It's not Russia, it's Putin

Homepage Forums Politics It's not Russia, it's Putin

This topic contains 134 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 3 minutes ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 135 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44619

    Autumn
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Every time Black Lives Matters comes up you rush to point this out, but it’s never relevant. No one was talking about the BLMGF, specifically. BLM is a much larger movement. And even local chapters of BLM affiliated with BLMGF operate autonomously. But even if that weren’t the case and the allegations were true (which may not be the case), the ideas espoused don’t become wrong as a result.

    What you say has a note of familiarity. I’ve heard it constantly said about Christianity, Religion in general, Marxism and every flavor of Socialism, and every other goalpost-moving, “Each Office Independently Owned and Operated” movement imaginable.

    Maybe because you’re just prone to making the same irrational and fallacious argument against everything?

    #44620

    Autumn
    Participant

    Autumn, Rush wasn’t singing against “The Big Money” but rather singing that it was a tool that can do good (“sometimes building ivory towers, sometimes knocking castles down”) or bad (“Big Money leaves a bruise…It’s a fool on television, getting paid to play the fool.”). A realistic perspective.

    I’ll be honest, I really don’t give a shit about Rush (and the video wouldn’t play), so I’ll take your word for it. Sometimes I just wish you could make a coherent argument against something.

    #44621

    Unseen
    Participant

    Inflation is more money chasing fewer goods and the latest bout of inflation started after the “stimulus” checks poured money into the economy and people laid out of work to live off of the checks, causing shortages of good. This was before Putin’s war, which then afterwards exacerbated shortages of fuel and grain.

    Inflation is a small minority of people we call managers deciding what the rest of us will pay, and they don’t make those decisions in your interest or mine. They make it solely for the benefit of another small minority who should be called our overlords, though some call them the capitalists.

    But there is another way. We tried it and it worked.

    #44622

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Inflation is more money chasing fewer goods and the latest bout of inflation started after the “stimulus” checks poured money into the economy and people laid out of work to live off of the checks, causing shortages of good. This was before Putin’s war, which then afterwards exacerbated shortages of fuel and grain.

    Inflation is a small minority of people we call managers deciding what the rest of us will pay, and they don’t make those decisions in your interest or mine. They make it solely for the benefit of another small minority who should be called our overlords, though some call them the capitalists. But there is another way. We tried it and it worked.

    It worked; except Americans hated it (imagine the reaction today), huge black markets formed up and organized crime got involved in distribution. And this was just for commodities or products that used raw materials needed for the war. How would we distribute big screen TVs and swimming pools?

    Deciding what to make, at which quality level and how many…are the big questions the market answers. People vote with their money. In his system who decides all that? A small committee or even worse, the dear leader?

    #44623

    Unseen
    Participant

    @robert

    People vote with their money based on what they know, but the sources of information they listen to and base their purchases on don’t work on their behalf, instead working constantly to further enrich the rich. They have done so with ever increasing success.

    Now, you know I could probably produce dozens of charts and mountains of statistics showing the rich getting richer and, not only that, getting richer at a steadily increasing pace, kind of like the expansion of the universe. And yet, you seem to give tacit approval to the increasing tendency toward economic feudalism.

    Professor Wolff—you would know if you followed his numerous posts, and despite his being a Marxist—does not promote centralized control. In fact, his major point (or one of them) is that things would be more rational and more livable if the people affected by decisions had a stake in decisions affecting their lives.

    Thus, he’s all for worker presence on corporate boards, perhaps even with veto power. How many corporations then could decide to move jobs overseas? At the same time, they’d have to look at the economic decisions facing their company as well as the range of options. A worker explaining to his fellows why a wage hike isn’t possible at this time will probably be more believable than a manager explaining the same thing.

    Of course, he’s even more enthusiastic about worker-owned operations.

    So, rationing distribution details, as Wolff sees them, would not be made in Washington.

    Distribution is more fair when distribution decisions are made closer to the distribution point and when those making the decisions have to live with them.

    John Rawls, the leading political philosopher of modern times, gave the example of how to cut a cake as fairly as possible (there is no absolute fairness only an approximation). Well, you have the person doing the cutting get the last remaining piece.

    Anyway, stop being so negative.

    #44624

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @robert People vote with their money based on what they know, but the sources of information they listen to and base their purchases on don’t work on their behalf, instead working constantly to further enrich the rich. They have done so with ever increasing success. Now, you know I could probably produce dozens of charts and mountains of statistics showing the rich getting richer and, not only that, getting richer at a steadily increasing pace, kind of like the expansion of the universe. And yet, you seem to give tacit approval to the increasing tendency toward economic feudalism. Professor Wolff—you would know if you followed his numerous posts, and despite his being a Marxist—does not promote centralized control. In fact, his major point (or one of them) is that things would be more rational and more livable if the people affected by decisions had a stake in decisions affecting their lives. Thus, he’s all for worker presence on corporate boards, perhaps even with veto power. How many corporations then could decide to move jobs overseas? At the same time, they’d have to look at the economic decisions facing their company as well as the range of options. A worker explaining to his fellows why a wage hike isn’t possible at this time will probably be more believable than a manager explaining the same thing. Of course, he’s even more enthusiastic about worker-owned operations. So, rationing distribution details, as Wolff sees them, would not be made in Washington. Distribution is more fair when distribution decisions are made closer to the distribution point and when those making the decisions have to live with them. John Rawls, the leading political philosopher of modern times, gave the example of how to cut a cake as fairly as possible (there is no absolute fairness only an approximation). Well, you have the person doing the cutting get the last remaining piece. Anyway, stop being so negative.

    Stop being so naive. Entropy is an ever-present, negative characteristic of our universe. I’m all for the happy thoughts, LOL. Ownership sounds great until the company fails and you own the losses. Regular employees may lose a job and the next paycheck. Business owners and stakeholders often risk everything they have. I have watches several of his vids and there are good ideas, but I also noticed the professor is light on emphasizing business risk and many other actual practicalities.

    #44625

    Davis
    Moderator

    People vote for a myriad of reasons, some of them rational, sticking to their actual ideologies and others irrational, against their own interests, part of tribalism and buying into silly narratives. In multi-party democracies (most countries other than the US) you have actual choice other than dipshit vs. fuck-face. In those countries you can choose between dipshit, a little less dipshit, not-quite-a-dipshit, one-fucking-scary-dipshit, not-a-dipshit-for-the-first-year-in-power etc. People can choose their vote for both rational and irrational reasons. Money is hardly the overriding factor for some. A deep interest in a specific topic, an issue they care about, a moral outrage, a scape-goat issue, a moral problem, a non-existant-moral-problem, regionalism, a project they care about, a trivial issue, an actual important issue, a promise they take seriously, social programs they need, social programs they know others need, tax cuts, tax raises, voting against disgraced politicians, voting out scandal plagued parties blah blah. It is insanely complex. The primary and most important feature of democracy is the potential to get rid of a dangerous/bad government. Having a government that somewhat reflects what the people want is a huge bonus. Getting to that point is dependent on regulating elections to avoid undue economic interference, media monopolies, avoiding overly vicious attack adds, a focus on platforms over fluff, multi-party democracy etc. Some of those things are literally impossible due to some countries constitutions such as that of the US.

    Too long didn’t read:

    It is naive to think people vote rationally, do so mostly because of money, that parliamentary make up actually reflects the people’s ideologies/interests or that any of this is main benefit of democracy.

    #44626

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Robert

    But don’t you agree that with the participation or ownership of workers—people who live in The Real World where the prices of fuel and food are critical—will make more beneficial, rational, and humanitarisn decisions?

    Here are some of the benefits of employee owned companies (EOCs).

    Motivating workers is much less of a problem.

    On the whole employees of EOCs receive higher wages.

    Slackers won’t last long in an EOC because they’ll be resented by the other workers who may demand they be fired.

    EOCs offer more generous benefits and retirement plans because there are no unproductive external owners sucking up profits.

    Research shows that EOCs have narrower wealth gaps between the genders and ethnic minorities than companies owned by outsiders.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  Unseen.
    #44630

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @ Robert But don’t you agree that with the participation or ownership of workers—people who live in The Real World where the prices of fuel and food are critical—will make more beneficial, rational, and humanitarisn decisions? Here are some of the benefits of employee owned companies (EOCs). Motivating workers is much less of a problem. On the whole employees of EOCs receive higher wages. Slackers won’t last long in an EOC because they’ll be resented by the other workers who may demand they be fired. EOCs offer more generous benefits and retirement plans because there are no unproductive external owners sucking up profits. Research shows that EOCs have narrower wealth gaps between the genders and ethnic minorities than companies owned by outsiders.

    Sure, it all sounds good. Most EOCs are really just Employee Stock Ownership Plans  (ESOPs) that started as a regular company. The employee’s retirements plan consists of that one stock and if it goes belly-up, good-bye job and retirement. Of course, the original capital-raising to start the company in the first place was not initiated by employees. I think there are some interesting agricultural co-ops around that are doing well.

    Anyways, EOCs don’t require a Marxist government/society… “each according to their need”. To do that, you would have to flatten the natural hierarchy so that a janitor with 6 kids earns 6 times what an engineer with 1 kid needs. Why be a stressed-out engineer when you can just sweep up and take out the trash? Capitalism pays rewards for risk and talent and hard work. Marxism pays equal rewards for being what; being needy and unskilled? But the US is too capitalistic, too short-term. Surely a more equitable, less extreme version of capitalism is possible.

    #44631

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Robert

    Prof. Wolff’s Marxism isn’t classic Marxism with an end plan of nobody owning anything and living on communes and everyone having the exact same toothbrush. No, that is nowadays the plan called The Great Reset promoted by The World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos headed by a guy named Klaus Schwab who looks exactly like a certain bond villain minus the white Persian cat.

    So, you and I, according to the WEF, will be happy to own nothing. The WEF is attended fairly exclusvely by the world’s richest and most powerful people. Do you think Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg will own nothing. More likely they and their ilk will own everything and they will be wanting even more.

    Unless, that is, we wise up and break out the pitchforks.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  Unseen.
    #44633

    Autumn
    Participant

    Anyways, EOCs don’t require a Marxist government/society… “each according to their need”. To do that, you would have to flatten the natural hierarchy so that a janitor with 6 kids earns 6 times what an engineer with 1 kid needs. Why be a stressed-out engineer when you can just sweep up and take out the trash? Capitalism pays rewards for risk and talent and hard work. Marxism pays equal rewards for being what; being needy and unskilled? But the US is too capitalistic, too short-term. Surely a more equitable, less extreme version of capitalism is possible.

    Many people actually enjoy engineering more than sweeping and taking out the trash. Much of the stress associated with each position likely isn’t intrinsic to either position.

    Capitalism doesn’t pay rewards for risk and talent (or even contribution, per se). That’s a fairy tale. Marxism isn’t about paying rewards, but rather providing for needs and addressing inequality.

    #44634

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Anyways, EOCs don’t require a Marxist government/society… “each according to their need”. To do that, you would have to flatten the natural hierarchy so that a janitor with 6 kids earns 6 times what an engineer with 1 kid needs. Why be a stressed-out engineer when you can just sweep up and take out the trash? Capitalism pays rewards for risk and talent and hard work. Marxism pays equal rewards for being what; being needy and unskilled? But the US is too capitalistic, too short-term. Surely a more equitable, less extreme version of capitalism is possible.

    Many people actually enjoy engineering more than sweeping and taking out the trash. Much of the stress associated with each position likely isn’t intrinsic to either position. Capitalism doesn’t pay rewards for risk and talent (or even contribution, per se). That’s a fairy tale. Marxism isn’t about paying rewards, but rather providing for needs and addressing inequality.

    I had a career as a professional design engineer, and I would certainly leave any country that paid me of a janitorial wage or less. I understand the value I bring to the company with my inventions and trade secrets vs a janitor. Some careers have a relatively scarce pool to pull from and (according to bitcoin, LOL) we all know scarcity has a value.

    I disagree that Capitalism doesn’t pay rewards for risk and talent. In fact, the entire investment/debt structure is calculated on risk and reward. Want a bigger return, then buy a riskier bond. Talent is less consistent, but it is often a requirement. A sub-par classical pianist is not gonna sell concert tickets. A less technically talented pop musician can sell tickets, but they have to have some other “talents”.

    We have not yet really witnessed the unicorn that is Marxism. Maybe North American Natives had a form of commune-ism. Who decides on my needs? Me, you, a committee, a formula? “Needs” is a fairy tale.

    If Marxism is viable and so wonderful, then where is it? My other question is how the normal and uber-common tendencies of humans to be greedy or envious work in a Marxist economy. Seems to me like heavy enforcement will be required.

    #44635

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @ Robert Prof. Wolff’s Marxism isn’t classic Marxism with an end plan of nobody owning anything and living on communes and everyone having the exact same toothbrush. No, that is nowadays the plan called The Great Reset promoted by The World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos headed by a guy named Klaus Schwab who looks exactly like a certain bond villain minus the white Persian cat. So, you and I, according to the WEF, will be happy to own nothing. The WEF is attended fairly exclusvely by the world’s richest and most powerful people. Do you think Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg will own nothing. More likely they and their ilk will own everything and they will be wanting even more. Unless, that is, we wise up and break out the pitchforks.

    Unseen,

    I agree wealth inequality is a terrible problem and there are simple ways to fix it without reducing your needs and wants to just needs. How dreary. You do have wants over and above your needs, correct?

    Another reason I would not work well in a commune is that I enjoy my privacy. They don’t call it “private property” for nothing.

    #44636

    Autumn
    Participant

    I had a career as a professional design engineer, and I would certainly leave any country that paid me of a janitorial wage or less.

    There is no such thing as a janitorial wage. While I do understand what you mean, the fact that ‘janitorial’ factors into it is bizarre. There is nothing that suggests you, individually, should be paid more or less than a janitor.

    I understand the value I bring to the company with my inventions and trade secrets vs a janitor.

    There is no versus. There is no need for it to actually be relativistic. It’s not a competition. If you managed to quantify the actual ROI of every employee in a company versus compensation, it would not even come close to lining up. Not even that, but you’d see with the existing compensation frameworks, the rationale on why some jobs are paid more than others would not be consistent and frequently wouldn’t be measured (or in some cases measurable).

     

    #44637

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I had a career as a professional design engineer, and I would certainly leave any country that paid me of a janitorial wage or less.

    There is no such thing as a janitorial wage. While I do understand what you mean, the fact that ‘janitorial’ factors into it is bizarre. There is nothing that suggests you, individually, should be paid more or less than a janitor.

    I understand the value I bring to the company with my inventions and trade secrets vs a janitor.

    There is no versus. There is no need for it to actually be relativistic. It’s not a competition. If you managed to quantify the actual ROI of every employee in a company versus compensation, it would not even come close to lining up. Not even that, but you’d see with the existing compensation frameworks, the rationale on why some jobs are paid more than others would not be consistent and frequently wouldn’t be measured (or in some cases measurable).

    It is a fantasy to believe every exertion of work or work per hour has equal value to any society. To believe that a function that takes 5 minutes to master is as worthy as something that takes years of dedicated graduate study and professional internship is dim. And sorry, in a world of limited resources there will always be competition. And when you seated eating a terrible meal from a seatback tray 40,000 feet in the air or unconscious on an operating table you will be happy to know the people you are depending on for your life are happy with their rewards for taking that grueling path to get there.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 135 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.