|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 20, 2010 09:08 AM |
|
|
That sounds like commandment #5 from God Mammon's Bible.
If you look behind that sentence, you'll see, however, that it's just a bucketful of nonsense.
First of all "redistribution of wealth" is undefined, and as we have established, a redistribution of wealth is already taking place, only into the other direction.
As you have helpfully pointed out, our society is so developed, it should be no problem to make sure, that those not working for whatever reason are helped out with the basic necessities of life - food, shelter, clothing, TV/Internet - while those working should earn sufficiently more than that.
Shouldn't that be obvious? If we all agree that no one should starve to death and society should help those in need, than the logical conclusion is that those who work must earn sufficiently more than that minimum to make working worth the while.
Don't you see that? If you set the welfare money to, let; s say $750, you cannot have jobs that, after deduction of taxes, health insurance, unemployment insurance, pension insurance and whatnot leaves you less than that, the same or marginally more.
Even the most silly 8-hour job would have to pay so much, that it would leave you, say $1500.
Something like that would be a necessary redistribution of wealth.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
a redistribution of wealth is already taking place, only into the other direction
Which is likewise bad and should be abolished.
Quote:
If you set the welfare money to, let; s say $750, you cannot have jobs that, after deduction of taxes, health insurance, unemployment insurance, pension insurance and whatnot leaves you less than that, the same or marginally more.
And this is good because...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 09:39 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:45, 20 Jun 2010.
|
Ok here is something that just doesn't add up. Marxist (spelling) want to redistribute wealth to everybody, right? Yet Obama voted and helped put through the exact opposite. Sure it was Bushy's darling, but the 'bailout' took money from everybody and gave it to the few. Which is the exact opposite of what a Marxist would do. This very vote would preclude and eliminate him as a Marxist. He would have vetoed it or did everything he could to have prevented it if this was the case.
Somebody help me with this paradox. How can one be a Marxist, and take from everybody and give to the few?
Now before you say "It was to help the economy, and thus for everybody." there were tons better way that could have happened. Like a bailout for the home owners, give them the money to pay for their mortgages. Give to smaller, up and coming banks, to loan out..and let the big corporations go under like they should have. Create a temporary lower interest refinancing for all the loans..that would stay constant (ie the government loaned money to people with crazy mortgages to pay those off, and let them pay back with say .. 1% interest (instead of the insane interest) and stretch the payments back out to 30 years. (Government makes money, people are able to save a lot more houses, etc).
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 10:10 AM |
|
|
Edit:
Mytical is asking the right questions here. That's what I meant as well, when I said, he can have as many picturres of Marx on his bedside table, important is only, what he DOES. And what he does is continuing the redistribution of wealth into the same direction as ever.
Quote:
Quote:
a redistribution of wealth is already taking place, only into the other direction
Which is likewise bad and should be abolished.
Quote:
If you set the welfare money to, let; s say $750, you cannot have jobs that, after deduction of taxes, health insurance, unemployment insurance, pension insurance and whatnot leaves you less than that, the same or marginally more.
And this is good because...
Because it makes no sense to let people work for the same money others get for free because there is no work for them:
Think about it: In an ideal society there is no unemployment - as soon as there ARE unemployed, the STATE offers jobs for the good of society that no one wants to do.
An easy example would be cleaning of old industrial sites, river-bed cleaning and so on, you know, cleaning out the rubbish and garbage and pollution that 150 years of nearly uninhibited industrial pollution have left.
This is work that has to be ordered, because no one will pay voluntarily for that.
So that is ONE way to go: create WELL-payed jobs that need to be done, but no one wants to pay for because there is NO REVENUE. If there ARE enough jobs, if everyone looking for a job can go to the local employment bureau and get one, there is no problem and no welfare.
Welfare is actually paying minimum wages for the job of doing nothing. If you go along THAT road instead of the first one, you have to make sure that every OTHER job pays significantly better than that doing nothing, because if it isn't, doing nothing is the better job and unbeatable competition.
The only valid reaction is to up the wages of the actual jobs.
Now, to forestall further discussion, *I* would of course advertise the first way - the state ( or the society as a whole) has to look for the work that has to be done but no one would pay for and offer these jobs. In practise, the state should operate these businesses itself, not hiring out to private companies.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 05:57 PM |
|
|
In an ideal society, the state wouldn't give out money for free. As for these old industrial sites - perhaps they should be privatised. If cleaning them up is really worth it, then some private company will buy the site and do it. If it's not worth it, then cleaning it up is a waste of taxpayer dollars. (This does not apply to, say, public water supplies and the like.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 07:09 PM |
|
|
Well, that depends. What is an ideal society to you may not be so to others, unless you define it to be so.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 07:10 PM |
|
|
You are too short-sighted. There is always stuff that doesn't "pay" - meaning, you cannot make a buck out of it - but has to be done. Waste-cleaning, high-risk jobs... The army is an existing example, police as well.
This then is what public money is to be spent for - and what would deliver jobs instead of welfare.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 07:54 PM |
|
|
In the long run, you can say it always pays.
I mean, for your examples, waste-cleaning. If you don't do it, chances are someone who've the power to take you out (someone with people in their back), will take you out, because you're a danger to their power source (the people in their back). So it pays to do the waste cleaning, otherwise the judge system decided by the persons selected by the people for the interest of the people will judge upon it to be a danger ot the people (which is counter what is the interest of the people) and give penalties that fits the interest of the people mostly.
Police and army, it's about risk & reward. A game is a great example how it works. You've 60% chance of winning double the amount you play. Now you may not win everytime (they army is not useable every day, because there's not someone attacking you every day), but when comparing the odds you know in the long run it's worth it (the society without the army will in the long run loose more than the society with the army).
Though I doubt an army is really necessary in todays world, most of all, what is needed are semi automatic defensive, non-lethal, systems and the possibility to quickly install these anywhere quickly.
The point is, you are always in some kind of environment. In this current environment, your actions is judged by the people who happen to be those in power, but the people is represented through persons evaluated to cover the best interest of said people. So you adapt to those persons, or you'll get striken down by them. [That is, we all have wants/will [someting we want], and to get what we want, we adapt to the environment in the best possible way as we can imagine, so we get what we want]. (That is, someone who wants to get all the ice cream they can eat will probably work such a place and trade a part of the wage for being allowed to take ice cream for themselves freely, etc.).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 08:22 PM |
|
|
JJ:
The army can be made to pay. Abolish conscription (aka slavery) and start paying them more. Or alternatively turn up the "respect the troops" propaganda. Similarly with police.
The costs of paying people to do stuff that private companies won't do very rarely outweighs the benefits.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 08:29 PM |
|
|
|
And that is so, because...?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 08:40 PM |
|
|
Companies are in it for the money. In the end, one guy, the top guy and all his employees are people who try to get as much money out of the environment he allows as possible.
The state are hopefully in it for something else than the money, both for the elected people, but also in general increasing the wealth of the common man. Security of the individual should be on the list as well, it should be attempted to be maximized by the state. Something a company will have on the list for the company as well (increasing power of the company by generating wealth), but not for the individual worker anymore than what can minimum be set for maximum efficiency, that is where it not for interferance from government.
Therefore, what pays for the state may not pay for a given company, because they're both organizations with different purpose.
Edit: Quote:
Oh, please.
ICELAND is your point?
No my point is that whenever you give away your money, you risk to never see them again. You think you've a sure bet, and yeah under the circumstances/assumptions, certainly, but how sure are you the competitions will play under those rules?
It's like a big scale con game in principle, the con man tells you the rules of the game, now the con man wins if you play the game, i.e. is convinced the game is played under the given rules and plays, but they aren't played under those rules in reality, the trick is merely to convince you it is everytime you check. In reality you never had a chance to win. Sure it seems unlikely investing in a state is a con, in principle it's probably one of the safest bets, but it's never 100%, and the rules are never as they're stated, there's always the risk of whoever made the rules looses power and the new ones in power won't recognize your "bet".
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And that is so, because...?
No one wants to waste resources, right? But the state is much more wasteful than private companies because it can afford to take risks that companies can't. If a company does something that is ineffective, it loses money. If the state does, it can just print or tax more.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 09:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And that is so, because...?
No one wants to waste resources, right? But the state is much more wasteful than private companies because it can afford to take risks that companies can't. If a company does something that is ineffective, it loses money. If the state does, it can just print or tax more.
mvassilev: On the other hand, companies can afford non-etical stuff and worse since that was never the point of a company.
And companies got nothing against waisting resources, so long it does not affect profit in a medium range goal(5-10 years).
If the state does something ineffective, it either ought to have a reason or to get overthrown so that the mess will be cleaned up.
Why do you confuse goverment with dictatorship european godchosen kings?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 09:21 PM |
|
|
Because the citizenry is apathetic. Or, even if it isn't, a bit of waste here and there is not enough to get rid of a government, but it's still bad.
As for "non-ethical stuff", what exactly do you mean by that? Leftists like to throw that phrase around but don't like to clarify what they mean.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 10:09 PM |
|
|
mvassilev: "Leftist" for your useage of the word can be summed down to "to the left from my current stance", which means its a completely useless term since the target is too wide.
You are having a problem explaining exactly why the "goverment" is a bad thing, which sort of bothers me. It bothers me because your points are usually moot.
To put my view in a better phrasing: The problem with anarchy is that humanity can not be trusted. Basically it sums down to the lesser evil, the lesser evil in this case is the government, because what is the option? There is no need for a government is humanity could be trusted, but that is not the case.
I think your problem boils down to that bias against your goverment since they are ineffective at what they do, they are not doing properly(morality: Do it properly, or leave it alone), which side effect is that they are messing up a lot of places and waisting money, taking that from the tax payers, and not doing enough to deserve having the money in the first place.
So going from further interprention, you want a sort of anarchy because you are sic and tired of the current ineffective system?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2010 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And that is so, because...?
No one wants to waste resources, right? But the state is much more wasteful than private companies because it can afford to take risks that companies can't. If a company does something that is ineffective, it loses money. If the state does, it can just print or tax more.
That is supposed to give a reason for Quote:
The costs of paying people to do stuff that private companies won't do very rarely outweighs the benefits.
Sorry, I don't see the connection.
@ Ohfor
You are seriously underestimating the power of money. The last couple of years sshould have told you something about rules, losses, risks, and who's paying for whom's losses.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 12:39 AM |
|
|
del_diablo:
No, I want a minimal government that makes sure there is no fraud or private coercion, and deals with the public goods problem. That's all.
JJ:
If it is profitable - that is, the benefits outweigh the costs - a private company will do it, provided that it receives the benefits.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:44 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 05:00, 21 Jun 2010.
|
Quote:
This very vote would preclude and eliminate him as a Marxist. He would have vetoed it or did everything he could to have prevented it if this was the case.
No really. The loony Obama wanted government control of private corporations. Remember, he hired and fired CEOs of private companies. Heck, within the past two days he shook down the BP oil company, going far beyond any power that the Constitution gives the President.
Remember, loony tune dems in Congress have been threatening to nationalize oil companies for years, they just haven't had the powr to pull it off. See one dumbocrat leader threaten nationalization of oil companies:
Maxine Waters
Obama
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 06:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No really. The loony Obama wanted government control of private corporations. Remember, he hired and fired CEOs of private companies. Heck, within the past two days he shook down the BP oil company, going far beyond any power that the Constitution gives the President.
So you're saying it's up to the individuals (perhaps forming a class action) and the states of Louisiana, Missouri and Florida (and maybe soon Alabama), and the various industries affected to sue BP to pieces separately? (Just wondering)
I certainly do agree 100% that it should be the shareholders firing whoever messes up their company, and stripping away any golden parachutes (if the company has no money, does a huge severance for the person who screwed it up make sense?).
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 07:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
If it is profitable - that is, the benefits outweigh the costs - a private company will do it, provided that it receives the benefits.
We are moving in circles. "The benefits" means, a revenue. However, there is a lot of stuff society as a a whole will profit, therefore society as a whole - the state - is paying up. It's impractical to let private corps deal with these things, and there are enough of these things to give everyone a job, provided society is working in a correct way.
Mvass, I don't know what you really knoww about economics, but a society can grow economically only, when all paarticipants of a society benefit from the growth. Unemployment is as such inhibiting growth, because not only they are a burden for the whole instead of a factor of growth, they make sure that wages are low, competition gets fierce and monopolizing is accelerated.
Therefore, it's the first and most important task of the state to make sure unemployment is as low as possible.
Which means, the state has to create jobs. And since it has taxes, the state has the opportunity to create jobs as well.
The Fire Brigade would be an example. This is an emergency job - and fire fighters have to be paid regularly as well - they cannot be paid per fire, for more than one reason - and they have to be paid by the whole of society. Moreover, it's something you don't want to think about in terms of revenues, only in benefits.
Consequently, an advanced society affords itself a Fire Brigade, creating jobs.
There is no shortage of work that has benefits, but won't pay revenues, at least not immediately. Going to space is one of these things - from an economic pov it would have been too speculative and expensive for a private companyy to start the stuff, however, the needs for satellites might have made it profitable - if you could have foreseen technology developments.
However, we don't want to wait until a corp with a wealth of profits decides to try something really far-out with their profits to forego extensive taxation. The state is a corporation as well - General Society. if you want to -, and this corporation has exactly that task: IDENTIFY long-term societal interests that no private company can invest into due to the fact that no PRIVATE client would pay something.
As an example, a private company can't just start to clean the bed of a polluted river - no one would pay for it.
This policy makes welfare unnecessary.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
