Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Athias
the State by definition is a public entity.
Nope.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Employee-owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.
Individual-Owners are prone to syndicalist cooperation and regulations, which mimics the State.
In-fact, the State has become a naked puppet of these syndicates of Individual-Owners.
Created:
-->
@Athias
More like sovereign individuals.
I guess some individuals are more sovereign than others.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What are the faults with a "feudal hiearchy"? How do you equate Capitalism and feudal hierarchy?
When you have a command structure where each level ONLY listens to those ABOVE THEM, there are some systemic problems that tend to crop up.
For example, since nobody listens to the lower levels, many problems (and potential problems) go unreported.
This leads to executive overconfidence.
Also, good ideas are rarely acknowledged, except when they are stolen by a superior.
AND since executives are guaranteed "golden parachutes", they tend towards reckless pursuit of short-term gains.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Employee Ownership and or even simple profit sharing is a quite effective productivity incentive.Evidently not
Profit Sharing 101
U.S. businesses have a variety of ways to share their gains with workers, from offering cash profit sharing to giving them the opportunity to purchase stock at a large discount. Another recourse is the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, known as an ESOP, which allows companies to use credit to buy shares that are later distributed for free to employees.
Past research has shown the benefits for workers. A survey that has tracked 5,504 younger men and women since 1997 – when they were in high school – found that participants who worked at companies that gave employees some ownership reported higher wages and wealth and better benefits and job quality than their peers, regardless of industry or the person’s demographics.
When interviewed in 2013 – when the workers were aged 28 to 34 – their wages were a third higher and their median household wealth was about double. A followup study in 2018 showed that the employee share-owners continued to have better jobs, benefits, earnings and wealth.
And a 2018 survey by the National Center for Employee Ownership found that workers in ESOPs reported an average retirement balance of US$170,326, more than twice the national average of $80,339.
Businesses that are majority- or part-owned by employees cover a wide range of industries, such as supermarkets like Publix, clothing makers like Gore and consumer goods company Procter & Gamble. Others, such as automaker Ford and airlines Delta and Southwest, offer generous profit sharing programs.
The U.S. government’s General Social Survey reported that 38% of employees said they received a share of their comany’s profits in 2018. Although that seems like a lot, the average payout is just $2,000. And smaller businesses – which make up the majority of U.S. enterprises – are much less likely to engage in profit or equity sharing with employees. [**]
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Socialism itself does not necessarily "solve" all of these "problems".I never claimed they did, and you haven't explained why you don't see them as problems. As I've said over and over, economics aren't my strong suit, so I have no idea what implications you're alluding to or whether you on or off base with them.
(IFF) you're associating these "problems" with "CAPITALISM" (THEN) You're barking up the wrong tree.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
FREE-MARKET =/= CAPITALISMMaybe not quite but they are undeniably linked, and used typically in the forms of modern capitalism
There is no aspect of socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) that makes socialism incompatible with a FREE-MARKET.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Here is another example how many kinds of plastic toy do we need to continually invent and mass-produce only to eventually add to a large pool of plastic in the ocean?
Socialism (EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP) doesn't "solve" this "problem".
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As for socialism? I think people are much more familar with it's failings, I'll go with one of the most apparent: Its lack of incentives.
Employee Ownership and or even simple profit sharing is a quite effective productivity incentive.
Created:
-->
@Conway
The entire context of that first post is independent of a socialism/capitalism dichotomy.
Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.
How do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Third, all of your examples fall under the same umbrella: complex systems whose behavior is unpredictable because of its complexity.
There you go again.
Unpredictable BECAUSE OF its complexity.
You're making a claim.
You're making a claim based on some amorphous incomprehensible complexity.
This is an appeal to complexity.
APPEAL TO COMPLEXITY = APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Why did you consider it worthwhile to politicize private business arrangements? I don't understand the unnecessary reference to socialism.
Socialism is NOT an inherently "political concept".
You're conflating "capitalism" and "autonomy, property, and specialization".
I'm simply pointing out that socialism is not in conflict with your precious "autonomy, property, and specialization".
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The concept of free speech was conceived and developed in a non-secular countries.
You are correct.
It was originally called, "heresy".
We changed it to "free speech" later on to make it seem a bit friendlier.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to "end WWII" or at least Japan's side in it. It is often presented as a dichotomy of interests: To end hundreds o
The reports of these bombings that were delivered to the Japanese Imperial Command at the time did not attract any special attention.
The number of people killed by the "A" bomb was roughly equivalent to a "standard" bombing-raid.
In fact, the Japanese Imperial Command didn't even know (or care) what type of bomb(s) were used.
Significantly more people were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo (a war-crime that specifically targeted civilians).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The same exact principle applies to leaves falling off a tree.
It has nothing at all to do with "the complexity" of a "bird brain".
Here's a perfect illustration in 6 minutes and 59 seconds, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That's a result of the complexity of the bird's brain and our inability to model it.
Your logical fallacy is, APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Contemporary capitalism is under growing fire, with a rising chorus of critics making four main points: first, that the current incarnation of capitalism produces too much inequality; second, that it is too unstable and prone to crisis; third, that capitalism in its current form is at odds with the planet's ecology; and fourth, that capital has hijacked government, subverting democracy and winning too many special favors. "
Socialism itself does not necessarily "solve" all of these "problems".
Created:
-->
@Athias
Instead I would just propose an idea, could there not be a mix of the two? Either keeping some elements of both, or mixing them to a point of making something new? Is that not attainable?
You'd first have to understand Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is the production and dissemination of goods and services by private [INDIVIDUAL GOD-KINGS] entities. Socialism is the regulation of production and dissemination of the aforementioned by a collective [EMPLOYEE OWNERS] (typically a State [REGULATION BY THE STATE IS CALLED "STATE CAPITALISM" WHICH IS WHAT CHINA CURRENTLY HAS].) Next, you'd have to elucidate the ends any economic system is to meet, and determine which of the two, and how each of those two, would meet those ends. Last, you'd have to determine the deficiencies, if any, of either economic system and determine how adopting some mechanisms from the other could sustain the adopted mechanisms of the system currently in use. As it happens, Capitalism and Socialism are [NOT] diametrically opposed.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What are the faults with Capitalism?
The same faults as FEUDAL HIERARCHY.
CAPITALISM = FEUDAL HIERARCHY
OWNER = GOD-KING
SOCIALISM = DEMOCRACY
SOCIALISM = EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is this you saying that we should only have a free market system? Because if that's the case I can tell you that I disagree very much
FREE-MARKET =/= CAPITALISM
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Capitalism treats Earth as if humans they are superior to the ecological environment that sustains them with i.e. progress forward with no holes barred from expanding upon.
Capitalism does no such thing.
Capitalism simply denotes individual OWNERSHIP.
Socialism simply denotes EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP.
Socialism is DEMOCRACY for CORPORATIONS.
Created:
-->
@Conway
A market economy is the natural result of autonomy, property, and specialization.
Employee Ownership (socialism) is not incompatible with autonomy, property, and specialization.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Capitalism vs socialism is definitely a spectrum. And people's stance towards each will vary depending on the issue. (Like, should healthcare be socialized or privatized? What about roads?) But a totality of either on every single issue is patent extremism.
Free healthcare is not "SOCIALISM".
(IFF) the EMPLOYEES do not have any OWNERSHIP-STAKE in the medical corporations (THEN) the medical corporations are still 100% CAPITALIST.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why do people continuously insist: "Either Capitalism or Socialism", clearly both economic systems have their faults.
IT'S A FALSE CHOICE.
The word, "capitalism" is often conflated with "commerce".
Then people say, "you can't be against capitalism because you have money in your pocket" (this is a combination of the "strawman" and "red-herring" logical fallacies).
What capitalism actually distills to is FEUDAL HIERARCHY.
A capitalist believes a business OWNER should be treated like a GOD-KING.
A socialist on the other-hand, believes EMPLOYEES SHOULD GET A VOTE.
Socialism is basically DEMOCRACY FOR CORPORATIONS.
EMPLOYEE-OWNED BUSINESSES ARE SHOCKINGLY COMPATIBLE WITH INDIVIDUAL-OWNED BUSINESSES.
This means that SOCIALISM is compatible with CAPITALISM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Radioactive decay is predictable.But there is no known "cause" for any specific radioactive event. You cannot predict when a single atom of a radioactive substance will decay.Does this include every conceivable event?No.
Is there a "known" "cause" for any specific bird landing on any specific branch at any specific time? You cannot predict when a single bird will land on a specific branch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
One must have blind faith
OR, you could just call it an AXIOM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
tons of people are
Please provide some examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
Please explain to me how you think money works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can stop making excuses for Africa now.
WTF.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Opium Wars are more important than most people realize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
By "probability" I mean that it has a chance of happening between 0 and 100 (exclusive).
Does this include every conceivable event?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
For example, radioactive decay is probabilistic but does not come with any system of logic or math that proposes a cause for any single radioactive event.
Radioactive decay is predictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
saying African nations should look inward for solutions to economic woes and not make “excuses” based on a history of dependence and colonization.
This is hilarious considering how NATO policy has been very specifically aimed at SUBVERTING any attempts for the African and Middle East nations to form any sort of "European Union" in their regions.
By all rights, the Ivory Coast should be swimming in cash due to their chocolate exports.
I wonder what's going on there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The far-left wants to abandon the CORPORATE-MOBSTER-STATE-CAPITALISM.
Nobody is advocating for the 100% abolition of "capitalism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Yeah, I did not understand the importance of that, as this is my first forum debate.
It only means what you think it means.
There is no rule saying "you can never modify your original statement".
This is more of a "conversation" than a "debate".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Are you familiar with the concept of "quantum foam"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imelda didn't create "the problem".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
The only thing stopping them is that it would trash the economy with hyper-inflation, making that one trillion dollars and everyone else's money worthless. If it were as simplistic as you think, it would have been done long ago and retired everyone's debt.
But isn't that "the point"?
They've ALREADY "trashed the economy".
The only thing maintaining the illusion of stability is smoke and mirrors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event would not necessarily "break logic".The OP asserts that it does.
I agree with you on this particular point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't need to convince me that "things are bad somewhere".
What I suspect you might be missing is QE1, QE2, QE3, QE4, AND QE5.
The USA has already flooded the planet with worthless cash.
The only reason a loaf of bread doesn't already cost $400.00 is because that flood of worthless cash is being kept out of CIRCULATION.
It is very specifically being held in vaults (to boost "consumer confidence").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Virtual currency is the future, not paper or gold.
That'll work out great when your ISP shadow-bans you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's really bad when investors think you are so inept with national funds that you are not worth the effort to rate your credit.
Are you familiar with Jim Rickards?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It will probably [NOT] goon for ever and so what.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The implication is, then, that OPs assumptions and premises are false.
Are you suggesting that determinism is provably false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
Brutal, if it's Monopoly money, why is the US paying 7.8% of taxes collected (nearly $400 billion, yearly, and going up) in interest payments to creditors ? Are the interest payments Monopoly money too ? If so, are our taxes Monopoly money ? Maybe all money is Monopoly money but then, of course, since it has buying power, it's legal tender.
There is nothing keeping them from PRINTING ONETRILLIONDOLLARBILLS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event is not necessarily "impossible".
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event would not necessarily "break logic".
In-determinism is functionally indistinguishable from determinism.
Created: