In politics how much is this gonna cost? only comes up when poor folk are involved. A corporate tax break that will add $2.3-trillion to the national debt, no problem. $900-billion in direct checks to people, woah man, we gotta look into this for months.
And the $900 billion has a measurable, positive impact on the economy - the tax-break not so much.
Well, it DOES have an impact, just not a positive one nor one that any sane person would give a shit about.
Aww, the increase in stock price by the repurchase of shares companies did with the money that was supposed to go to improve their businesses was a positive impact for the execs, and they are sane. Greedy, but sane.
I thought Angola was a prison.
I found my life greatly improved by walking away from a hell job to become a temp many years ago. I learned a lot about my resilience. This Covid era has been hell on employment opportunities. I kinda like that the recovery is being hell on crappy employers. Karma in the big picture.
Are still denying that “in an ideal world people contribute what they able and take only what they need” is Marxist philosophy?
The same political philosophy wants to hold these truths as self-evident:
‘We can’t get anyone to work!’
‘Illegal immigrants are pouring over the border in caravans, stealing jobs from Americans!’
Nobody here is denying that is Marxist. What they are denying is that it is uniquely or specifically Marxist. Lots of other people have expressed the same philosophy. For example, do you consider St. Luke to have been a Marxist when he expressed the same idea? Why or why not?
I would consider it to be universal philosophy for all sane, sensible and rational people.
I don’t think anyone is even advocating that philoophy in the first place. I think people are more like provide basic bare minimum needs for everyone, then go be a millionaire / billionaire.
Besides, how is an Ayn Rand style of society any better if a significant portion of the population is unemployed and impoverished because they don’t have the wherewithal to invent a new metal alloy or be born into a family railroad or copper fortune?
Isn’t it their fault for making poor pre-conception choices?
If you’re seriously positing that Marx’s writings were “sane, sensible, and responsible”, then we cannot agree. Obviously, Your Mileage does Vary. So what? You don’t dictate what the majority of the world thinks, or should think.
Neither do you.
Never said that I did.
He didn’t say that all people do consider it sane, etc. He said that he considers it something that should be universal. He’s not claiming it is.
Marx was like a great doctor of the past that identified the nature of a disease, and had good ideas on what to do to avoid a disastrous end, but he really had not much of a clue of how to cure it properly.
The School of Life had a good quick explanation of that:
I think another German of the past, Hegel, had it right (not about the solution, but what to look for on the way to better solutions), progress is not linear, history takes us from one extreme to another in different eras. “And sometimes in this process of moving from era to era we’ll find a new solution, that manages to synthesize the good qualities of the previous solutions, to make something really new, and different and better.”
The biggest problem for me is to encounter people that just ignore that many solutions proposed by Marx are already being used in many developed nations, this is why there are a lot of mixed economies nowadays. While at the same time many nations with mixed economies ignore Marx’s and (specially) his followers’ bad ways to solve the problems.
Mixed Economies
MIXED ECONOMIES
MIXED ECONOMIES
Every nation I know of has a mixed economy (please tell me of some that don’t)
By the definitions below, please: not by your own arbitrary definition.
A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise.[1][2][3][4] While there is no single definition of a mixed economy, one definition is about a mixture of markets with state interventionism, referring specifically to a capitalist market economy with strong regulatory oversight and extensive interventions into markets. Another is that of an active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions.[5] Yet another definition is apolitical in nature, strictly referring to an economy containing a mixture of private enterprise with public enterprise.[6] Alternatively, a mixed economy can refer to a reformist transitionary phase to a socialist economy that allows a substantial role for private enterprise and contracting within a dominant economic framework of public ownership. This can extend to a Soviet-type planned economy that has been reformed to incorporate a greater role for markets in the allocation of factors of production.[7]
So we ALL have mixed economies. The only difference between us is the particular mix.
But then we choose arbitrary definitions like ‘Capitalism’, ‘Socialism’, ‘Marxism’, ‘Command Econony’, ‘Laissez-faire’, you can add your own…
Each of these definitions means exactly what each individual means it to mean: its semantic content is nil!
I say again, we ALL have mixed economies. The only difference between us is the particular mix.
Several of the definitions you cite are mutually contradictory. Pick one.
Of course they are. Just pick one you like.
‘If all the economists were laid end to end, they’d never reach a conclusion’.
George Bernard Shaw