Support NeoGAF

[Angry Fork]

I love how certain part of gaf suddenly think the government is some benevolent being incapable of corruption and greed.

This perfect entity able to give out fairly.

That everyone working their current jobs are because they love it not because they are doing it for the money.

That someone working their butt off is not going to resent some sitting on their butt while both received the same reward.

The craziest thing is many of these are atheist gaf too. That stuff sounds crazier than any religion I've heard of.

1. If they don't give it out fairly the people responsible will be removed by the people by force.

2. There are people that do jobs they don't like for money because that's the society we currently live in, where money is king. And many people who do this turn out miserable because they realize they're wasting 8 hours of their day doing something they don't care about. If you've ever made a lot of money to the point where you can feel content and comfortable you soon feel as though you don't want to work in such an environment anymore because you're already comfortable. That's why there are so many stories and cliche's about middle class depression and 'average' mediocre families where they're scared of doing what they like because of the potential financial failure but if they don't do what they like they're destined to live for the weekend. Where their only free time and enjoyment out of life comes from 2 days a week. What's the point of making 300k a year if you can only enjoy it 2 days a week? Unless you have a family and you give your money to your children, but that's not really the same. Eventually the money would be so overflowing you wouldn't know what to do with it. There can be such a cheap standard of living that making 300k a year becomes unnecessary.

3. Very few people would sit on their ass and do nothing, if any at all. When people are able to forget about the stress of surviving, they become bored and think about what they should do with their lives. (btw they may not be given a TV, computer, etc. things like this, just basic shelter and the necessary utilities to survive). Poor people aren't stupid because they're lazy, many are stupid because they don't have the time or motivation to learn more. If they didn't have to worry about survival they would go to the library because they heard about a certain book and they would have the time to read it because they wouldn't be selling their labour 5 days a week in order to pay rent. Their creative instincts would come to the surface and eventually become interested in something that would benefit society. There is nobody that wants to do nothing with their lives. They say they do and such people exist in America only because the alternative is working 5 days a week to survive. What if that wasn't the alternative? Then people wouldn't be so scared of work and producing, because it wouldn't be for something they don't care about any longer.

 

[kame-sennin]

So you want everything to be mom and pop stores and you really think that will bring innovation?

Do you really think mom and pop stores can create products like Intel, IBM, Apple, ect.

Do you even understand the scales of those projects could take?

We're talking about company losing 100s of millions because of a failed innovation or spending 100 millions for a sucessful one.

You really thing small business that gets capped at 300K can try something like that?

Your argument is inconsistant. First you argued that a small business owner, like a restauranteur, would not want to open up business in a second location because there would be no financial gain. As Ether Snake said, another entrepreneur could open up a restaurant in that location which would actually be more beneficial than the same individual consolidating all of that wealth.

Now you're talking about the IBMs and Apples of the world. They have completely different motivations for growing, and increased pay is not chief among them. For one, publicly traded companies need to grow because their shareholders demand as much (this tax is on income, not capital gains). If executives at IBM or Apple want to keep their job, they will pursue growth. Many of these executives also have stock options, so there is a financial motivation.

But even privately owned companies need to grow. A company that does not grow will find it difficult to maintain market share because they won't have the capacity to improve their products. Also, without growth, a company will not be able to promote employees (300K is not an entry level salary) and will loose out on talent. Companies often have to grow in order to survive, not just because the CEO wants a bigger bonus.

 

[Acheron]

Nobody thinks the government can ever be perfect, but if you eliminate the influence of money (coming from the rich) on our politics and make the system more democratic, it would be far less corrupt.

Tyranny of the majority isn't democratic. While the rich may have an inordinate say in politics the correct action isn't to witch hunt them and take their money. Today's well-off aren't all Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

When did anyone say that this is the case? What we want is an economic system where people can actually pursue their dreams because they aren't being screwed over by capitalists who run society into the ground by making things like healthcare for profit, forcing people to work crappy jobs they don't want. Unless you're referring to people who are solely in it for the big dollars, who I would pity for being so blinded by greed.

People have to work crappy jobs because they have poor skillsets. People can't live out their dreams because we can't have 10,000 reality TV stars to every doctor and every engineer. The dollars and cents are a restriction on what people can do, but it is one that talented, driven and wise people can succeed in and position their progeny for further advancement up the socioeconomic ladder.

Yeah! $300k is, like, totally the same thing as $30k man! Yeesh, how can I ever prove that I'm better than those peasants if I can't have 300 MILLION dollars?!

300k is an arbitrary distinction, anything related to taxes will be. However, the state should never cap returns only increase marginal rates at certain milestones and readjust as the Treasury needs and inflation demands.

 

[ccbfan]

Nobody thinks the government can ever be perfect, but if you eliminate the influence of money (coming from the rich) on our politics and make the system more democratic, it would be far less corrupt.



When did anyone say that this is the case? What we want is an economic system where people can actually pursue their dreams because they aren't being screwed over by capitalists who run society into the ground by making things like healthcare for profit, forcing people to work crappy jobs they don't want. Unless you're referring to people who are solely in it for the big dollars, who I would pity for being so blinded by greed.



Yeah! $300k is, like, totally the same thing as $30k man! Yeesh, how can I ever prove that I'm better than those peasants if I can't have 300 MILLION dollars?!




And so, Melenchon has fulfilled his purpose.

I was more replying to Angry Fork's post.

I already explained how the 300K limit would completely destroy growth in the small, medium business sector and making many new productions impossible because the cost of many new inventions and ideas has an upfront cost of millions and that is an impossible capita to achieve with 300K gross limit where less than 200K is even coming back to the business owner.

 

[empty vessel]

Macro economics should be a mandatory high school subject. The responses in this thread prove that. ...

All these jobs created because of a profitable organization run efficiently by a select few at the top. Take away their honestly-earned compensation and see what happens to the future of the U.S. economy.

Wait, you call this macroeconomics?

People have to work crappy jobs because they have poor skillsets.

So you would prefer a world in which you could not go to a restaurant, or have your trash collected, or have your office cleaned, or your car washed, or your lawn mowed and landscaped, or purchase any good? Because, if not, why do you think people ought to be punished for providing these critical services that you have no desire to live without? A country in which everybody "succeeded" can not exist. It would be economic ruin for a society if everybody owned his or her own business.

So, in fact, people have to work crappy jobs not because they have poor skill sets but because society requires crappy jobs to function.

 

[Evlar]

I was more replying to Angry Fork's post.

I already explained how the 300K limit would completely destroy growth in the small, medium business sector and making many new productions impossible because the cost of many new inventions and ideas has an upfront cost of millions and that is an impossible capita to achieve with 300K gross limit where less than 200K is even coming back to the business owner.

The French still have banks, last I checked.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Holy shit.

first post wins.

 

[Angry Fork]

I was more replying to Angry Fork's post.

I already explained how the 300K limit would completely destroy growth in the small, medium business sector and making many new productions impossible because the cost of many new inventions and ideas has an upfront cost of millions and that is an impossible capita to achieve with 300K gross limit where less than 200K is even coming back to the business owner.

What if the concept of something costing millions to make goes away and becomes much less? It's not like minerals in the ground are telling people "hey to dig me up it'll cost you a million dollars". We decide what it costs for something to be produced.Invest in robotics to do menial labour so you wouldn't have to pay them and technical people would do their job for less money because their means of survival is already "paid" for, they'd be doing it because they love doing it.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Tyranny of the majority isn't democratic. While the rich may have an inordinate say in politics the correct action isn't to witch hunt them and take their money. Today's well-off aren't all Rothschilds and Rockefellers.



People have to work crappy jobs because they have poor skillsets. People can't live out their dreams because we can't have 10,000 reality TV stars to every doctor and every engineer. The dollars and cents are a restriction on what people can do, but it is one that talented, driven and wise people can succeed in and position their progeny for further advancement up the socioeconomic ladder.

The old man in this video is a good counter example to your ridiculous claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKDXuCE7LeQ&feature=player_embedded

The same person, exposed to two different environments. In one, he is silent, slouched over, and always responds as if he wasn't sure he had heard the question properly. In the second, he is talkative, animated, and immediately replies having understood the question.

Poor skillsets my ass. People can be talented, or apt to learn and even surpass the already-learned, but the environment in which they live greatly influences how likely they are to express their talents or how much they are willing to learn.

Money is like food and religion: it has been often used to control people and preserve hierarchical structures that favor the few over the many.

 

[Acheron]

What if the concept of something costing millions to make goes away and becomes much less? It's not like minerals in the ground are telling people "hey to dig me up it'll cost you a million dollars". We decide what it costs for something to be produced.Invest in robotics to do menial labour so you wouldn't have to pay them and technical people would do their job for less money because their means of survival is already "paid" for, they'd be doing it because they love doing it.

Somehow this thread has managed to become a beacon for communism. No, not boogeyman communism but actual state run control of the whole economy and price setting mechanism.

There are only limited resources available ie. land, labour, capital, machinery etc. you can't fire on all cylinders in every sector. The free market encourages growth in sectors with comparative advantage and at times when those sectors are in demand. Incentivizing mining by setting prices to make it more attractive necessarily deprive other more deserving sectors of necessary support.

For example in Mao's China prices were set to make investment in heavy manufacturing very attractive, and the heavy manufacturing sector grew. But consumer goods and agriculture were starved of investment and failed to provide meaningful economic performance as returns on investment kept declining, hence why Deng Xiaoping instituted market reforms.

 

[ccbfan]

Your argument is inconsistant. First you argued that a small business owner, like a restauranteur, would not want to open up business in a second location because there would be no financial gain. As Ether Snake said, another entrepreneur could open up a restaurant in that location which would actually be more beneficial than the same individual consolidating all of that wealth.

Now you're talking about the IBMs and Apples of the world. They have completely different motivations for growing, and increased pay is not chief among them. For one, publicly traded companies need to grow because their shareholders demand as much (this tax is on income, not capital gains). If executives at IBM or Apple want to keep their job, they will pursue growth. Many of these executives also have stock options, so there is a financial motivation.

But even privately owned companies need to grow. A company that does not grow will find it difficult to maintain market share because they won't have the capacity to improve their products. Also, without growth, a company will not be able to promote employees (300K is not an entry level salary) and will loose out on talent. Companies often have to grow in order to survive, not just because the CEO wants a bigger bonus.

I'm not talking about the actual IBMs and Apples.

There will be no new Apples and IBMs of the world if there's a a 300K limit.

Its like what everyone else is already saying this doesn't help the poor. It only helps the companies and people that already got rich. Meaning less competition for the big boys meaning more stagnant meaning less innovation.

 

[JustProgress]

Boggles my mind some people agree with this. The plan is retarded. A 100% on a couple million I could see how you at least could maybe argue it, you'd have to be really insecure about your own financial situation. But a limit of 300k? Come on now.

 

[Acheron]

The old man in this video is a good counter example to your ridiculous claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKDXuCE7LeQ&feature=player_embedded

The same person, exposed to two different environments. In one, he is silent, slouched over, and always responds as if he wasn't sure he had heard the question properly. In the second, he is talkative, animated, and immediately replies having understood the question.

Poor skillsets my ass. People can be talented, or apt to learn and even surpass the already-learned, but the environment in which they live greatly influences how likely they are to express their talents or how much they are willing to learn.

Money is like food and religion: it has been often used to control people and preserve hierarchical structures that favor the few over the many.

If there is some sort of latent trigger to unlock unforeseen productivity increases in workers then there is substantial market incentive to pick up cheap labour initially and improve it. Imagine how much McDonald's would invest to make it's workers as hungry to work as a an articling student who puts in 70 hour weeks and does coffee runs.

Where as if the government has set a wage band I have no incentive to really improve my workforce or their conditions as my gains are set regardless.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Somehow this thread has managed to become a beacon for communism. No, not boogeyman communism but actual state run control of the whole economy and price setting mechanism.

There are only limited resources available ie. land, labour, capital, machinery etc. you can't fire on all cylinders in every sector. The free market encourages growth in sectors with comparative advantage and at times when those sectors are in demand. Incentivizing mining by setting prices to make it more attractive necessarily deprive other more deserving sectors of necessary support.

For example in Mao's China prices were set to make investment in heavy manufacturing very attractive, and the heavy manufacturing sector grew. But consumer goods and agriculture were starved of investment and failed to provide meaningful economic performance as returns on investment kept declining, hence why Deng Xiaoping instituted market reforms.

Like not collecting enough taxes from the rich results in underfunding of mass cheap transit for all of society which leads to localized-population-concentration close to where jobs are most available which leads to higher house prices which leads to people's investments (savings, income, etc.) being increasingly offered exclusively to the finance sector on the mortgage altar, at the detriment of the rest of the economy, which leads to a housing boom masked by excessively accessible credit which eventually leads to household default which eventually leads to national economic collapse.

Yes, capitalism is acting just like communist Mao. But hey, it's the "free market", so you can't blame anyone, it is the invisible hand of the market, not the fault of greedy capitalists and corrupt politicians!

Fact is the result is the same, except in our case instead of Mao we have a clique of capitalists Maos, directing investments in their direction, leading to the same economic inevitability under such systems, because of their control of the government, much like the Communists under Mao controlled their own.

Mao setup the system to favor one sector at the detriment of others, our "leaders" are doing no different, for their own personal profit.

Now replace Mao with a democracy, what would be the obvious solution? The people putting restrictions on those who seek to control the government for their own influence. Limiting excessive accumulation of wealth is obviously part of the equation.

 

[ccbfan]

The French still have banks, last I checked.

You have no idea how hard it is to get a business loan do you?

 

[Angry Fork]

The incentive is to grow just because. When I learn a song on piano I don't just stop at the song I wanted to learn, I go ahead and try other songs. Respect/recognition among peers for your achievements will be the incentive to grow your business and do more for other people (or growth will just be a bi-product of what you enjoy doing). There's no reason to build huge statues but people do it because they want to and care about it. A money incentive would be unnecessary in a world where they don't need money to survive, and their labour already does that work for them.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Does this 100% tax on 300k+ apply to football players? If so Ligue 1 would be fucked, any halfway decent player would leave for another league.
The same goes for Hollande proposing a 75% tax on people making over a million euros, but to a lesser extent.

 

[kame-sennin]

I'm not talking about the actual IBMs and Apples.

There will be no new Apples and IBMs of the world if there's a a 300K limit.

Its like what everyone else is already saying this doesn't help the poor. It only helps the companies and people that already got rich. Meaning less competition for the big boys meaning more stagnant meaning less innovation.

You're saying that because you believe no one would invest millions of dollars into a company if they could only make 300k back. But before angel investors, people actually got bank loans to start businesses. That doesn't happen as much anymore because the banks are unregulated. Obviously, that's a problem that Mélenchon would address.

 

[Evlar]

You have no idea how hard it is to get a business loan do you?

In 2010, there were $650 billion in small business loans lent out by US depository institutions. That was still in the midst of unspooling the drop in lending activity during the financial crisis, too. Does that sound like a particularly tight credit market to you?

Granted, this is the US and not France, but is there a particular reason to believe French domestic lending is so much more difficult?

 

[Acheron]

Like not collecting enough taxes from the rich results in underfunding of mass cheap transit for all of society which leads to localized-population-concentration close to where jobs are most available which leads to higher house prices which leads to people's investments (savings, income, etc.) being increasingly offered exclusively to the finance sector on the mortgage altar, at the detriment of the rest of the economy, which leads to a housing boom masked by excessively accessible to credit which eventually leads to household default which eventually leads to national economic collapse.

Yes, capitalism is acting just like communist Mao. But hey, it's the "free market", so you can't blame anyone, it is the invisible hand of the market, not the fault of greedy capitalists and corrupt politicians!

Fact is the result is the same, except in our case instead of Mao we have a clique of capitalists Maos, directing investments in their direction, leading to the same economic inevitability under such systems, because of their control of the government, much like the Communists under Mao controlled their own.

I'm a bit confused. Real estate is heterogeneous and has always been worth more if it more desirable. Proximity to the CBD is a modern function as those of means have gone from being landowning aristocrats to merchants, managers and shop owners. Land ownership has also always lead to debt accumulation. These aren't recent phenomena only that free market advancement has allowed the widest cross section of people to participate.

Moreover it's not the same. In Mao's China (and to some extent today) internal passports designed to keep disadvantaged rural workers from reaching the city lead to massive lifestyle differences greater than practically any in the West even decades earlier.

 

[Acheron]

In 2010, there were $650 billion in small business loans lent out by US depository institutions. That was still in the midst of unspooling the drop in lending activity during the financial crisis, too. Does that sound like a particularly tight credit market to you?

Granted, this is the US and not France, but is there a particular reason to believe French domestic lending is so much more difficult?

What was it in 2007? We're talking about a ~13-14 trillion dollar economy. The financing for annual production of that magnitude will be far higher.

 

[Angry Fork]

You have no idea how hard it is to get a business loan do you?

You guys keep thinking of things as if this supposed communist ideology was put in place in America right now. Of course everyone would freak out because everyone would still be thinking on capitalist terms. It's a gradual process to get people to understand why they care about money and the fact that they can achieve happiness without exorbitant amounts of it.

How about if enough people believe in an idea they all chip in their money to democratically invest/create the idea themselves? If someone has a good idea for something he can spend his time advertising it to other people and seeing if they're interested in it too (and he wouldn't have to work to survive because the 100% tax rate on high production would pay for that). Then he can spend all his time finding people who share whatever vision he wants to commit to.

Even in America now nobody can start a business "on their own", he needs everyone else's labor and then ends up making a shitload more money just because it was his idea, despite the fact that he wouldn't be able to execute it by himself. If you make it so everyone has to chip in, then everyone has a stake in the company and it matters more to every individual whether it fails or succeeds.

 

[Evlar]

What was it in 2007? We're talking about a ~13-14 trillion dollar economy. The financing for annual production of that magnitude will be far higher.

According to the SBA it peaked in 2008 at $711 billion.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I'm a bit confused. Real estate is heterogeneous and has always been worth more if it more desirable. Proximity to the CBD is a modern function as those of means have gone from being landowning aristocrats to merchants, managers and shop owners. Land ownership has also always lead to debt accumulation. These aren't recent phenomena only that free market advancement has allowed the widest cross section of people to participate.

Hello? Due to lack of government intervention and funds, cheap fast mass transit spread over long distances is underfunded (among so many other things). This prevents people from living further away from their jobs than they would prefer. A high concentration of people leads to rising house prices, etc. etc. re-read my post.

It exemplifies how the free market is NOT helping society by being free, and how money, in this case, is flowing into the finance sector at the detriment of other sectors (you have no choice but to pay for the damn mortgage, you can't live four hours away from your job) because of a lack of fast cheap public transit, among other solutions that could be implemented by the government. And then you see how this fuels the destruction of the economy, no differently than when Mao made heavy industry excessively favored.

Two opposite systems, Communism on one side and Capitalism on the other, same result: undue accumulation of wealth at the detriment of society as a whole.

 

[Acheron]

You guys keep thinking of things as if this supposed communist ideology was put in place in America right now. Of course everyone would freak out because everyone would still be thinking on capitalist terms. It's a gradual process to get people to understand why they care about money and the fact that they can achieve happiness without exorbitant amounts of it.

How about if enough people believe in an idea they all chip in their money to democratically invest/create the idea themselves? If someone has a good idea for something he can spend his time advertising it to other people and seeing if they're interested in it too (and he wouldn't have to work to survive because the 100% tax rate on high production would pay for that). Then he can spend all his time finding people who share whatever vision he wants to commit to.

Even in America now nobody can start a business "on their own", he needs everyone else's labor and then ends up making a shitload more money just because it was his idea, despite the fact that he wouldn't be able to execute it by himself. If you make it so everyone has to chip in, then everyone has a stake in the company and it matters more to every individual whether it fails or succeeds.

You've just described the market.

 

[Angry Fork]

You've just described the market.

Nobody can spend 8 hours a day trying to convince people to help them with their ideas because they have to sell themselves for 8 hours a day to someone else in order to survive (whether they like the job or not). My main point is more about taxing high earners so everyone has a base standard of living rather than the guy having time to pitch an idea to others.

Also there are no workers coop here in the sense that workers are able to control the means of production, have input in the decision making process, decide democratically whether to grow or not etc.

 

[sphagnum]

You guys keep thinking of things as if this supposed communist ideology was put in place in America right now. Of course everyone would freak out because everyone would still be thinking on capitalist terms.

This is something that I noticed as well. Do the capitalists in this thread not notice that the candidate in question is a socialist? He's not going to be very concerned about business interests if the whole point of his policies is to reorient everything towards socialism.

According to Wikipedia, some of his stances are: "...a new constitution that will initiate the 6th French Republic, whereby the President will have less power and Parliament more, increase wages, a public bank pole by nationalizing banks, democratization undertaken by new rights for employees in developing cooperatives and large corporations by nationalizing, an environmental planning..."

 

[Acheron]

Hello? Due to lack of government intervention and funds, cheap fast mass transit spread over long distances is underfunded (among so many other things). This prevents people from living further away from their jobs than they would prefer. A high concentration of people leads to rising house prices, etc. etc. re-read my post.

It exemplifies how the free market is NOT helping society by being free, and how money, in this case, is flowing into the finance sector at the detriment of other sectors (you have no choice but to pay for the damn mortgage, you can't live four hours away from your job) because of a lack of fast cheap public transit, among other solutions that could be implemented by the government. And then you see how this fuels the destruction of the economy, no differently than when Mao made heavy industry excessively favored.

Two opposite systems, Communism on one side and Capitalism on the other, same result: undue accumulation of wealth at the detriment of society as a whole.

The bias you want towards mass transit isn't necessarily productive, nor academically rigorous.

However, consider this. Rail in the US was primarily privately owned, and was subsequently outcompeted by the government funded highway expansion programs and subsequent tax-supported maintenance. Bias towards cars was a government supported idea and before the automobile lobby had nearly as strong a lobby.

When Theodore Roosevelt sought to curb the trusts: oil, rail and steel (all related) were his main targets. Government has created incentives towards cars which actually have since the 1950s vastly expanded the economically viable residential areas. Hence urban sprawl.

As for Mass Transit, that is not viable in the free market as it requires government to subsidize operations to keep low fares. There is no mass transit system in the world that is self-funding.

 

[Evlar]

You've just described the market.

I'm pretty sure that paragraph you highlighted is describing a market economy with a strong social safety net: In other words, a mixed economy.

As for Mass Transit, that is not viable in the free market as it requires government to subsidize operations to keep low fares. There is no mass transit system in the world that is self-funding.

This is true only if you ignore all positive (and negative) externalities; in other words, if you just limit yourself to looking at immediate cash-flow transactions between the operators and the users. We actually have a lot of evidence of the benefits of publicly funded transportation initiatives; it was one of the battlegrounds in the early weak-Federal United States. Those states that funded their own transportation networks thrived, despite the cost of the projects, due to the increase in commerce along the transportation lanes; those that refused to develop internal roads and canals suffered in the long run.

I should also point out this criticism on the expense of transportation systems applies to public roadways as well as trains or bus lines.

 

[Acheron]

This is something that I noticed as well. Do the capitalists in this thread not notice that the candidate in question is a socialist? He's not going to be very concerned about business interests if the whole point of his policies is to reorient everything towards socialism.

According to Wikipedia, some of his stances are: "...a new constitution that will initiate the 6th French Republic, whereby the President will have less power and Parliament more, increase wages, a public bank pole by nationalizing banks, democratization undertaken by new rights for employees in developing cooperatives and large corporations by nationalizing, an environmental planning..."

True.

As Rick Santorum should not be expected to love science.

However, I would hope that society would encourage only those who have internalized the lessons of the past to run for office. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

[Acheron]

I'm pretty sure that paragraph you highlighted is describing a market economy with a strong social safety net: In other words, a mixed economy.

What I highlighted described the investment process. An entrepreneur engages in presentations to investors who decide to freely chip-in with their money in order to participate on future gains. Then the entrepreneur goes about finding staff to help make the business successful, this staff also participates in the risk-reward mechanism of the market. There was nothing about social safety.

 

[Angry Fork]

What I highlighted described the investment process. An entrepreneur engages in presentations to investors who decide to freely chip-in with their money in order to participate on future gains. Then the entrepreneur goes about finding staff to help make the business successful, this staff also participates in the risk-reward mechanism of the market. There was nothing about social safety.

His 'rent' is already paid for whether he fails or succeeds. He won't be homeless if he puts all his money into his idea.

Also the workers don't reap the same benefits he does. Why should 1 guy make a shitload more money just for having an idea that works? The workers can do what he does as CEO but he can't produce what all of them produce together. That's why I find the idea of wealthy CEO's and middle class/poor laborers to be so repugnant. I'm not against a person with good ideas getting more reward, but not to the extent they currently get in America.

 

[Acheron]

His 'rent' is already paid for whether he fails or succeeds. He won't be homeless if he puts all his money into his idea.

Alright so I have no problem starting a business and if I make no economic profit, that is economic profit to anyone, all my expenses are still paid. So why then should I work in successful established businesses while my failure-prone startups do not punish me?

The market balances the need for entrepreneurship while keeping most people in stable productive enterprise.

 

[sphagnum]

True.

As Rick Santorum should not be expected to love science.

However, I would hope that society would encourage only those who have internalized the lessons of the past to run for office. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Says the man who supports an economic system that is based on boom and bust cycles. :lol

Socialism, which values criticism above all else, learns from its mistakes. I don't see a whole lot of Stalinists and Maoists running around these days, let alone Soviet apologists. But then again, none of those systems were really socialistic anyway since they didn't give the workers control of the means of production. They were state "socialist" (state capitalist if you want to get into the more leftist critique), bureaucratic messes that evolved out of particular historical situations - the Soviet Union, in particular, evolving as it did due to the failure of the German Revolution post-WWI and the utter destruction caused during the Russian Civil War, which forced Russia to turn inwards and build up its industrial capacity if it wanted to protect its sovereignty, which played into the hands of autocrats like Stalin.

That's not the system we're proposing, nor does it sound like the one that Melenchon would be in favor of, although to be honest pretty much most of what I know about him comes from Wikipedia.

 

[ccbfan]

In 2010, there were $650 billion in small business loans lent out by US depository institutions. That was still in the midst of unspooling the drop in lending activity during the financial crisis, too. Does that sound like a particularly tight credit market to you?

Granted, this is the US and not France, but is there a particular reason to believe French domestic lending is so much more difficult?

Do you mean 650 billion in loans were given out in 2010.

Or

Do you mean 650 billion are outstanding for all loan in 2010.

Cause I read an article a few months ago that said the total amount loan out was only 550 billion which is terrible.

Cause theres a huge difference for each.

One number is good while the other is horrible.

Edit

Found an article that said all outstanding small business is under 600 billion.
That is very low especially the rate it been decreasing the last few years.

Thanks for proving my point.

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/SBL_2011Q3.pdf

 

[Reuenthal]

What an utterly stupid plan and how unsurprising that it has its supporters.

 

[Acheron]

Says the man who supports an economic system that is based on boom and bust cycles. :lol

Socialism, which values criticism above all else, learns from its mistakes. I don't see a whole lot of Stalinists and Maoists running around these days, let alone Soviet apologists. But then again, none of those systems were really socialistic anyway since they didn't give the workers control of the means of production. They were state "socialist" (state capitalist if you want to get into the more leftist critique), bureaucratic messes that evolved out of particular historical situations - the Soviet Union, in particular, evolving as it did due to the failure of the German Revolution post-WWI and the utter destruction caused during the Russian Civil War, which forced Russia to turn inwards and build up its industrial capacity if it wanted to protect its sovereignty, which played into the hands of autocrats like Stalin.

That's not the system we're proposing, nor does it sound like the one that Melenchon would be in favor of, although to be honest pretty much most of what I know about him comes from Wikipedia.

At the end of the day some body is deciding what prices and investment objectives are. The most democratic, fair and widespread way is through the market because everyone has their monetary vote. The socialist critique has always been an amorphous body will fairly decide. Even in a system with a strict one person one vote system of deciding all economic objectives it would bias towards sectors. For example far more people are employed in retail than mining, people won't vote against their economic self-interest so investment objectives will support retail.

 

[Ether_Snake]

True.

As Rick Santorum should not be expected to love science.

However, I would hope that society would encourage only those who have internalized the lessons of the past to run for office. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That is only Lisa Simpson's definition. Check a dictionary.

At the end of the day some body is deciding what prices and investment objectives are. The most democratic, fair and widespread way is through the market because everyone has their monetary vote. The socialist critique has always been an amorphous body will fairly decide. Even in a system with a strict one person one vote system of deciding all economic objectives it would bias towards sectors. For example far more people are employed in retail than mining, people won't vote against their economic self-interest so investment objectives will support retail.

Except in reality the economy is controlled by the rich like one directs a river to water his crops. How many times to I have to re-write the example that demonstrates how Mao and Capitalism both control investments at the detriment of society as a whole?

You won't admit that deregulated capitalism and a Maoist economy is the same shit. Both lead to accumulation of wealth where it should not accumulate, to the detriment of the population.

 

[tfur]

Sounds like a country that is ready for retirement.

 

[Angry Fork]

Alright so I have no problem starting a business and if I make no economic profit, that is economic profit to anyone, all my expenses are still paid. So why then should I work in successful established businesses while my failure-prone startups do not punish me?

The market balances the need for entrepreneurship while keeping most people in stable productive enterprise.

Your money is still being spent on something. Someone else will make money off you if you fail, it still stimulates the economy because he (and the other people involved) are still spending something. They can all try again some time in the future with a different approach or they can decide maybe the idea wasn't good enough or they aren't good in business and can go their separate ways.

But right now in America you have someone who started up Amazon and now there are hundreds, thousands? who work 9-10 bucks an hour sweating their ass off on assembly lines so that the CEO can continue to make a lot of money just because it was his idea and start up. Why do they have no say? His business can't function without them but they are capable of doing what he does to maintain the company. And the only hope they have of attaining a better standard of living is to do exactly what the CEO does and make more off the labor of others. If there is a cap on how much he can make and the rest goes to the state it can be invested in robotics to do the work these people used to do and then those 9-10$ an hour workers can focus on what they find interesting and become productive on their own. But now they have no time or safety net to do so.

By 'expenses' the only thing being paid is your basic standard of living. You'll receive healthcare, basic shelter a bed and food/water. It's not like the state will pay for your 3 bedroom apartment in Manhattan or something. It can be incredibly cheap to house people as the military has shown.

 

[Acheron]

That is only Lisa Simpson's definition. Check a dictionary.

Wrong and misses the point even if it was right. If something causes horrible failure every time then you tend not to keep doing it without any changes.

 

[empty vessel]

At the end of the day some body is deciding what prices and investment objectives are. The most democratic, fair and widespread way is through the market because everyone has their monetary vote. The socialist critique has always been an amorphous body will fairly decide. Even in a system with a strict one person one vote system of deciding all economic objectives it would bias towards sectors. For example far more people are employed in retail than mining, people won't vote against their economic self-interest so investment objectives will support retail.

Defend your ideas all you want, but expect to be called on sophism. Calling a "monetary vote" "democratic" is beyond the pale and an abuse of the English language. It's like saying that a system that allocates to some people more votes than others is "democratic." In which case, a monarchy is technically "democratic." That "amorphous body" of socialism is citizens participating in economic decision-making as equals, not allowing some more economic decision-making power than others about how society uses its productive resources, which are fundamentally social in nature.

 

[Vermillion]

This is fucking stupid.

 

[Acheron]

Your money is still being spent on something. Someone else will make money off you if you fail, it still stimulates the economy because he (and the other people involved) are still spending something. They can all try again some time in the future with a different approach or they can decide maybe the idea wasn't good enough or they aren't good in business and can go their separate ways.

But right now in America you have someone who started up Amazon and now there are hundreds, thousands? who work 9-10 bucks an hour sweating their ass off on assembly lines so that the CEO can continue to make a lot of money just because it was his idea and start up. Why do they have no say? His business can't function without them but they are capable of doing what he does to maintain the company. And the only hope they have of attaining a better standard of living is to do exactly what the CEO does and make more off the labor of others. If there is a cap on how much he can make and the rest goes to the state it can be invested in robotics to do the work these people used to do and then those 9-10$ an hour workers can focus on what they find interesting and become productive on their own. But now they have no time or safety net to do so.

By 'expenses' the only thing being paid is your basic standard of living. You'll receive healthcare, basic shelter a bed and food/water. It's not like the state will pay for your 3 bedroom apartment in Manhattan or something. It can be incredibly cheap to house people as the military has shown.

The difference is Jeff Bezos is a genius, innovator and great salesman for the company. He is the final decision maker on every move it has made including its long-term successful strategy. A factory packer is commoditized labour and easily replaceable. He is rewarded in excess because his risk was in excess.

Similarly, the company already has substantial incentive to invest in robotics to replace workers. It's just when they do that you will undoubtedly view it as the capitalist hoarding excess value and impoverishing workers as Marx did.

 

[Evlar]

The difference is Jeff Bezos is a genius, innovator and great salesman for the company. He is the final decision maker on every move it has made including its long-term successful strategy. A factory packer is commoditized labour and easily replaceable. He is rewarded in excess because his risk was in excess.

Similarly, the company already has substantial incentive to invest in robotics to replace workers. It's just when they do that you will undoubtedly view it as the capitalist hoarding excess value and impoverishing workers as Marx did.

How, exactly, was his risk in excess? What did Jeff Bezos put on the line when he started Amazon that was so much more valuable when what that factory packer is putting on the line?

This... is a remarkably ugly statement.

 

[Acheron]

Defend your ideas all you want, but expect to be called on sophism. Calling a "monetary vote" "democratic" is beyond the pale and an abuse of the English language. It's like saying that a system that allocates to some people more votes than others is "democratic." In which case, a monarchy is technically "democratic." That "amorphous body" of socialism is citizens participating in economic decision-making as equals, not allowing some more economic decision-making power than others about how society uses its productive resources, which are fundamentally social in nature.

As stated within what you quoted even in a one person, one vote system people will tend to decide in favour of their sector, advantaging the status quo and discouraging innovation. Very few people jump on technological innovation (look up the S-curve) at first due to poor performance, but in the long-run it succeeds.

 

[sphagnum]

The difference is Jeff Bezos is a genius, innovator and great salesman for the company. He is the final decision maker on every move it has made including its long-term successful strategy. A factory packer is commoditized labour and easily replaceable. He is rewarded in excess because his risk was in excess.

Similarly, the company already has substantial incentive to invest in robotics to replace workers. It's just when they do that you will undoubtedly view it as the capitalist hoarding excess value and impoverishing workers as Marx did.

I don't care how brilliant Jeff Bezos may be, without actual labor he is nothing. He does not build Kindles. He runs a company that builds Kindles. He deserves to be paid the amount that an administrator should be paid, not the amount that a king should be paid, and that amount deserves to be determined by the people who actually do the work - the workers.

Also, robots replacing workers would be fantastic so long as the robots aren't controlled by private interests. Private interests will only use them to further profit for themselves, leaving the now-unemployed to starve in the streets while the rich convince politicians to cut the social services that keep the poors alive because "MY TAX DOLLARS". This is why the economy needs to be democratically run.

 

[empty vessel]

As stated within what you quoted even in a one person, one vote system people will tend to decide in favour of their sector, advantaging the status quo and discouraging innovation. Very few people jump on technological innovation (look up the S-curve) at first due to poor performance, but in the long-run it succeeds.

So just say that you oppose democracy, then. Let's defend the positions that we actually hold without abusing language to make them appear more palatable to those who can't quite read between the lines.

 

[jp_zer0]

If you have the connections to make $300,000, you probably don't have to worry about starving.

There is many problems with this I think, especially new earners trying to compete with old wealth. . . I still would like to see this enacted, just to see what would happen. I also don't care because I live across the world from it.

 

[Acheron]

I don't care how brilliant Jeff Bezos may be, without actual labor he is nothing. He does not build Kindles. He runs a company that builds Kindles. He deserves to be paid the amount that an administrator should be paid, not the amount that a king should be paid, and that amount deserves to be determined by the people who actually do the work - the workers.

Jeff Bezos's pay is determined by the Board of Amazon which is elected by the shareholders of Amazon. They view the value of his contribution is greater than the value of its other employees because those employees are compensated in-line with the average wage that they'd be paid elsewhere (or else they'd work elsewhere). Bezos is not commoditized labour as his strategy, salesmanship and vision is unique, and valued atleast by the owners of Amazon (of which Bezos is a significant one).

So just say that you oppose democracy, then. Let's defend the positions that we actually hold without abusing language to make them appear more palatable to those who can't quite read between the lines.

Depends if you wish to follow equality or equity. Nevertheless, economic incentives set by the market are as free and fair as any vote.