It didn’t work for Nicholas II. 
Oh, please. First, it’s ridiculous to claim that there’s no such thing as exploitation. And second, leftists make economics into a moral issue? The Right does that at least as much, they just do so with a Social Darwinist slant. And often with a religious one too, that God rewards the virtuous with profits or that God wants us to use up the world.
Whoa, hold up there, Trotsky! Bible says man is the steward of the earth, and a “steward” is a creature that gobbles up everything and then takes a shit it the river.
How long have you worked? Do you know any other way?
It’s the frog in the pot. Since I started working in 1980, hours have gotten longer the pressure has increased, and even good jobs have gotten more stressful. I’m not complaining since I’m doing find and I’m going to retire in a few years anyway. But companies make people work 150% bu laying off people and not work, and, especially now, not hiring nearly as many people as they got rid of. I’m doing the work of 2 or 3 people now, but so is everyone else, and I’m not close to being the person pushed the hardest. In 1980 you went home at 5 or 5:30, and that was it. Now you get emails at 11 pm.
If you think the people working 150% get paid for it, you’ve never done salary administration. You get a budget based on high level decisions about pay, and if nearly everyone is working extra hard, nearly everyone is not going to be rewarded for it. True, it decreases your chances of getting canned in the next round of layoffs, but only if you are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
Now, sure you can try to hire people to work 150%, but unless you are hiring cogs it takes a long time to bring someone up to speed. Hiring is time consuming and expensive - especially so when your top management wants to keep a lid on. You may get lucky and hire that super star, but you might also hire someone you discover after 6 month does 75%.
I shouldn’t have made up cute names. It sounds like our bond debt is largely in the hands of Orthodox Jews, which really is pretty unlikely.
I’m flattered that you picked me instead of gonzomax or Der Trihs. And this ‘Bolshevik,’ at least, pretty much agrees with your last paragraph.
Sigh. And then this happens. Since I’m a ‘pseudo-Marxist’ the whole line about how bad communism was comes out as if that shoots me down, and as if that justifies the behavior of the present right wing.
Consider that Marxism had about a 70-year run in Russia. And Stalinism specifically managed to build Russia from a backward agrarian economy into an industrial power that won the Second World War (& probably eventually would have without a Western Front)–beating a German *Wehrmacht *that was designed to take over Europe by sheer industrial superiority. Even if the Russian political culture was corrupt (as it was) & nationalist (hoo boy) and screwed up repeatedly (as so many have through history) that’s not such a bad run.
Capitalism, after all, spent, what, a few centuries futzing around with the slave trade before humanist liberals put a stop to it? Not to mention the Long Depression (due to money tightening following the American Civil War) various nation-level depressions between WWI & WWII, etc.
(And, oh yeah, the present capitalist finance sector that expects–perhaps demands–nice secure bonds from Uncle Sam paid for by taxes extorted from the populace, then whines about entitlements & economic freedom. Hypocrites.)
I think that both America and Russia had serious problems, Russia just hit the end of its rope first. Unfortunately, some people act like its a binary choice & capitalism has been proven to be perfect forever–and worse, that this justifies any hairbrained version of capitalism.
Do ‘plain facts’ include geography and history? Since 1960, northern Europe has gone social-democratic, & is pretty rich, while the USA has favored guns over butter, gone right-wing, & has pretty much given up on economic growth for the bottom quintile.
Also you need to brush up on the age of imperialism.
I was the same way. But at some point I came to accept a smidgen of truth in a line that may or may not come from Charles Bukowski: “All that a man has is his time.” You are in part paying for his time. On Earth.
Democracy. The people are sovereign over the country. Like any feudal king, the populace may demand such rents as are necessary to their needs, or useful to their ends, so long as they don’t starve the vassals of their own living expenses. And the neat thing is that you are both subject and part of the sovereign (confusing, right?). Enough people want entitlements, they’ll get them, unless they want to be nice guys.
There is quite a lot to comment on in this thread, but I only have so much time. This statement though… c’mon dude. Haven’t you paid any attention? We’re $14+ trillion in debt, taxes are at an all-time low and especially on the rich, who are in a position to reap all kinds of gains on loopholes and deductions, and the House Republicans are threatening to increase government’s (ie. the people’s) and probably the world’s expenses by billions in interest unless 1. there is a balanced budget amendment which will force major cuts in social programs that you seem to forget are funded by the people who receive the benefits 2. any deal to avoid the crisis cannot include any increase in revenue whatsoever, regardless of the fact that we’re emerging from a recession, the bailouts did not deliver the promised hiring spree while 3. all the billions in additional interest payments will go from taxpayers to wealthy bondholders, whose tax rates, again, are at historic lows.
The plan isn’t to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The plan is to pay the bills the rich racked up on unnecessary military buildups, tax cuts for the wealthiest and pointless wars, tax shelters and who knows what else. The actions that caused the debt, and the recession, benefited the wealthy, and now they want to pay the bill with things like the Social Security trust fund.
Sorry if I’m rambling a little here, but your theory is locked on autopilot. You oughta look out a window sometime. You aren’t referring to what is actually being proposed at all.
Being a Libertarian who was lurking, this made me register. I’ll have you know I’ve been awake for a bit, I think it’s you that needs the wake up call.
If we had been adhering to the Constitution (if you don’t like it or agree it, contact your Rep. to have them start drafting a new one) and not partaking in deficit spending all these years, we wouldn’t be here. Libertarians are against deficit spending because they fund unconstitutional wars, expand the scope of government, and just invite even more corruption and waste than government and bureaucracy provides on its own.
What’s happening now is a symptom (and obviously politicking) of a major problem, one that has been around a long time, and both parties are guilty of.
Still, it answered your question.
~
Sam, I hate to get into an econ argument with you, because I don’t have an econ degree, & you seem to know less than I do, & I’m afraid it’s going to be like two ten-year-olds arguing about biology.** However.** Between three paragraphs that are pretty standard economics, with which of course I agree, you hand us this:
We’ve been telling you for years that it’s demand that gains companies profits, not borrowing at a loss. We need consumers, not just investors. You seem to think that we need to keep the consumers out of the benefits of growth (or inflation as the case may be) lest the ability of a few great men to hire workers for cheap is lost. If so, you’re not really saving what you think. Investments can be made from the disposable incomes of an expanded middle class, with big investment done by middlemen (as we do in this country). Large concentrations of owned wealth are not so necessary. And that middle class can also give us that word you don’t seem to get: Demand.
But then you say this, & you’re suddenly talking down big capital:
Right. That’s why I support redistributive welfare programs, because we had the “corporate welfare” first, & if I can’t stop the corruption, I can at least balance it out.
IF IN FACT you are trying to defend the present GOP, then you seem to be claiming that the GOP should continue to undertax millionaires while paying civil servants less and OH BY THE WAY violate the Constitution by reneging on our debt to Social Security (because it’s “internal” so it “doesn’t count”)–as a way of getting Wall Street’s boot off the neck of the common man? Bwuh?
I don’t think I am. You may be confusing economic value with moral value?
~
But yes, fine, Sam & Rick. Yes, some of the things you talk about do contribute to wealth. The short answer is that (throughout history) some national wealth comes from internal reforms, some from resources, some from trade, and some from dominating other nations. It’s not all from the same place.
This is true. But the USA gets in bed with kleptocrats and tyrants as well, which is weird bad.
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
You are maddeningly half-right. Yes, protectionism is problematic, & one of Leninism’s defining qualities that went blooey in 1989. Yet there is an argument that the IMF is a bad influence, & that South Korea grew the most by having a nationalist-protectionist policy–doing the opposite of what the IMF expects from poor nations. :eek: I don’t have that data here though.
Yes, internal reforms mean a lot. One of those is redistribution of wealth, to build a greater demand base & enable growth to a larger economy. It is.
But US interference (sometimes military) in other countries has often harmed those countries. Americans like to compare our standard of living to Third World countries, like the ones where we’re fighting hot wars, or US-based companies are part of the nasty ruling class. Of course we live better than people we’re beating up on a daily basis. Why do you think Latin America keeps electing Communists? They want relief from the sort of US-backed powers that Sam described, greasing the wheels of big players.
Urm. Maybe.
I can’t speak for other lefties, but I look at (modern, mainstream, marginal) economics as a science, not as a moral guide. I look for my moral guidance elsewhere: sort of a mix of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a preference for egalitarianism, & concerns about sustainability. Science and morality inform each other.
I’m not under any delusion that economic value is the same as moral value in an absolute sense.
And I’ll give you the same response I had to Howard Dean in 2004 (about Iraq). Yeah, you wouldn’t have done it. But now we’re in this mess, what’s your plan for where we are?
Kind of puts a crimp in “Taxed Enough Already,” America!
There is a report on TV saying some countries are dumping the dollar for the Yen and more secure currencies. There might be some huge repercussions if the tea baggers get the big Boehner to reject the ceiling.
If the Repubs had simply raised the fucking ceiling when it was time, none of this would have happened. How can anyone say it was the Dems at fault?
The debt ceiling is meaningless and there should be no vote at all. It allows us to pay for what we already owe. It has nothing to do with a future credit card limit.
It is sad such simple truths can not be understood by people who are blinded by having tea bags in their eyes.
Excuse me?
Our nation has racked up some mighty big bills/debt. That should be paid. If that means raising taxes AND cutting spending so be it. I don’t know how you get from what I said to thinking I somehow “hate” the constitution - you’re making unwarranted assumptions about me, for sure.
I was against the Iraq war from before it happened, back when it was unpopular to hold that stance. I am anti-corruption and anti-waste. However, I also recognize that we need a functional government and that means it must be paid for - the Republican/Tea Party “solution” of constantly trying to diminish revenues is effing stupid. Libertarians who say Federal income tax is unconstitutional (never mind the relevant amendment) never seem to have a alternative means of paying for the government. (I’d like to think you’re not that sort of Libertarian.)
On top of that, this notion that cutting taxes for the rich makes more jobs is a joke - how many years have we been running that experiment? Where are the jobs, huh? Where is the booming economy that was supposed to generate? Maybe it’s time to try something else.
That’s descriptive rather than prescriptive, so I can but reply in kind: let’s see what happens. Let’s see who demands what, let’s see what subject-sovereigns like me declare for, let’s see how well our representatives can haggle on behalf of the folks who voted 'em in. Do enough people want entitlements? What do we find useful and necessary? Democracy in action is playing out before our very eyes.
It was a statement about taxation.
Its really fucking hard sometimes to figure out what you were thinking when you wrote words that don’t reflect your thoughts very precisely.
Nope. First I have seen NO evidence that the lower 50% has been voting tax increases on ANYONE. Second if you don’t like the results of the democratic process, you can go to Estonia where taxes are a lot lower.
Our taxes are at historically low rates. If ever there was a time when higher taxes were jsutified, it is now.
A well functioning government tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
It is not government that has caused this increase in disparity, it is the lack of government that ahs caused this. The natural tendency of free markets is to concentrate capital in fewer and fewer hands. Those hands change from time to time but the tendency to concentrate wealth continues. I don’t have an objection to this per se. I would rather have a country that is inequaly rich than a country that is equally poor so the GINI index is almost meaningless to me. The problem is that sometimes the inequality is not simply teh result of one group excelling (with positive ripple effects on teh rest of the population), it is the result of one group excelling at the expense of the rest of the population.
Not democracy in action at all. The “right wing nutters” according to the English are holding the country and the world hostage. They are not bargaining in good faith. I hope people can see the tea baggers are the antithesis of democracy. They make demands and do not negotiate in good faith. They should be completely and totally removed from the discussion. The Republican party is running scared. They can not control the membership of their own party. They are allowing the baggers to run the party with far less than dominant numbers. Boehner is a gutless joke.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59802.html Here is the story. The baggers are the scourge of the world now.
Are they or aren’t they doing what the folks who voted 'em in wanted?
Again, are they representing the will of their voters? If the voters merely want their representatives to make said demands and refuse such negotiations…
This “effect” is just what happens in free markets. Capital tends to concentrate. Even with effective regulation that prevents abuse, capital tends to concentrate. The driving force behind America’s middle class has historically been a combination of unions and a strong economy with a corporate class with few options in the way of outsourcing, etc.
So Obama should not compromise on the principles he was elected on?