|
GoonSquad
Gadfly or Fly Food?
Joined: May 12, 2007
Age: 43
Posts: 3600
Location: International House of Paincakes...
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mcg wrote: | | Declension wrote: | | mcg wrote: |
Sounds like Hoover's high-wage doctrine, which exacerbated the recession in 1929. Under standard economic models, an exogenous decrease in wages actually shifts the aggregate supply curve to the right, increasing production.
Funny that people here should support this notion which has never been confirmed empirically or predicted using modern economic models. Intuition can be a dangerous thing when dealing with nonlinear dynamic systems. |
Don't you think that it's still a bit too close to the financial crisis to be pretending that "standard economics models" is anything other than a branch of mathematics? |
All economic models have limitations, even under normal circumstances. I'm certainly not trying to argue that a mathematical model based on relatively few parameters can perfectly describe a dynamic system. The point is that GoonSquad's claims are completely baseless. |
And you've certainly made that case by regurgitating libertarian propaganda. 
_________________
If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.~Marcus Aurelius |
|
| Back to top |
|
TM
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2012
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoonSquad wrote: | | Rainy wrote: | You do realize that rich people get taxed heavily, and are also huge consumers, right? They wouldn't even be making their huge profits if there wasn't a massive amount of consumers spending money.
The problem isn't with capitalists being capitalists. It's the current global economic crisis that's causing your unemployment and poverty issues. |
Capitalist CAUSED this crisis and rich people are giving me my 6.5% unemployment/18% poverty rate economy!
I don't like it. Sue me. |
No. Capitalists didn't create this economic crisis, incompetent government did. The US government housing programs had the result that they "coerced" banks into giving loans to people who were unable to pay the loans once teaser rates ran out. The fact that government regulators had failed to keep up with modern financial products such as mortgage backed securities and other derivatives was factor 2.
Factor 3 was that government regulators had failed to create and enforce sustainable levels of leverage.
Yes, capitalists were greedy and went for profits, however government failed to do its tasks of regulating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TM wrote: | | GoonSquad wrote: | | Rainy wrote: | You do realize that rich people get taxed heavily, and are also huge consumers, right? They wouldn't even be making their huge profits if there wasn't a massive amount of consumers spending money.
The problem isn't with capitalists being capitalists. It's the current global economic crisis that's causing your unemployment and poverty issues. |
Capitalist CAUSED this crisis and rich people are giving me my 6.5% unemployment/18% poverty rate economy!
I don't like it. Sue me. |
No. Capitalists didn't create this economic crisis, incompetent government did. The US government housing programs had the result that they "coerced" banks into giving loans to people who were unable to pay the loans once teaser rates ran out. The fact that government regulators had failed to keep up with modern financial products such as mortgage backed securities and other derivatives was factor 2.
Factor 3 was that government regulators had failed to create and enforce sustainable levels of leverage.
Yes, capitalists were greedy and went for profits, however government failed to do its tasks of regulating. |
Capitalism causing the global economy crisis is pure propaganda their was a lot of factors thats caused the crisis but Capitalism is not one of them Incompetent Government in general did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Rainy
Snowy Owl
Joined: Apr 24, 2012
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GoonSquad wrote: |
And you've certainly made that case by regurgitating libertarian propaganda. |
Now now, blaming all of your problems on the rich isn't going to solve anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
VMSmith
a figment of my own imagination
Joined: Apr 18, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 2709
Location: the old country
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| there are libertarians here, facists, capitalists, right wingers in general but the marxists, socialists/communists(same difference) and other anti capitalists are at the perifery. cant we just have one thread where we can talk by ourselves? like i wouldnt mind having the is capialism evil and socialism is the solution debate so much if it werent with the same rightwingers going over the same arguments about human nature, free market, welfare, workers control and state capitalism over and over but that wasnt even the purpose of this thread. this thread was supposed to be for marxists(was hoping to find more revolutionary types but everyone turns out to be a social democrat). rant over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1686
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VMSmith wrote: | | this thread was supposed to be for marxists(was hoping to find more revolutionary types but everyone turns out to be a social democrat). rant over. |
In the spirit of attempting to make this thread more left-wing, maybe we should talk about what exactly the difference between a Marxist and a social democrat is. Are they mutually exclusive? Are they even the same category?
I understand Marxism to be:
(a) A viewpoint for understanding history, where the "great man" and "national character" narratives are shunned, and instead history is interpreted as the result of material forces such as resources, power structures, etc.
(b) A prediction about the future, i.e. that capitalism is not sustainable and its inherent contradictions will eventually result in its collapse.
(c) A set of policy recommendations, e.g. that workers should be given direct control of the places in which they work and the tools which they work with. Modern Marxists tend to recommend a "bottom-up" approach involving workers' cooperatives, as opposed to the "top-down" approach that created the Soviet Union.
I understand social democracy to be simply a set of policy recommendations, which involve capitalism being restricted in various ways for the public good. The slogan of social democracy might be: "When capitalism and democracy are allies, then everyone is happy. When capitalism and democracy are in conflict, democracy should win." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Rainy
Snowy Owl
Joined: Apr 24, 2012
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Democracy becomes severely flawed if the people who vote are uneducated or ignorant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29706
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rainy wrote: | | Democracy becomes severely flawed if the people who vote are uneducated or ignorant. |
It also becomes flawed when the politicians raid the treasury to buy votes.
Keeping a Republic requires a strength of character which is missing in most politicians.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 5185
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | In the spirit of attempting to make this thread more left-wing, maybe we should talk about what exactly the difference between a Marxist and a social democrat is. Are they mutually exclusive? Are they even the same category?
I understand Marxism to be:
(a) A viewpoint for understanding history, where the "great man" and "national character" narratives are shunned, and instead history is interpreted as the result of material forces such as resources, power structures, etc.
(b) A prediction about the future, i.e. that capitalism is not sustainable and its inherent contradictions will eventually result in its collapse.
(c) A set of policy recommendations, e.g. that workers should be given direct control of the places in which they work and the tools which they work with. Modern Marxists tend to recommend a "bottom-up" approach involving workers' cooperatives, as opposed to the "top-down" approach that created the Soviet Union.
I understand social democracy to be simply a set of policy recommendations, which involve capitalism being restricted in various ways for the public good. The slogan of social democracy might be: "When capitalism and democracy are allies, then everyone is happy. When capitalism and democracy are in conflict, democracy should win." |
I don't see them as mutually exclusive, but I don't see them as being exactly in the same category either.
While Marx contributed some brilliant ideas, like anything, I think we should be taking what works and using it to our benefit. Rarely is any one philosopher solely right without reproach. I do not believe Marx is an exemption to that rule.
Some of the opportunities that I grew up with due to communism I am very grateful for. Free education (including higher education), free healthcare, free literacy programs and the like have certainly made a very positive impact and I think we could learn from that (or at least ensure excellent programs are in place for those who cannot afford them). Equal opportunity is something I would like to see focused on.
I can certainly agree with the bottom up approach, it certainly seems to work for co-operatives and the like. I do not oppose small business either though. People should choose what works for them, and I think a mix of the two could potentially work quite well.
Democracy should win if capitalism and democracy are in conflict. I don't think I could refute that logic. I do believe in democracy and in everyone being able to have a say, although I might want to question how the system would be structured.
I see a need to regulate capitalism, due to the nature of it and the possibility of monopolies that can come from it, along with the power or corruption a monopoly can cause (I don't need to look too far to see some stunning examples of monopolies and their power right now).
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
VMSmith
a figment of my own imagination
Joined: Apr 18, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 2709
Location: the old country
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks.
mhm. the whole ownership of the means of production bit is important because social democracy might advocate for a fairer society with universal health care, childcare, education, etc and i cant tell you the number of times i have heard "you dont need socialism when you have sweden" but it misses the point about workers control and revolution. without that you cant have a true democracy.
parliamentary democracy must be encouraged and you'll find socialists of various sorts(for different reasons) in social democratic parties but the collective organisation of workers in the workplace is a higher form of democracy. plus i dont think that leaders elected under capitalism, no matter how reformed, can be interested in the welfare of the people when their interests are tied up with capital. plus the second point you(declension) made ties in with that. marxists do not see the system as redeemable- it constantly goes into crisis and workers always bear the brunt of that.
rainy: what do you mean? are you talking about informed choices when going to the polls or saying that when democracy fails it is because of the voters not having enough schooling and picking the right person? i think people should make informed choices at the polls but when democracy fails i think it is because democracy isnt in the interests of our rulers or bosses that it flops under this system.
kjas: i dont think there are any socialist/communist countries in existence. cliffites would argue that countries calling themselves that now are actually state capitalist because they have all the characteristics of capitalism but state controlled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Rainy
Snowy Owl
Joined: Apr 24, 2012
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Rainy wrote: | | Democracy becomes severely flawed if the people who vote are uneducated or ignorant. |
It also becomes flawed when the politicians raid the treasury to buy votes.
Keeping a Republic requires a strength of character which is missing in most politicians.
ruveyn |
Most of the money they use comes from private sources.
VMSmith: A democracy can fail for multiple reasons. What I gave was one of the more general and common flaws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 5185
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VMSmith wrote: | | plus i dont think that leaders elected under capitalism, no matter how reformed, can be interested in the welfare of the people when their interests are tied up with capital. |
I agree with that, and that is what worries me about some of the decisions being made here in general and especially over the last 10 years.
You are correct, there are no truly communist countries yet. However, there are countries who are based on communist principles, although they differ in the reality of what they put into practise (e.g. statism) compared to what Marx thought of as ideal, as it was one of those countries I was referring to.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1513
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VMSmith wrote: | | there are libertarians here, facists, capitalists, right wingers in general but the marxists, socialists/communists(same difference) and other anti capitalists are at the perifery. cant we just have one thread where we can talk by ourselves? like i wouldnt mind having the is capialism evil and socialism is the solution debate so much if it werent with the same rightwingers going over the same arguments about human nature, free market, welfare, workers control and state capitalism over and over but that wasnt even the purpose of this thread. this thread was supposed to be for marxists(was hoping to find more revolutionary types but everyone turns out to be a social democrat). rant over. |
Well, the reason that I abandoned this thread is because I really didn't feel like dealing with ruveyn and TM.
I am not a revolutionary for the simple reason that I think overthrowing the government does not work. It's been tried and has had horrible results. If by a revolution you mean a period of rapid change, I also disagree with that because rapid change is difficult and tends to create problems. I wish that rapid change could work, because I'm impatient, but I don't believe that it can.
All of that said, I am not a social democrat. Universal healthcare and free education are of course important to socialism, but are only a small part of it. I do believe in collective ownership and economic democracy. I believe that major industries should be nationalized over a period of 10-20 years or so. Or, as the case may be, renationalized since many of them were publicly owned before the '80s. I strongly support cooperatives, both workers and consumers'. I think that credit unions are a great idea, as are insurance cooperatives. And there is a cooperative grocery store chain in my region that I'd shop at if there was one within walking distance (I don't own a car)--mind you, they are slowly going out of business because the bigger chains have lower overhead.
I think that perhaps the best thing a socialist could do is encourage the formation of new cooperatives. By and large nationalization is a dead policy (although Iceland showed some real guts in nationalizing their banks that failed) and is not likely to be resurrected for a few decades.
I agree that we have yet to see a socialist country. Parts of Europe were making excellent steps in that direction before Thatcher and her ilk came along. And Chile might have become socialist if the USA hadn't sabotaged their economy and helped to overthrow Salvador Allende. Venezuela may become socialist under Chavez, but I'm wary of him; he doesn't seem adverse to cheating in the democratic process. I'm somewhat more optimistic about Evo Morales in Bolivia. Of the original "Communist" countries, only Cuba has a chance of becoming socialist in the foreseeable future. There are some reforms being made which are good first steps towards becoming democratic (although there is still a long, long way to go) and the economic reforms don't sound like they'll revert it to capitalism, like happened in China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29706
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rainy wrote: |
Most of the money they use comes from private sources.
VMSmith: A democracy can fail for multiple reasons. What I gave was one of the more general and common flaws. |
Two to tango. Two for corruption: the briber and the bribee.
And the money is in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VMSmith wrote: | but when democracy fails i think it is because democracy isnt in the interests of our rulers or bosses that it flops under this system.
|
good answer.
_________________
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
