who would have been useful continuing in their previous positions traded that in on a management gig. Ours has gone that direction.

You seem to want to believe that we live in a meritocracy where people are paid in proportion to the value they bring to an organization. The reality is that we live in a plutocracy where those with enough money (or sometimes influence) are able to acquire bargains from innovative people who can't afford to turn down their offers.

And the "management is all that matters" statement is slightly hyperbolic so I don't know why you'd actually try use that to make a point.

 

[Boss]

I'm perfectly confident in my ability to create value in my company. A portfolio of patented and patentable material is evidence of that.

Here's the thing, not everyone is motivated by money alone. Most engineers like me prefer the creative and intellectual challenges of what we do and if being able to skip endless boring meetings and soul sucking tedium results in a few less dollars then so be it. I'll even admit to the necessity of having management to keep our ducks in a row, look for new opportunities, allocate resources, etc. (How's that?) However, since management controls the purse strings and considers themselves vastly more important than those of us who create the technologies and products upon which the company is based, I see a problem. Who do you think this group will tend to reward? Being nickeled and dimed at every turn so that a few people can get an extra juicy bonus is a good way to turn a previous conservative into a progressive. This attitude is particularly acute at the moment seeing how catastrophic the 'management is all that matters' mindset turned out to be.

You are confident in your perception that your contribution creates value. The OP doesn't conclude otherwise. I never argued you don't contribute value or that you lack confidence in your ability to do so. I said people who embrace Socialism lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. You admit that you're not motivated by money and don't want to be a manager and have to go to meetings and be bored... but then... you chastise those who are motivated to do so, who do seek monetary reward.

So it's kind of like the unpopular kid at school saying... meh, I didn't want to be popular anyway because they're all a bunch of jerks! Because you lack confidence in your ability to compete with others, you have to tear them down as a means to feel validated. You've made this acceptable in your mind as a coping mechanism.

A reasoned observer could realize an attitude of "management is all that matters" would result in a company full of managers which would be a pointless endeavor. Obviously, this is an untrue statement.

There has been created a culture in this country where if you want to make more money, you need to get into management. This has created a plethora of companies that are top heavy because people who would have been useful continuing in their previous positions traded that in on a management gig. Ours has gone that direction.

You seem to want to believe that we live in a meritocracy where people are paid in proportion to the value they bring to an organization. The reality is that we live in a plutocracy where those with enough money (or sometimes influence) are able to acquire bargains from innovative people who can't afford to turn down their offers.

And the "management is all that matters" statement is slightly hyperbolic so I don't know why you'd actually try use that to make a point.

Well I hate to break this to you but it has always been the case where management makes more money than those they manage. I've never been able to hire a manager for less money than the employees he or she manages.

Now.... This doesn't have a damn thing to do with "beliefs" ...and that's your main problem here. The only reality I know is that in a free market system, there is no room for plutocracy or favoritism toward the wealthy, etc. Capitalists have one objective... to maximize profits. That's really all they are interested in.

Bargains from innovative people who can't afford to turn down offers sounds a bit like sour grapes and butthurt to me. No one is forcing anyone to do anything in a free market transaction, that's the beauty of it. It's not my problem that someone is a poor negotiator. Again, some people embrace Socialism because they lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. This notion is a perfect illustration of how that manifests itself. You want to make me feel guilty for buying something from you for less value than it's actually worth because you need money that I have right now. But that's what capitalism is all about. I'm getting a bargain and you're having a need fulfilled. No one is forcing you to do this, it's totally voluntary in a free market system.

As for the "management is all that matters" statement, I didn't make that statement, I addressed that statement. Hyperbolic or not, it's an untrue statement.