Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:48 pm UTC

The problem with discrediting the Republicans is that, IMHO anyway, while the Republicans are currently worse the Democrats are beyond saving. So do you vote for the group that is currently better, or the group that might be even better if they would get rid of all the religious nutjobs?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3968
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:13 am UTC

That would only fix the Republican party thoroughly enough if we count The Almighty Dollar as a god too.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:44 am UTC

That doesn't bother me nearly as much, because if the Republicans couldn't rely on their horde of bible thumpers they'd have to win by expanding the middle and upper middle classes. What worried me about that dems is that I don't think they actually intend to cure the issues of racism and poverty, only treat it, because otherwise there would never be more democrats.

Take a look at our welfare system and tell me it isn't designed to permanently keep people in poverty.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:22 am UTC

Well, ultimately the wealth of pretty much all politicians and their donors is dependent on maintaining the status quo, but the Democrats generally feel guilty and don't want people suffering. The problem is, their commitment to justice stops when they can justify not doing more. A future where 90% of the world population is unemployed due to automation, but getting enough to survive on due to welfare, while the majority of Americans control all of the wealth and spend all their time partying and traveling off their inheritance for the rest of future time is perfectly acceptable.

It's why I prefer market socialism. Have every business cooperatively owned by the customers, everyone renting cooperatively owned property, all products under an open source license, and you are in as much control as you possibly can be; only then do you stand a chance of eliminating poverty.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:20 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What worried me about that dems is that I don't think they actually intend to cure the issues of racism and poverty, only treat it, because otherwise there would never be more democrats.

That's inaccurate and unfair.

Most Western countries have less poverty than the US and yet left-wing politics is holding its own just fine. If there was an appetite for it, the Democrats could move leftwards quite happily. In fact, the Democrats are more right-wing than the right-wing parties in most Western countries!

The centre-ground in the US is so right-wing because your populace is so right-wing, and there's not much more to it than that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:27 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:A future where 90% of the world population is unemployed due to automation, but getting enough to survive on due to welfare, while the majority of Americans control all of the wealth and spend all their time partying and traveling off their inheritance for the rest of future time is perfectly acceptable.


The idea that automation would mean would couldn't find work for people is, quite frankly, naive. Sure, we could automate all the mines and factories, replace gardeners with modified roombas, self driving cars will make truck drivers and taxis a thing of the past, etc, but there will ALWAYS be things for people to do, we just have to levy taxes on the robots and subsidize the jobs. Why couldn't we have triple the schoolteachers we have now; how much better would our students learn with classrooms of 8 per teacher? Why wouldn't we expand research and development, where entire percentages of the population are scientists? 90% of trials are plea bargained, couldn't we have more lawyers and thus a better justice system? Couldn't we hire more police, so that they actually have the manpower to protect everyone and investigate all crimes instead of just after the fact?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:43 pm UTC

The point was not that that exact scenario will unfold, it was that most people don't care about justice; they see the global economy as a game where we are playing for control of the resources, and any action is fair - I believe you take the same position. That said, there are things for people to do sure, but that doesn't mean we hire them to do it. Just like there is plenty of stuff today, but we don't hire people because the people who want more don't have more money. The larger the supply of labor, the lower the wages. The rich generally prefer less specialized jobs that they have a large pool of labor for, as the bargaining power difference makes up for the productivity loss and leads to more money for them. The higher unemployment is, the less efficient our economy is, and the less productive the workforce is, the more power they have. The most you can get from government action is a pittance, and if Americans control all of the wealth then there is no real reason to allow employment outside the US, as the higher the pool of available labor, the less we can pay immigrant labor.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:35 pm UTC

Ironically, the Republicans had a plan to solve the biggest issue with automation during the 2016 election, but it got completely ignored by Don Cheeto. That was, profits get taxed where the revenue occurs. You sell in Connecticutt? You get taxed in CT. You sell in NY? You get taxed in NY. None of this crap of claiming all the profit was made in Monaco (fuck Monaco). This is a problem with automation because even if you fix the accounting, if you can replace the labor entirely, why build the automated factories in the US when you could build all the factories in St Kitts & Nevis and then export to the US, assuming you don't mind diesel generators?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:45 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:This is a problem with automation because even if you fix the accounting, if you can replace the labor entirely, why build the automated factories in the US when you could build all the factories in St Kitts & Nevis and then export to the US, assuming you don't mind diesel generators?


Huh? Because it's generally cheaper in terms of actual number of people and physical resources to build it in the US. The only reason we ship all over the world is because of the bargaining power difference; it is less productive, but we can pay so much less that it's more profitable. There's a much more effective solution to solve that: make all products open source so anyone contract out to anyone to produce it. Everyone who depends on US products no longer has to send money here to use products made there, their country gets richer, and then we don't have a bargaining power difference that leads to us wasting all of that resources.

How is this different than what the Democrats do? As I said, you don't want to address the real issues behind poverty, so you look for little tiny incremental improvements that will generally maintain the status quo.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:01 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Huh? Because it's generally cheaper in terms of actual number of people and physical resources to build it in the US.


Right now it is. But what happens 50 years from now, when all the construction is automated as well and there's no labor cost no matter where you plop down your factory?

As for "open source", no, but not going to get into here.

As for what I want, actually, this line of discussion really is getting towards what I want. Automated factories, automated farms, self-driving cars, and heavy taxes on those industries to support government workers. But not government bureaucrats, rather, more schoolteachers and police and criminal defense attorneys and basically an army of scientists and professors, and heavily subsidized arts and so forth.

But back to our current discussion, like I said, I am extremely suspicious of anyone who says they are going to solve the problem that they depend upon to exist. We've been hearing the Dems bleat on about income inequality for quite some time, yet it's been getting worse no matter who is in charge...
Last edited by CorruptUser on Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

Physical resource consumption still matters. If there is no advantage for bargaining power, then costs are purely a matter of logistics. That is, if we didn't have a bargaining power advantage, then it wouldn't be cheaper to produce overseas in the first place. Given that there are half a billion people in North America, it doesn't make sense from an economies of scale standpoint to produce much overseas.

EDIT: So, basically, you have some things that you want, and that is taking priority over ending poverty - so why the contempt for Democrats?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:42 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:EDIT: So, basically, you have some things that you want, and that is taking priority over ending poverty - so why the contempt for Democrats?


Because I don't get the impression things have improved when it comes to income or racial inequality regardless of who was in charge, in fact it's been getting worse lately (with perhaps the exception of interracial dating), and I've become convinced that it's because both parties want it this way? So I find it far more insidious that the Dems do this because they've made it their stated goal to fix this?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:50 pm UTC

So, you believe we should accept it, and just not address the issues that cause poverty? I mean, poverty is caused by private property ownership - if you live in an impoverished area where the homes and businesses are owned outside, you are at a disadvantage and you are completely dependent on those who own the property, which gives them the ability to exploit you to pay you less and charge you more. Our per capita GDP has doubled and doubled before that, and poverty still remains. Why? Because it is not about education or productivity, it is about the property ownership and the fact that our laws are designed to give individuals power over the group.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:18 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I mean, poverty is caused by private property ownership - if you live in an impoverished area where the homes and businesses are owned outside, you are at a disadvantage and you are completely dependent on those who own the property, which gives them the ability to exploit pay you less and charge you more. Our per capita GDP has doubled and doubled before that, and poverty still remains. Why? Because it is not about education or productivity, it is about the property ownership and the fact that our laws are designed to give individuals power over the group.


Doctors and other professionals make a fortune without property.

I'm Jewish, and historically we've always done pretty well in spite of it being illegal in most time periods and locations for Jews to own property, and have constantly had to move around. Granted it's a bit of a confirmation bias; the ones that didn't do so well didn't last long.

Poverty has always been relative. Poor people are better off today than they were 100 years ago, in terms of education, access to food, average health and height. Mostly. Still a lot we need to improve upon in that department. The problem is that what is considered dignified will always be above what the poorest member of society has; if the poorest person has an iPhone 7, dignified will be the iPhone 8, if the poorest person has clothing from Gap, dignified is Banana Republic. If the poorest man earns $100k, he will still have trouble keeping a girlfriend. Just the way these things go, can't really fix that. All you can really fix is access to the bare necessities, and ironically it's been Bush Jr of all people who had the bright idea of getting the homeless off the streets.

Still dislike the guy, but you have to give credit where credit is due. Likewise, I also dislike Obama, but agree with him wholeheartedly on his energy policy.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:29 pm UTC

So, we shouldn't do anything about poverty, because we can't, and just ignore all that stuff about private property ownership. See, this is my point: you are a part of the problem. You want to ignore inequitable laws because you see them as benefiting you, and have convinced yourself that it wouldn't even be possible if we tried, and have even gone so far as to yell yourself that it's stupid black people that are the problem since Jews never needed property.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:34 pm UTC

Umm What?

I never said we should do nothing about poverty. I said the reason we have poverty is because it will always exist no matter what we do, but we should still work on things like access to bare bones housing and healthcare and education, just understanding that there will always be a bottom.

I mentioned the thing about property because you apparently have that "means of production" nonsense as part of your core.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:45 pm UTC

My point is that you are refusing to even acknowledge the cause of poverty; you refuse to consider anything other than private property ownership because you benefit (at least, you think you do, I suspect our entire economy is about half as productive as it could be, and the global economy is much worse off). You take it a step further, when you say "my ethnicity was successful, so other people must be the problem." People are spending their entire life paying for just their basic needs because they simply don't own homes or businesses.

Let's say all land and improvements were cooperatively owned by those who use it; now everyone, from birth, is living as if they are homeowners; inequality is much lower, and poverty is much less. This is something that most people spend their entire lives trying to achieve, which would be the default if it wasn't for private property ownership. It is the private property ownership that causes the inequality, and since profits are dependent on barriers to entry, in doing so it leads to a much less productive economy. We are less productive as a country and as a planet, just so that some people can have a bit more money. Cooperatively own the businesses and homes, and you are just trading labor for labor, not paying individuals for property just because their ancestors had the most people killed.

The reason poverty has always been around is because we have always had authoritarian, rather than democratic, control over land and thus our resources have been allocated without concern for the people who depend on the resources.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:50 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You take it a step further, when you say "my ethnicity was successful, so other people must be the problem."


No, I mentioned my ethnicity's history as proof that your worldview has a major flaw in it. Not that other people are the problem.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:00 pm UTC

My worldview is that private property ownership benefits some at the expense of others, you point to your ethnicity being more successful as proof that that is flawed without any consideration for anything else, assuming that it was the actions of the individuals within that group, and not any other different factors that made the difference. You point to individual jobs, without consideration for why other people are in less productive jobs. You don't even think to consider that maybe sometimes a job pays $30 an hour and produces $40 an hour while an alternative pays $20 per hour while producing $35 per hour and that while the consumers and the workers will prefer higher productivity the producers will prefer lower productivity.

You refuse to consider anything other than how to shift money around and create "incentives" in a way that generally benefits you. People like you, specifically, are the problem. It is your fatalism, and your refusal to consider that maybe our laws just aren't equitable that creates the political barriers to even fixing the problems. Hell, you won't even acknowledge that making products open source, thereby giving everyone in the world equal ownership of the copyright might actually make people richer - you are literally giving people wealth, directly reducing inequality.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:14 pm UTC

Ignoring the part where you are insulting me, the problem with making everything open source is that while yes, getting rid of all patents right now would make everyone richer today, if you got rid of patents you'd not only eliminate a lot of innovation, but much of the innovation that remains is going to be even a more closely guarded company secret that gets lost when the one guy who knows it has a heart attack.

The problem I see that we should work to fix is that of how easily bribable our political system is, that money should not be counted as "free speech", corporations should not be allowed to donate to political candidates (with a few exceptions, e.g., non-profits should still be allowed to lobby, but not with money received from a corp), and I don't even know what to do with the blatant bribe that is being hired on as a seven figure consultant by an institution after the Senator's term ends.


Also, as a side note I think you'd like economics on the efficiency wage and effort curve

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:27 pm UTC

That's bullshit. The only reason we don't innovate is because rich people have all the money. That is, if you accept the argument in classical liberalism that people generally seek to spend money in the way that benefits them, then you accept that any investment they have incentive to fund themselves. It just means you need more people; well, if we were organized to do so, say by owning the businesses we depend on, then we have incentive to invest as long as there is a benefit - thus, the only reason we don't have incentive to invest is the inequality caused by the private property ownership. In fact, if we have foresight it is always better for us to produce an open source product, because if it is profitable we are spending more if we don't own the copyright.

Our economy is most efficient when everyone has the ability to find what they are best at and how they can best utilize and develop those skills to benefit society; our economy is not even moving in that direction. The problem is that when you do that, the pool of labor available for every job is at it's minimum, and the bargaining power for each employee is at its maximum, and inequality is at its minimum. Further, profits are minimized when barriers to entry are minimized. Purely for the sake of making our economy less equal, we incentivize a less efficient market (higher barriers to entry) and less productive labor (more power for producers). The profit motive limits innovation, productivity, and the entire structural efficiency of our economy. In other words, the entire pie is smaller just so that the people at the top can be rich.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:34 pm UTC

According to you, the pie gets smaller the large the portion the rich people get. Yet the pie has gotten bigger, even if most of that growth has been in just a few slices. And I agree that it's a problem that all that growth has been in a few slices. I mean, I'm a neo-Keynesian who has been espousing a Guarenteed Minimum Income for years now.

But you are fundamentally wrong on a number of things, and well, I don't see the point in continuing this argument. Especially when you are going to insult me. My response is only "may you live in the world you are working towards".

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:44 pm UTC

No, I'm saying that the pie today is much much smaller than it otherwise would be had we not had private property ownership. That pretty much by definition, the utility motive incentivizes anything that increases productivity either by providing greater benefit or consuming less resources. That is, if you want an efficient economy, set up every single business to be specialized, where every business is either a retailer or a contractor or subcontractor that is owned by their customers and ultimately working for the retailer (and their customers), and every business contracts out everything that they are not specialized in, where all of your employees are hired with the intention of keeping them on for the long term. The cost of starting a business will be minimized as you only have to worry about one piece and the rest is established, and anything that improves productivity will be prioritized.We don't do that, we prefer a much much much less efficient economy, which much less productive employees.

You have to consider the opportunity cost - what we could be doing, not just what we are doing. And I'd guess that an economy like I described, where everyone is encouraged to grow their skills, find what they are best at, and share their knowledge with peers, could provide double the productivity we have today without any technological advancement, just sharing and application of knowledge, and development of our labor. But with all those small contractors competing, and with the labor as productive as it is with the pool for each job as small as it is, it's hard to profit.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:54 pm UTC

I am going to need some citation on that. Oh, and I STRONGLY recommend you read that link about efficiency wages, because it actually reinforces what you were saying about the two jobs paying different, part of why I got offended when insinuated that o had never considered it.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:00 pm UTC

Well, your the one arguing for an inequitable system with the promise that it will provide greater innovation and productivity; unless you can prove that is true, thus proving me wrong, then you don't even have an argument in the first place, while I still have the justice argument. Can you at least provide a counter as to why the system I described might not be more productive?
Last edited by Thesh on Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3968
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:01 pm UTC

I find this conversation interesting because at the outset I expected to side with Thesh over CorruptUser (and I do still lean slightly that way, maybe, not so sure anymore) but as it goes on it seems like you both have largely the same good ends in mind and even a lot of the same means too and I don't quite get while the argument seems as passionate as it is over the small differences remaining.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:22 pm UTC

One more point I'd like to make is that an individual's spending is prioritized by the utility of that spending. Thus, there are diminishing returns for the benefit of income. Productivity itself is determined by the *relative* utility of the spending - that is, if you change the distribution of income, you also change the demand for products. A less equal economy should then see less utility for each hour of work or unit of resource consumed than a more equal economy. Further, at some point the cash itself has higher utility than the things you can spend it on due to the stability it brings. This is the entire reason for the profit motive - because some people have money which they don't have anything to spend it on that benefits them. Copyright itself only restricts production; the profits themselves come from artificial scarcity (raising prices is equivalent to reducing supply), and it means if you want to improve an existing product that you don't control you also have to redesign it to scratch, meaning innovation is more expensive due to duplication of effort.

Thus, what you are arguing is that 1) people will generally not act in their own best interest 2) people motivated by greed will act in the best interest of others 3) this will outweigh the utility loss due to the inequality 4) that the higher barriers and cost of innovation will be outweighed by the much greater productivity as a result of the incentives to invest caused by the potential for profits.

It just seems to me that those claims are more wild than mine, which is that people will generally act in their own best interest and that the more equitable the system is the greater the ability of people to act in their own best interest.

EDIT: If you took all of the profits and cash transfers in the US and just plain got rid of them while making all of your businesses cooperatively owned by their customers, then real wage income would go up by around $11,500 per capita, which is a bit less than the poverty line itself. That means that yes, there is enough extra cash in the system to completely end poverty in the US, even if you assume labor productivity remains unchanged.

EDIT 2: Also, if you don't have that race for first to the market, and instead can coordinate the efforts of many individuals or organizations to develop the products they want then you don't have the issues that cause things like the tech bubble which was followed by a recession, where we fucked with the lives of millions of workers while using more effort to develop shittier products, while developing along the path of least resistance resulted in the advertising-based surveillance economy. Yeah, great work, capitalism.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:53 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I find this conversation interesting because at the outset I expected to side with Thesh over CorruptUser (and I do still lean slightly that way, maybe, not so sure anymore) but as it goes on it seems like you both have largely the same good ends in mind and even a lot of the same means too and I don't quite get while the argument seems as passionate as it is over the small differences remaining.


Funny thing is that the core of both socialism and certain forms of libertarianism is "to each according to their contribution", but both have wildly different views on how that should be accomplished. As for the small differences, well you know, Thesh is a member of the Judean People's Front, splitters.

But what we have is not a small difference, but a big one. Keynes was ultimately a capitalist, and his ideas were to save capitalism from its own worst excesses. Ultimately, the Sweden and Norway that you hold up to be ideals, are still capitalist. Thesh is advocating for some form of communism, or extreme socialism, which is not capitalism and has failed miserably in every single place it has ever been tried on a large scale.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:11 am UTC

Now you are just ignoring the logical arguments, and anything where you are asked for evidence or some reasoned argument why the profit motive outweighs all the negative problems. I'm arguing for open source and coops, which exist today in this economy and don't require changing laws, so no this "it's never been tried" is a bullshit argument; they have been tried and they do work. I'm arguing that the argument for capitalism itself is self-refuting because if you agree that people act in their own best interest you agree additional incentives are not necessary.

I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever to believe that private property ownership is preferable to democratic property ownership, and you have provided absolutely no argument to suggest otherwise. I'm saying there are definite, identifiable problems with private property ownership, and no obvious benefits.

So, if you have any counter to anything I said, please give it. Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't act so smug.

EDIT: Here's a suggestion for one specific thing that we can do to work towards this goal: Set a cooperative that sells rent credits (e.g. dollars per month) to people within an impoverished community. Take the money, place it in a growth-oriented fund, and wait until you have enough to buy an apartment complex. Buy the property, releasing rent credits so they can be sold or used. Continue to sell rent credits to raise funds to buy housing until every single person in the community is living in a cooperatively owned building. As long as the property remains cooperatively owned, every single person who rents there will be a homeowner and the entire community will be wealthier with much less poverty (if you own your home outright than you are probably close to or wealthier than the median). Tell me any reason at all why this would not work.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3968
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Pfhorrest » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:18 am UTC

The people buying the rent credits would basically be paying toward buying an apartment (you’d need as much money as an apartment per person to buy that apartment building big enough for those people), and if they could afford that then they could already afford to buy apartments, so it doesn’t offer any advantage over the existing situation.

Which sucks, the existing situation sucks and having people own the housing they live in would be infinitely better, but I can’t see how this helps get us there. We need something more, either something that moves wealth from those who already profit from it to those who pay for those profits, or something that lets them stop having to pay that.

Like, say, a tax credit proportional to the rent you pay, going negative if you profit from rent, gradually increasing the rate of that tax and so gradually making it more profitable to sell rental properties off than to rent them out, and less profitable to buy properties to rent out, increasing the supply and decreasing the demand for housing, thus decreasing the price so that more people can buy instead of being stuck renting.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:26 am UTC

The time it takes to buy the apartment is dependent on how large of a community they are collecting contributions from and how much they can get from each individual; if they can't raise enough, they can include other communities. The point of transferable rent credits is they don't, personally, have to rent the units in that apartment (e.g. you can have 1000 people put together money for an apartment complex of 200 people, and the other 800 just get their money back). Once they own an apartment they can reinvest rent in other properties, which ideally they would wait until they can buy it outright. The more they buy, the easier it gets to raise money for the next.

In terms of lifetime income, everyone who lives there will save money in their lives by buying instead of renting, while also ending up with more wealth due to owning their property. If you can create the system so that it is a net gain to everyone who makes a contribution, then it is worth it for everyone to do it. It is difficult to raise money in the first place because poverty, but that is the only barrier. If you can get the people of the community organized and working towards that goal, then it's mostly a matter of time. With external donations on top of selling rent credits that time can be cut back.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:43 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Now you are just ignoring the logical arguments, and anything where you are asked for evidence or some reasoned argument why the profit motive outweighs all the negative problems.


I'm ignoring "logical arguments" because when there's empirical evidence, you go with the evidence. And all the evidence points towards Social Democracy and Keynesian capitalist economics, and against both Lassaiz-Faire and Socialism. You can continue on about the "means of production", but we live in a world where something like 80% of the economy is a service-based economy where the "means of production" are largely irrelevant to begin with.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:53 pm UTC

Please show the evidence that private property ownership is better than democratic property ownership. Also, if you can't recognize the importance of things like land and housing in economics, you are a complete fucking moron. And a service based economy doesn't depend on private property? What a joke.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals


User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:02 pm UTC

So, no, you have absolutely no evidence, whatsoever. You just assume there is no difference between a few politicians controlling everything and everyone owning what they specifically use themselves. It's like me saying "Look, we tried autocracy and had monopolies, that's proof that undremocratic property ownership doesn't work." Why not compare state-owned dictator-ran economies to state-owned democratically ran economies, if you want an apples-to-apples. Like, we can actually see all sorts of areas all over the world where we can vastly improve infrastructure and education; we don't do it because the people that it would benefit don't have the money to do it. But somehow, all this war and violence and all these much less educated people, with much less control over their economies, is worth it because we are innovating more. Please, tell me, how is less competition and less education going to lead to more innovation?

Find me one area other than economics where you believe less equitable laws have led to better outcomes. So why should there be one in economics?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:05 pm UTC

YOU are the one asking for radical change, the burden of proof is on you. I gave you the list of all the socialist states, and they are overwhelmingly crapholes.

And at what point did I ever argue against investing in education?

And really, "less equitable laws"? By whose definition are we using equitable? No economist will ever say unequal laws are better, but if you are going to pull definitions out of the bottom of your gut...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:11 pm UTC

Uh, you said you had evidence. I asked you for evidence, and what you provided was not evidence. You said there was something empirical to back up the argument that private property ownership has some positive benefits. I'm saying you haven't done so, and that there are obvious negative effects of capitalism and that it is obvious that ending private property ownership in the way I described will end poverty today. You are saying that we should not do this because it will stop innovation, and lead to worse outcomes in the long run. You need to provide evidence to back up your claim.

And yes - one person being born with billions in wealth while others are homeless and starving after working for life is inequitable.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:21 pm UTC

Yes, I gave you evidence. List of every socialist country, or really, every country that had ever called themselves socialist. Almost entirely shitholes. When it comes to figuring out the best countries, try to look at things like life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. The best ones are predominantly Capitalist.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:24 pm UTC

Again, you are comparing decentralized economies to centralized economies, and claiming that it's proof that my decentralized economy is worse than your decentralized economy. It's stupid. Why not compare a consumer cooperative to an equivalent for-profit company and show me why the for-profit company produces better overall outcomes?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8839
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Stuff about poverty, race, etc., split from Trump presidency thread in N&A

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:28 pm UTC

Are you suggesting some form of large-scale economy that has or has not been tried?


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests