Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already gave you my answer. My ideals match that of a libertarian socialist.
You can not reconcile libertarianism and socialism under a single "philosophical tent." Socialism requires the taking of property from some in order to provide it to others. Libertarianism requires that what people earn is theirs to keep.
Libertarianism within a strong moral culture (some would say religious, but I don't think religion is required) can produce a similar result to what I suspect you are looking for. It maximizes the economic potential for all, and in that culture people would freely give of their time and property towards charitable ends to support the less fortunate.
What it does not provide is the guarantee that everyone will be taken care of that socialism claims to offer, but I would argue that socialism can never really fulfill that guarantee due to its shortcomings as an economic system.
As Maggie famously said, the problem with socialism is ultimately you run out of other people's money.
Poverty isn't an unfortunate side effect of capitalism. It is an integral component of the system.
Declaring war on poverty within the construct of a capitalist system is like declaring a war on promiscuity within the context of a Greek orgy
Not necessarily. It depends on how ambitiously you define the term poverty. In capitalism, there will always be classes. Some will be on top, some on bottom. But it's theoretically possible in a capitalist system for even the people on the bottom to still have enough to live fairly comfortably. Willfully withholding resources from the poor is not a required aspect of capitalism.
The way I've analyzed the problem is relative to inflation.
How is that possible, since you don't understand Inflation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
But a part of what we face is in globalization. Move jobs from a high labor pool to a low one and everyone suffers.
You're quite the ethnocentric egoist.
Americans, and perhaps the American Euro-Lackeys suffer, but the other 6 Billion people on this Earth benefit.
Do you have a problem with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
So move the pay along with the work and everyone benefits.
That would cause Wage Inflation and be destructive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
One of the big problems the USSR ran into was having inadequate amounts of intermediate goods used to make final goods because there were no prices to dictate how many things, like nails or paper, were needed.
Are you making it up as you go along?
You couldn't be more wrong, but thanks for your admission that you have never lived, worked or shopped in a so-called "Communist" State, and have no idea what you're talking about.
The Soviets used a planned economy. These plans were typically 5-year, 7-year or 10-year plans.
So, the Soviets plan to produce N-number of cars over a 7-year period. That requires N-tons of Steel, N-tons of Aluminum, N-square meters of Wood, N-tons of Plastic, N-square meters of cloth, N-number of tires and so on and so on.
The US and Brits conspired to interfere in the Soviet economy, by blocking the ascension of the Ruble to the World Market, as well as the currencies of all East Bloc States.
That means neither the Soviets nor any East Bloc State could conduct foreign trade on the Global Market using their currencies, because the Bank of International Settlement, which is the clearing house for Global Trade settling trade accounts, refused to accept their currencies.
The Soviets and East Bloc States had the choice of starting WW III, or play the US and British games, selling all of their goods in US Dollars to use to purchase goods for import.
In spite of the relentless harassment in Soviet economic affairs by the US and Brits, the Soviets did quite well, until the US left the Gold Standard in 1973.
The US switch from the Gold Standard to the Petro-Dollar, allowed the US to imperially and wrongfully manipulate the economies of other States.
This issue surfaces during the Carter Administration. The Soviets want to buy wheat; American farmers are all on-board; but the Carter Administration balks.
Illegal over-flights by US reconnaissance aircraft like U-2s and SR-71s violating Soviet air-space revealed that the fields were full of wheat.
That led Carter's Neo-Cons like Gary Sick and Zbigniew Brzezinski to claim the Soviets were hoarding wheat in preparation for WW III.
Carter approved the sale of wheat anyway, and several months later, everyone was shocked to find Soviet wheat rotting in the fields.
Why?
Because it cost less to buy wheat from the US and import it, than it would to allocate oil to be refined into diesel fuel to harvest and ship the wheat to markets.
Because the US manipulated the US Dollar and the price of oil, the Soviets were forced to export more oil in order to maintain the same level of revenues. To do that, the Soviets reallocated their oil usage, taking oil that was intended for use in Agriculture and Transportation, selling it on the World Market instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Many people wonder why economics is such a "voodoo" science, and why economists are almost never able to predict the future or tell politicians how to fix economic problems. It's because the theory of capitalism contains so many false premises, and differences from reality, that it is pretty much useless as a science.
Capitalism is a Property Theory. What the hell does that have to do with Economic Systems?
The Free Market System is an Economic System, but Capitalism is not.
You cannot have a Free Market System with constant government interference and expect things to go well.
That's absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
For example, the theory of capitalism postulates that every consumer has total knowledge of the marketplace. But before computers became popular, you'd have to visit every retailer in your area and know every price, sale, discount, etc. The cost of that travel would have to be integrated into your calculations of the "best" deal--which makes the mathematics so complex that nobody could do it.
There is no such theory.
Either you are making things up, or you are ignorant about Economics.
It smells like you misunderstood and totally botched the theory of Perfect Markets or Perfect Competition.
In the first place, Perfect Competition is predicated on assumptions.
Second, nobody gives a damn if you actually achieve Perfect Competition or not.
It's the journey.
Working toward Perfect Competition is far more important than achieving Perfect Competition ever could be. It's kind of like Buddhism, only different.
Very obviously people cannot distinguish between theoretical physics and applied physics, theoretical math and applied math, or theoretical economics and applied economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Economics today is nothing more than a way to JUSTIFY the current system as if it made sense.
That's the kind of bigotry the ignorant typically display.....
You can not reconcile libertarianism and socialism under a single "philosophical tent." Socialism requires the taking of property from some in order to provide it to others. Libertarianism requires that what people earn is theirs to keep.
You clearly don't understand socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
Libertarianism within a strong moral culture (some would say religious, but I don't think religion is required) can produce a similar result to what I suspect you are looking for. It maximizes the economic potential for all, and in that culture people would freely give of their time and property towards charitable ends to support the less fortunate.
That would defy human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
What it does not provide is the guarantee that everyone will be taken care of that socialism claims to offer, but I would argue that socialism can never really fulfill that guarantee due to its shortcomings as an economic system.
As Maggie famously said, the problem with socialism is ultimately you run out of other people's money.
Dave
You don't understand what socialism is, nor do you understand the difference between authoritarian socialism (communism), and libertarian socialism (anti-statist, collective cooperation).
Gee I've heard it all now. Libertarian and socialist? Aren't those like complete opposite ends of thinking? There's nothing liberated about being forced to buy and sell in whatever way the govt tells you to. Forced to be equally rich or poor, (poor most likely). Why don't you study the Netherlands? You'll see that even with a strong social safety net capitalism is still required. In fact they're more economically free then we are.
No.
Libertarian = anti-state. Libertarian socialism is not state socialism. Socialism is not synonymous with government. If I join a union, I am collectively forming an alliance that is independent of government. Your misunderstanding is your contradiction.
American "libertarians" are actually anarchists. They falsely equate no regulation with a "free market." That is a fallacy. Privatization under a neoliberal economics leads to monopolies, which contradicts the throught of ever being "free." Monopolies prevent the facilitation of commerce.
Of course the Netherlands is more economically free.. they are closer to a libertarian socialist state.
Actually no. Stop right there. Food is not several times more expensive in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
San Francisco than Cincinnati.
Yes, it is. The fact that you cannot wrap your brain around reality does alter the reality.
The federal government reports that the federal poverty level is a "weighted average" [verbatim quote by your own federal government]. It is a weighted average of the weighted averages of the extremely varied poverty levels for the 48 Contiguous States.
Alaska and Hawaii are rightfully excluded from calculation, since they are both statistical outliers, due to the fact that their respective geographic locations negatively impacts the Cost-of-Living in both States.
Even the least intelligent person is smart enough to realize that the poverty level of some States may be far less than the $11,490 federal weighted average for a single person, or it may be far greater than that.
Are you ever going to admit that truth?
Two separate weighted averages are averaged together to get the weighted average for each State. The federal government states there are 1,539 separately functioning micro-economies in the US. Each of the 48 contiguous States has 3 or more micro-economies. The poverty level for each micro-economy is averaged together.
Are you ever going to admit that truth?
Additionally, the federal government identifies 356 macro-economies within the US. Each of the 48 contiguous States has 1 or more macro-economies. The poverty level for each macro-economy is averaged together.
Are you ever going to admit that truth?
The averaged poverty levels for the micro- and macro-economies for each State are then averaged.
How great does the poverty level vary across this constitutional federal republic called the United States?
Suppose you are single, and your annual income is $9,101.That presumes an hourly wage of $4.55/hour. However, federal minimum wage is set at $7.25/hour. Accordingly, we may conclude that you work part-time 24 hours per week at $7.25/hour.
Do you qualify for HUD Section 8 Housing?
No, not if you live in certain economies in the US....at $9,101 per year....you earn too much money.
On the other hand, suppose you earned $26.75/hour and had an annual income of $53,490.
Do you qualify for HUD Section 8 Housing?
If you live in certain economies in the US, absolutely you qualify....you don't make enough money at $26.75/hour, so the tax-payers have to pay your rent.
Any person with a functioning brain will now ask, "How greatly do real poverty levels in the US vary?"
$26.75/hour - $4.55/hour = $22.20
$22.20/hour * 2000 hours = $44,400
Yes....$44,000 shows you just how great the poverty level really varies across the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
As usual, the rest of your post is a wall of meaningless words.
Is it your belief that by the time you reach puberty, you'll be able to comprehend the English language at the 6th Grade Level?
The only other possible explanation is that your position is too weak to withstand debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
I am a libertarian socialist.
Twice as freaking useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
That was the point of the thread. Scarcity is "created."
No, wrong, scarcity is not created. Scarcity exists from the start.
What differentiates items is the degree of scarcity; some things are inherently more scarce than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Without it, there is no market.
Markets exist due to demand, not scarcity.
Just to show how silly your nonsense really is, how scarce are buggy whips and 8-Track tape players?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Scarcity is not necessary anymore. We have the technology for a self-sustaining human population.
"In the year in which we live, humans have discovered that energy and matter are interchangeable."
Okay, so you're not capable of original ideas, but you can steal ideas from television scripts and pass them off as your own.
You don't have the technology, and it doesn't matter how many times you watch the episode Elementary, dear Data
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Those are very childish observations, typical of non-starters with low intelligence.
No, you have lied about the "scarcity-thing."
Where is this cultivation taking place?
On the Ethereal Plane? On the Plane of Other Dimensions? In your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You can't discuss anything without insults.
You didn't answer the questions, and it's not my fault you have no understanding of Time or Space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
All Capital is fixed and finite and therefore limited, resulting in both competition and scarcity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
It is not finite. It comes right out of thin air. Poof!
That would be a childish example.
Why don't you conjure up 20 tons of diatomaceous earth out of thin air, and put the video on Useless Tube?
No my friend, I am afraid it is you that does not understand socialism.
For reference, my earlier comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
Libertarianism within a strong moral culture (some would say religious, but I don't think religion is required) can produce a similar result to what I suspect you are looking for. It maximizes the economic potential for all, and in that culture people would freely give of their time and property towards charitable ends to support the less fortunate.
Your reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
That would defy human nature.
First, I note that in saying this you are likely projecting your own selfish and covetous nature on the rest of humanity.
Second, it is irrefutably logically inconsistent with the possible existence of the bolded section below
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
You don't understand what socialism is, nor do you understand the difference between authoritarian socialism (communism), and libertarian socialism (anti-statist, collective cooperation).
The only form of socialism that has ever existed is the authoritarian version. To suggest there is another alternative is folly.
I suppose you can continue to suggest the existence of such unicorns. Next up: A new thread from Opin_Yunated that the tooth fairy is the answer to the world's economic woes, if only through the proper management of fiat currency we could raise the amount left under your pillow to $1M per tooth.
Dave
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
