Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Shift-4]

9 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

Clutch what now? You haven't come close to convincing anyone that your ideas hold water.

 

Go pick me a beet comrade.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

 

Did you make that 

[Shift-4]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Did you make that 

no, I don't have that kind of talent

[Bob Long]

9 hours ago, Canuckle said:

@Ribs You edited my comment. Hahaha

C'mon now.

 

If he's telling me to pick his beets, a comment disparaging of lower classes and the menial work they are forced to work to survive under capitalism I can chirp him back being a billionaire simp or refer to him as Aqua for what he's saying just the same.  Or is the difference that he didn't say blueberries.

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

 

I didn't disparage anyone in a "lower class". I don't view people that way. 

 

I said "go pick me a beet" because thats where your theories always end up, with someone doing the work no one else wants to do, but they are forced to, often at gunpoint. 

 

You keep going on and on about theory, but won't give any practical examples of how what you are promoting can work in actual practice.

 

Its a common thing amongst the campus commies, lots of talk about theory and how much Noam they have read, but can't explain in simple terms how life would really look. 

 

 

[Bob Long]

13 hours ago, Alflives said:

I like the concept of this ideal world but realize Star Trek is a TV show and Gene Roddenberry was a romantic. I think President Biden said it best when he mention the 15% of people who mess things up for the rest. In an ideal world what is fine with this group? What do we do with this 1 billion people? 

 

on the Star Trek theme, we could really only attain something like true socialism once everyone had access to a personal home replicator. Once people have free access to energy and all the basic items they need, then maybe we could talk about something like that. But to get there, we'll need a few more Elon types to drive innovation to the point where tech like that is a reality. 

 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

on the Star Trek theme, we could really only attain something like true socialism once everyone had access to a personal home replicator. Once people have free access to energy and all the basic items they need, then maybe we could talk about something like that. But to get there, we'll need a few more Elon types to drive innovation to the point where tech like that is a reality. 

 

 

 

I still struggle to see how it works in an imperfect system (aka reality).  You're always going to have people who want "more" and will simply move on to some other form of "currency" and power. Anywhere from simple healthy ambitious people, to the borderline-full blown sociopaths frequently at the top of their industries will want to push for and exert power. All the "education" in the world isn't going to change that. A system that only works under absolute perfect conditions just isn't the answer.

 

Not that capitalism is free from some of these concerns, but it doesn't seem to lead to as many direct deaths when under imperfect conditions. By all means it's needs strong regulation and fair tax systems in place to support social safety nets, infrastructure and some moderate wealth redistribution (and good governance to do so). All things were having very real issues with today.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

I still struggle to see how it works in an imperfect system (aka reality).  You're always going to have people who want "more" and will simply move on to some other form of "currency" and power. Anywhere from simple healthy ambitious people, to the borderline-full blown sociopaths frequently at the top of their industries will want to push for and exert power. All the "education" in the world isn't going to change that. A system that only works under absolute perfect conditions just isn't the answer.

 

Not that capitalism is free from some of these concerns, but it doesn't seem to lead to as many direct deaths when under imperfect conditions. By all means it's needs strong regulation and fair tax systems in place to support social safety nets, infrastructure and some moderate wealth redistribution (and good governance to do so). All things were having very real issues with today.

 

In relation with human nature. 

Capitalism can put forth a slow yet preventable/solvable path to disparity. 
 

Socialism is much more capable of skyrocketing that path instead. 
 

Humans gonna human. People will always want more for themselves, their families/friends, their groups/religions/etc. From peoples with ambitions ranging from superficial to radical. Why settle for less when you could have more?

 

I would rather have the path where things can be recognized and addressed much more efficiently. Where I can make the most out of my life if I put in the work. 

 

Aspects of socialism aren’t bad when you integrate them in Capitalism. In some ways it can help solve/prevent disparities from getting out of hand. 

[Canuckle]

7 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Please explain your version of anarchism to me. No links, no memes, no "look it up", no "go read these 47 books and you'll get it", no "but capitalism..!". You have set yourself up as an authority on it, and an authority on anything should be able to explain their thing succinctly. I would like a succinct explanation. 

It's all many of us who are questioning you want: a succinct and simple explanation of your anarchism.

 

You can easily type the words "what is anarchism" into Google can't you?  You seem to be typing okay so I can see your hands work. You're capable.

 

And yes, when I say "put some effort in" it's for good reason here. If people can't be bothered to even do a modicum of research on their own, why would I bother.

 

If you're saying the concepts are hard to understand, that's fine. You can ask pointed questions about the terms and the application afterwards. I'm more than happy to help with that.

 

But since some of you can't even be bothered, I'll POST A LINK and let the anarchists who created the Anarchist FAQ explain it to you. Yes, a LINK with information you could easily find on your own with a little effort.

 

Start from the top:

 

Section A - What is Anarchism?

 

Happy reading.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Canuckle
;)

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

In relation with human nature. 

Capitalism can put forth a slow yet preventable/solvable path to disparity. 
 

Socialism is much more capable of skyrocketing that path instead. 
 

Humans gonna human. People will always want more for themselves, their families/friends, their groups/religions/etc. From peoples with ambitions ranging from superficial to radical. Why settle for less when you could have more?

 

I would rather have the path where things can be recognized and addressed much more efficiently. Where I can make the most out of my life if I put in the work. 

 

Aspects of socialism aren’t bad when you integrate them in Capitalism. In some ways it can help solve/prevent disparities from getting out of hand. 

 

The big problem with capitalism, is that it's not equal capitalism everywhere. There's always going to be a country with less/no corporate taxes, human rights, labour and wage laws/costs, environmental regulations etc that some sociopa....err executive is happy to take advantage of in the name of profits and happy board members. Until that playing field is largely level...

 

That and as I touched on in my last post...we have a major issue with regulations and taxation. Companies have been allowed to get too big, worker/executive pay gap too large. Never mind the workers who've been duped in to a less/no taxes scam that's a race to the bottom. Unfortunately those giant corporations have most of our governments by their collective nut sacks.

Edited October 24, 2023 by aGENT

[StrayDog]

3 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

You can easily type the words "what is anarchism" into Google can't you?  You seem to be typing okay so I can see your hands work. You're capable.

 

And yes, when I say "put some effort in" it's for good reason here. If people can't be bothered to even do a modicum of research on their own, why would I bother.

 

If you're saying the concepts are hard to understand, that's fine. You can ask pointed questions about the terms and the application afterwards. I'm more than happy to help with that.

 

But since some of you can't even be bothered, I'll POST A LINK and let the anarchists who created the Anarchist FAQ explain it to you. Yes, a LINK with information you could easily find on your own with a little effort.

 

Start from the top:

 

Section A - What is Anarchism?

 

 

Happy reading.

So you are the ceding the fact that you are not an authority on it, and want someone else to do the work for you. Cool, thanks. I've already read a fair amount of the links you posted. I wanted your words on the subject so that I would understand how you yourself view it, which you are clearly incapable of providing. 

You keep using the word "educate". I don't think you fully understand what that word means.

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

I still struggle to see how it works in an imperfect system (aka reality).  You're always going to have people who want "more" and will simply move on to some other form of "currency" and power. Anywhere from simple healthy ambitious people, to the borderline-full blown sociopaths frequently at the top of their industries will want to push for and exert power. All the "education" in the world isn't going to change that. A system that only works under absolute perfect conditions just isn't the answer.

 

Not that capitalism is free from some of these concerns, but it doesn't seem to lead to as many direct deaths when under imperfect conditions. By all means it's needs strong regulation and fair tax systems in place to support social safety nets, infrastructure and some moderate wealth redistribution (and good governance to do so). All things were having very real issues with today.

 

 

Capitalism with a strong social safety net works very well. It works even better when voter engagement is high. That's where we let housing go off the rails imo, we saw it coming and not enough people forced change early so now we have to fix it.

 

This anarchist nonsense might wow 1st year arts students but it's horse pucks, it can never work.

[Junkyard Dog]

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

The big problem with capitalism, is that it's not equal capitalism everywhere. There's always going to be a country with less/no corporate taxes, human rights, labour and wage laws/costs, environmental regulations etc that some sociopa....err executive is happy to take advantage of in the name of profits and happy board members. Until that playing field is largely level...

 

That and as I touched on in my last post...we have a major issue with regulations and taxation. Companies have been aloud to get too big, worker/executive pay gap too large. Never mind the workers who've been duped in to a less/no taxes scam that's a race to the bottom. Unfortunately those giant corporations have most of our governments by their collective nut sacks.

For capitalism to flourish it needs to be regulated to prevent big corp and oligarchs from gaining too much power. 
 

If they are kept in check then things are much better. 
 

Government also needs to be kept in check as they can be easily influenced. Spending needs to be kept in check. 
 

I feel as though there is a time and place for specific forms of capitalism.
 

If generally people are down and disparities are mounting then social capitalism will be the key to open the door out of that. Government would have to have a bit more control to navigate people out of it. Government would likely spend more. Not an ideal circumstance for innovation or entrepreneurship. 
 

If generally people are at a good place and disparities are a rarity then we can move away from social capitalism and more into entrepreneurship and innovation to help drive society forward. The pool of people that would help create this grows with disparity not being as significant or a problem . Government wouldn’t need to spend as much, wouldn’t need as much control as they wouldn’t need to help navigate people nearly as much. 
 

Right now none of our parties have really been staying true to their original beliefs. They dabble a bit but oligarchs corps have gotten too out of hand. 
 

Crony Capitalism is what we have. Governments and oligarchs/corps hand in hand. It’s a slow descent to shit. 
 

People will eventually force their hands apart. They are gonna have a harder and harder time trying to fool people.

[Alflives]

12 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

For capitalism to flourish it needs to be regulated to prevent big corp and oligarchs from gaining too much power. 
 

If they are kept in check then things are much better. 
 

Government also needs to be kept in check as they can be easily influenced. Spending needs to be kept in check. 
 

I feel as though there is a time and place for specific forms of capitalism.
 

If generally people are down and disparities are mounting then social capitalism will be the key to open the door out of that. Government would have to have a bit more control to navigate people out of it. Government would likely spend more. Not an ideal circumstance for innovation or entrepreneurship. 
 

If generally people are at a good place and disparities are a rarity then we can move away from social capitalism and more into entrepreneurship and innovation to help drive society forward. The pool of people that would help create this grows with disparity not being as significant or a problem . Government wouldn’t need to spend as much, wouldn’t need as much control as they wouldn’t need to help navigate people nearly as much. 
 

Right now none of our parties have really been staying true to their original beliefs. They dabble a bit but oligarchs corps have gotten too out of hand. 
 

Crony Capitalism is what we have. Governments and oligarchs/corps hand in hand. It’s a slow descent to shit. 
 

People will eventually force their hands apart. They are gonna have a harder and harder time trying to fool people.

Who are “they” in your last paragraph? 

[4petesake]

8 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Please explain your version of anarchism to me. No links, no memes, no "look it up", no "go read these 47 books and you'll get it", no "but capitalism..!". You have set yourself up as an authority on it, and an authority on anything should be able to explain their thing succinctly. I would like a succinct explanation. 

It's all many of us who are questioning you want: a succinct and simple explanation of your anarchism.

That’s what it boils down to for me. I have no interest in anarchism and yet he keeps posting links. If somebody thinks it’s viable and I should be interested then whet my appetite a little, make me want to learn, show me some leg.

So far it’s like asking someone what the time is and they tell you how to build a clock.

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, Alflives said:

Who are “they” in your last paragraph? 

Crony Capitalists. Government and Corp/Oligarchs working hand in hand for their own benefits. At times at the cost of the regular people, environment, etc.

[Playoff Beered]

54 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Capitalism with a strong social safety net works very well. It works even better when voter engagement is high. That's where we let housing go off the rails imo, we saw it coming and not enough people forced change early so now we have to fix it.

 

This anarchist nonsense might wow 1st year arts students but it's horse pucks, it can never work.

 

But if it can wow a person who by their own estimate "studied the subject matter for nearly two decades including formal education" then it just means you're not putting in enough effort.

[Playoff Beered]

15 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage coined in 2013 that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The law states the following:

 

    The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

 

The rise of easy popularization of ideas through the internet has greatly increased the relevant examples, but the asymmetry principle itself has long been recognized.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

 

Fucking christ.

 

The irony of posting that easily debunked nonsense and then citing Brandolini's law wikipedia page.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Playoff Beered

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Playoff Beered said:

 

But if it can wow a person who by their own estimate "studied the subject matter for nearly two decades including formal education" then it just means you're not putting in enough effort.

 

it really is true, if a person can't break things down simply for others they really don't know the subject matter.

 

But even that aside, I was prepared for a real discussion on it, not tossing theory word salad at each other. You can do that all day long, what matters is when things get real. What does life really look like for someone, thats where everything else has failed. 

[Gurn]

10 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

it really is true, if a person can't break things down simply for others they really don't know the subject matter.

 

But even that aside, I was prepared for a real discussion on it, not tossing theory word salad at each other. You can do that all day long, what matters is when things get real. What does life really look like for someone, thats where everything else has failed. 

I usually take a few posts from folks to decide if the convo is going to be worth the time investment.

The name calling, belittling and superiority complex was evident early on.

Shame, as they claim to be educated, yet resort to those tactics, at the slightest hint of disagreement.

 

On the plus side, I didn't see the word "sheeple" used- but I might have just missed it?

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Gurn said:

I usually take a few posts from folks to decide if the convo is going to be worth the time investment.

The name calling, belittling and superiority complex was evident early on.

Shame, as they claim to be educated, yet resort to those tactics, at the slightest hint of disagreement.

 

On the plus side, I didn't see the word "sheeple" used- but I might have just missed it?

 

you just did. Perfect use of it too. 

 

I do think that its worth exploring why we've let some things go as a society in the last couple of decades, particularly housing. We've really screwed that one up. 

 

[Bob Long]

Lets see if we can steer this thread somewhere more positive. What do you all think of a 4 day work week?

 

 

Why experts say it's time to adopt a 4-day work week

'There's nothing that's magical or natural about the 40-hour week': professor

 

Some experts say a 32-hour work week is just the next step in the fight for a better work-life balance.

"There's nothing that's magical or natural about the 40-hour week, but it's been naturalized to the point that we have difficulty imagining something else," said Karen Foster, an associate professor of sociology at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

The movement to a reduced work week has largely gained momentum in office settings, where salaried work is more common. But some hourly labourers want the same model to apply to their work.

That issue came up in mid-September, when the labour union United Auto Workers (UAW) and the three unionized automakers in the United States — Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Stellantis — went on strike. 

One of their demands was a shortened work week, in which they'd get paid for working 40 hours despite only working for 32 hours.

 

oster says some people may have a hard time imagining getting paid the same amount of money for less work. But she said the data is on the side of the workers, not the doubters.

"We have this idea that in order to survive, you should have to work 40 hours a week," she told The Current's Matt Galloway.

"Actually, what a lot of the movement for the 4-day work week has kind of been touting is that there are studies that show in particular workplace situations, you can actually get the same amount of productivity in shorter hours."

Decreases in burnout, increase in wellness

According to Foster, there are several benefits to working four days in a week.

"Workers arrive at work restored. They have less of a need for downtime at work," she said. "And I think probably many people can identify with this sense that you get more done when you're kind of under the gun than if you have really long deadlines."

 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/four-day-work-week-1.6992484

 

[Canuckle]

5 hours ago, StrayDog said:

So you are the ceding the fact that you are not an authority on it, and want someone else to do the work for you. Cool, thanks. I've already read a fair amount of the links you posted. I wanted your words on the subject so that I would understand how you yourself view it, which you are clearly incapable of providing. 

You keep using the word "educate". I don't think you fully understand what that word means.

 

One cannot teach whose who do not wish to learn.

 

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, Gurn said:

I usually take a few posts from folks to decide if the convo is going to be worth the time investment.

The name calling, belittling and superiority complex was evident early on.

Shame, as they claim to be educated, yet resort to those tactics, at the slightest hint of disagreement.

 

On the plus side, I didn't see the word "sheeple" used- but I might have just missed it?

Nah. Its mostly blatant trolling by the converted. I'm allowed to chirp back when theyre rude, dismissive and talk like they know something when they don't. Then on top of that they put in zero effort to actually understand even when provided the textbook to do so.

 

[Canuckle]

3 hours ago, Playoff Beered said:

 

The irony of posting that easily debunked nonsense and then citing Brandolini's law wikipedia page.

 

"Debunked."  Nope.

 

Brandolini's law. You bet. So much cold war capitalist circle jerk garbage its funny lol

[Canuckle]

9 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

I didn't disparage anyone in a "lower class". I don't view people that way. 

 

I said "go pick me a beet" because thats where your theories always end up, with someone doing the work no one else wants to do, but they are forced to, often at gunpoint. 

 

You keep going on and on about theory, but won't give any practical examples of how what you are promoting can work in actual practice.

 

Its a common thing amongst the campus commies, lots of talk about theory and how much Noam they have read, but can't explain in simple terms how life would really look. 

 

 

"I said "go pick me a beet" because thats where your theories always end up, with someone doing the work no one else wants to do, but they are forced to, often at gunpoint"

 

LMAO

 

Welcome to fucking capitalism,bud.

 

Coercive force comes in many different forms. And no I won't pick your blueberries, Aqua.  And no one else should have their entire livlihood, their ability to survive doing that either.

 

Doesn't need to be a literal gun, genius. The power relationship is exactly the same regardless.

 

Work for the property owners or risk death on the streets. Whether it's the state or the private capitalist it's the same thing.

 

But of course you'll overlook and handwave to continue with this half assed smear campaign about the evil socccialisms. Boogie boogie, Aqua.

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Canuckle