Bitcoin Forum

This style is susceptible to strawman so let me know where I am wrong in my assumptions.  Let me know where you disagree.  Let me know fi there is a “C” option.

If you subscribe to capitalism, it seems as though you would subscribe to one of these philosophies towards labor

A. People are paid wages according to the “fair” market value of their skill and the amount of value they add
B. People do not “deserve” fair wages because no one is forcing them to accept a job for an “unfair” wage.

If you subscribe to A, then you run into issues with the variable cost of labor.  Producing a Chevy Blazer, for example, requires the same labor in the US as it does in Mexico. Therefore, it also requires the same amount of skill.  Workers in each country add the exact same value to the operation.

American Chevy Blazer vs Mexican Chevy Blazer
https://content.autotrader.com/content/dam/autotrader/articles/OversteerImages/2019/January/blazer/blazer.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.522.347.jpeghttps://content.autotrader.com/content/dam/autotrader/articles/OversteerImages/2019/January/blazer/blazer.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.522.347.jpeg


GM workers make $2 an hour in Mexico while they make around ten times more in the US.  Why are Americans paid ten times more for the same exact work producing the same exact vehicle?  I have heard claims that people are paid more when their jobs involve more skill, more risk, or more difficulty, but none of those are true here.  

Well it would also be easy to think that the Mexican’s deserve less because everything costs less in Mexico but GM actually turns around and sells the cars to Mexicans at the full American price without subtracting 80% from the labor costs.  

If you answered A, and subscribe to market forces, then the Mexican’s are inherently owed ten times less for the same work and inversely, Mexicans inherently owe GM ten times more of the fruits of their labor than that of Americans.  

If you subscribe to B, you don’t believe the same work deserves the same pay to begin with and you think people have a choice, then you would seemingly be suggesting the Mexicans simply walk across the border and get the same job paying ten times more.  Well the Mexicans aren’t free to walk across the border and get the same job.  They are forced to work on their side of the border.  This is how capitalism uses borders to exploit labor.   How can you have a free market if labor cannot freely move?

Many people would also say “GM assumes all of the risk and is therefore entitled to run the company however they see fit.  If the cars don’t sell, they are stuck with the losses” but even that isn’t true.

So we’re talking about socialized risk but no one socializes GM profits going forward.    How is GM assuming any risk when the government considers them "too big to fail"? The high paid executives not only assume no risk of failure, but seemingly get high payouts regardless of how negatively their incompetencies affect the work force and economy overall.  

 3 months later…

I thought executives were paid for their skills and unique ability to "make the company go".  I thought they were paid more because they assumed all the risk.  Neither are true in this case.  The opposite is true.  Workers assumed all of the risk and the CEO took home all of the pay.  The public bailed the company out in order to keep the jobs which are now being shipped to Mexico.  


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/03/gm-now-top-automaker-in-mexico-as-it-idles-us-fact/

I'm personally for something of a middle ground, I don't think people need to be earning $50 trillion dollars per hour at the expense of their workers, but at the same time, I feel there needs to be a reward for those who innovate, take risks, and run businesses.

I follow the sentiment, but your example is a little misleading. Moving a business to another country is sometimes profitable if the labor costs are sufficiently large as a part of the business, if the local workforce is sufficiently skilled, and you can get around the legal red tape of having to import/export goods. The machinery still costs what it does, the electricity still costs what it does, R&D as well. The difference in labor costs are something like a spread across exchanges to put it in common Bitcoin user terms. Do I think that GM should take its 6% (a guess) margin increase at the expense of messing up a bunch of people's lives? It probably wouldn't if the management ever interacted with its workforce, and the CEO's main responsibility wasn't to make money for the shareholders.

I think the evil parts of capitalism come out when businesses gets too large and starts seeing their people as numbers. I mean sure there are a lot of shitty people out there fit to be heartless CEOs, but its a lot harder to screw over you at least see as an acquaintance, not a 0.000005% cost savings.

On the global labor market, things aren't globalized yet to the point where its fair to say that everyone's labor is worth the same amount of money. Just as there are different cost of living and standards of living wherever you live, the shifts can be even more dramatic moving to other countries. If your middle class is earning $500/month, there are few differences versus another middle class earning $1000 per month elsewhere. Put it in reverse, what if you suddenly started earning $500/month when you had been earning $5000 per month. If you have $50k in student loans and a $2k/month mortgage, that might put a damper on things.

A. Absent any manipulation in a free market, people are paid economically competitive prices according to supply vs demand.
B. Under a free market people would compete for wages. They deserve or are entitled to nothing other than fair competition, what value they can provide in exchange for what compensation they are willing to settle for..


Neither the Mexican market nor the American market are completely free markets.

Also, just because the labor of putting cars together is happening the same in the USA and Mexico that does not mean that the technological development effort has been the same from the 2 countries.


The American economy is much better and the markets are not completely free..


In a free market a company should be able to charge whatever they want, whatever they think/bet will be competitive.



Mexicans absolutely are not free to walk across the border due to our unfree market welfare state.
If their was no welfare state they would be free to come compete but would be allowed to absolutely fail if they cannot compete, or work for a very low wage.


Problems caused by the welfare state which is equal to an unfree market..
In a free market GM would be allowed to fail if it couldn't compete..

In a completely free market their would be no welfare so no reason to restrict mexicans from coming to work.
In a completely free market their would be no minimum wage law.
In a completely free market their would be no welfare government bailouts for companies or people.

The reason their are so many differences across the US/Mexico boarder is neither market is free.
Absolute free market capitalism would solve all of these problems.

then stop defining markets and nations then, so it will become the market dictated by something else.

This is inherently how capitalism works though.  Companies like GM accumulate capital and buy influence over the government to shift the market in their favor.  The mythological free market cannot exist under capitalism because capital buys influence.  A company who does not actively seek to all means of shifting the markets in their favor is bound to fail in a capitalist society.



Labor costs are not based on the costs of doing business as you imply here.  Labor costs are based on market value.  Machinery and electricity costs could plummet but that would just lead to higher profits, not higher wages.    A company will pay its workers as little as they are willing to work for.  Any capitalist enterprise that pays its workers more than this market value is at risk of failure. 

That isn't the "evil parts of capitalism" that is just capitalism.  Profit is the only goal.  The CEO's job is to maximize profits aka "Shareholder primacy".  Wages are only increased when they are below what people are willing to work for.    A CEO who is unnecessarily paying their workers a better wage at the expense of increased profits is not only bound to be fired, but could theoretically have litigation brought against him.

you remember how second world war started?

labourers lift basically like money earning cattle robots in the british empire, they ate flour, there was no real middle class, all workers where basically doomed

thir financial illiteracy basically doomed their lives. and only the few happy ones that thought good placed them for that where the lucky and extremely rich capitalists.

People voluntarily use the banking system most of the time.

The banking system needs taxes, because taxes are the measure of how much money the government can borrow from the banks. The anomaly is that the government (or anybody borrowing from a bank) doesn't really borrow. What they do is create new money. When they repay these fake loans, they are enriching the banks, and with the interest moneys.

In other words, the banks are taking up ownership of the whole world. That's about as far from fair wages you can get. It's a major exploitation of the laborers and everything else, as well.

This is what the development of Bitcoin was meant to start curbing.

8)

If the government has any influence over the market it is not a completely free market.
The problem you describe is caused by the market being less free due to government intervention, in a mixed economy, which is what you get when you try to compromise with socialists. In a true free market their would be no government influence to buy.

A true free market of voluntary exchange can only exist under capitalism and vice versa..

It is well known that morality emerges out of repeated interactions. Repeatedly, especially after WWII, the bankers have "won" in their "play" with depositors / laborers and many a "deal" have been successfully made, so to speak, to the point where the massively dominant bankers now risk seriously fu*king up the game, if they do not allow the depositors to also have a couple successful "plays".

Depositors have sort of reached, (or are close to) a point of "no play", or "no deal", and this is seen across the globe. For those not awakened now, it will happen later, after critical mass in the awakening stage is reached.

Interestingly, the fundamental reason for this is found in the hardwired, neurophysiological circuit, where studies have shown that the dominant entities have to let the lesser entities "win" 30% of the time, or play is finished.

Bitcoin is the depositor's chance, to win the next round of "play", since the bankers' 70% win time, is over.

My point was to show what is going on, in simple terms. If people know, they might wake up so that they prepare, and are not hurt so badly when the whole thing crashes.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "that morality emerges out of repeated interactions." Morality is a relational thing that is based in the genes. It was caused in the setting up of the universe, and passed on through cause and effect.

Even Solomon of the Bible said over two thousand years ago, that the king is served by the land, and that a king without servants is in ruin. If kings don't treat their people fairly, the people will be gone or dead, and such won't benefit anybody.

This is proven out by the formation and updating of the Magna Carta in Britain over several hundred years. Some smart people British had to show some stupid British kings how to rule properly. The MC was the result.

It seems that rough times are coming. Bitcoin might be temporary salvation. The wealthy people know this, and they are working as hard as they can to somehow keep control of things.

8)

https://mises.org/library/progressive-attacks-capitalism-were-key-hitlers-success

People have an inborn sense when something is unfair, just like other animals. As I have mentioned, in the studies conducted, even though they were done on juvenile rats, is still applicable to humans, as we share most DNA patterns with other life forms and our nervous systems work similar to those of other animals: the hard-coded (neurophysiologically speaking) ratio of win-loose interactions is 70/30. The lesser juvenile rat would only initiate continued play with the dominant rat if he won 30% of the rough and tumble encounters. The moral of the story is, without the 70/30 "fairness rule" intact, the whole thing comes to a grinding halt.

The ongoing unfair wages and major exploitation, as you mentioned, slowly but surely altered the morale of the working class - they became demoralized to the point where they no longer will partake in the status quo. This is the point where the fabric of civilization begins to seriously tear apart. The repeated unfair interactions of the bankers and the laborers have led to the point of "demorality" - a stage of ever greater unwillingness to cooperate.

You are describing problems with globalism.

Your "a" assumption is flawed, and should be reworded:
"A. People are paid wages according to the “fair” market value of their skill with wages limited by the amount of value they add"

Companies will not pay more than a worker contributes but they will not pay an unnecessarily high wage. If a car company has a plant in Ohio, it needs to employ people in Ohio, and will need to pay a sufficiently high wage so that workers with sufficient skills will be willing to work for them, but so long as they have sufficient number of workers, will not pay so much that an abundance of qualified people are willing to work for them.

In general, the cost of living is much lower in Mexico (along with the standard of living), and as such, workers are willing to work for less than workers in the US are willing to work for.

The cost of living is nowhere near 10x less so the Mexican workers are being ripped off even according to your explanation of differences in this post. 

If the power is decentralized and not in a government, it can be purchased even more easily.  Capitalists could buy people and buy up all of the smaller competition.   They could simply hire mercenaries to take out competition.  Somalia is a free market utopia.

I would ask you to address any of the arguments made in the article, but we all know you didn't read it, and if you did you wouldn't understand it, and if you did you would ignore it. Much easier to make some quick meaningless quip than discuss facts.

what you want is gentrification for labourers, not stopping the exploitation by capitalists.

many workers are forced to work, because they lack the financial literacy to find an alternative way.

Who's fault is that?

that the workers dont print money like the capitalists? they think they can't

Asking a question in response to another question is not a retort.

Literacy requires capital.  Education requires capital.  Without capital, people would just be slaves to capitalists and literally wouldn't be able to move anywhere because all land would be owned.   This is why capitalism worked really well with free land and labor available for theft.   

The government holds capital on behalf of all people.  It is  the only thing keeping literally everything from being bought up and controled by capitalists.  The connundrum is that in a captialist economy, even the government is for sale.  What will they teach?  What will they build?  Which industries will they regulate and how?  All of those questions are answered by capital.

And what is your "solution"? Point a gun to the GM owner and force him to, either sell the cars 80% less value in Mexico, or pay mexicans 80% more? Do you know where that leads? The more you intervene to remove "unfair" profits to capitalists, the less interested they will be in keeping the business afloat.

End result: GM closes, all the "low paid" mexicans back to the streets.

Workers control? Look how far that goes... Good luck. Its not impossible for cooperatives (which are still capitalist) to prosper, the majority fail. Many attribute it to the "unfair" market, but it was in fact their lack of efficiency. What, you wanted them to earn 80% more and still be competitive?

Ah the workers don't have the skill, lets put a bureaucrat to "guide" them... Yeah that will solve it... NOT. I know the results, i have seen them...

Keypoints about socialism:

• It destroys wealth, never make it.
• And it does to by force, never by free choice.

Therefore socialism is the opposite to freedom.

It is the workers decision, not yours, to work for GM at that wage. It is their right, and you want to take it from them, because you (who don't or shouldn't work there) don't like it. Socialism, in the inside, goes AGAINST workers wishes and interests.

In a free market society there are plenty of chances to get better wages, NONE by force. In a socialist economy, you get garbage wage, and you can do nothing about it, you HAVE TO take it, or else...

Of course the State should neither intervene the business, neither do anything to "save them". It goes both ways.

The State should intervene... by non-intervention. Private membership associations (PMAs) are State approve organizations that are completely outside of State jurisdiction. And the State even says that they are.

Stand up with the laws and court cases that PMAs use, and the State says, Yes; we must back down, because it is our rules to back down in the cases of private organizations.

8)

No. It literally doesn't. At most it requires time which is arguable as far as availability, but people don't lack free time. They lack the will to better themselves. Nothing is stopping people from educating themselves in a world with more information available than every in human history for free. The government is not the center of the universe, nor should it be.





Oh well good thing I have you here to tell me what my point is. How convenient you can just dismiss the article by saying "no one with a brain has anything to say about it" you aren't even trying any more. You are the epitome of self entitled, moral grandstanding, low information, high confidence retards. If this is your standard then I need not put any more effort into you than this.

Yes, I am sure it is just a coincidence you do this often and declare yourself correct while making no argument to the contrary. Double standards. That's funny.

Ok TECSHARE let's agree on something. You stop nagging me and I stop nagging you.

Our "exchanges" are useless trolling only taking space for nothing on this forum. We no longer argue we just... Insult each other. I don't remember last time you brought anything close to a fact in one of our "argument" and I'm sure you have the same feeling.

It's not productive, not interesting and I bet everyone reading us have the same feeling.

I'll delete my previous "nagging" posts. I suggest you do the same so we keep the P&S section clean of our useless fights.

Lol. Its so cute you think this bothers me even one little bit. Also I did present facts, just a few posts ago. I am sorry you have trouble keeping your emotions and your logic separated. If you don't like the tone I take with you perhaps you should check your own first.

I don't think you're the one annoyed but I think our useless exchanges are greatly annoying the potential readers of P&S section.

And please quote one single fact you've given here...

If people have to use their time to work in order to meet bare necessities, they no longer have time for education.  Time itself is capital.  We sell time for money and buy other people's time with capital.  Capitalists have more time.  In terms of labor time, someone like Bezos has thousands  (or is it millions?) of hours in a day. 

You can count this up by adding up all of the time it took to create the things they consume in one day. 

The information you say is "available" requires capital to access.  Where does the book come from? Where does the device come from? Where does the internet connection come from?  The best answer is public libraries provided by government, of course.

If people have to use their time waiting in lines in order to meet bare necessities, they no longer have time for education, or work...

Which one is worse?

Living conditions in capitalist societies are far better than the collective misery socialist economies produce. The less State there is, the better.

You contradict yourself. You demand all these things must cost money, and you yourself gave a good example of free use. Also not all libraries exist solely on government funding so.. not exactly. Also there are access plans as low as $20 a month I have seen, or even $1 at McDonalds to get wifi. There is no reason people can't afford these things with minimal amounts of effort. Your argument is moot. The government is not our savior, it is our jailer.

You clearly haven't worked hard one day in your life.

Before becoming an engineer I've worked one month as a production line worker following 3 times 8 planning.

Doing ANYTHING constructive and trying to use your brain when you work in such conditions is not possible. I mean it's physically not possible.

People like you simply deny the reality of alienation of hard work.

Please anyone thinking that people are just "not willing to better themselves" just try to think about the condition you're in when you just finished a 50 hours of physical and repetitive hard job week. You CAN'T think. Not matter your education, your intelligence, your curiosity, when the week end you're just dead. The 2 days of "freedom" you get at the end are here just so you are able to go back to work week after.

In just four weeks I and my SO litteraly saw me go dumber every day, more tired and less proactive. After 2 weeks I stopped reading on the evening because I was too tired. After 3 I stopped doing anything productive after coming back from work. After 4 I couldn't do anything of the weekend.

Now imagine people doing this for YEARS?? How could you expect them to go and "better themselves"?? That's impossible. They're barely humans at this point, they're just slaves.

Anyone saying with this voice full of contempt that people are just making "excuses", go work for real. Then try to "better yourselves". We'll see how you "don't need help from the government" then.

The race to the bottom or why free markets arent free.

I do not believe that there exists a free market capitalism today - once a good idea it developed to a monster based on lobbyism and nepotism which lead us to an oligarchy reigning supreme.

coins4commies,
you are not describing capitalism: you are describing crony-capitalism with high degrees of government interference.
We are not experiencing free markets because of crony-capitalism with high degrees of government interference.


And yes that is an inherent potential flaw in capitalism and socialism and is the flaw in communism and all highly centralized systems.
We have given too much power into the hands of corporations and reduced the effects of real consequences when they make sociopathic decisions
 but it is something that can be cured with adjustments to corporate law and a little more attention paid by consumers (us).

The solution would have been to not have an owner in the first place.  The only shareholders should be stakeholders and that way the interests of the company would always consider the interests of all stakeholders, most of whom are workers. 

The current shareholders have no skill or efficiency.  Shareholders hire people to run the company.  That doesn't have to change.  "worker control" is not a literal sense but in terms of power hierarchy.  Workers have no interest in their company being run inefficiently.

The socialist economy you describe is nothing like anything socialists are advocating.  Complete misrepresentation. 

I mentioned programs like TARP in the OP.  Those sort of programs could invest in builidng cooperatives instead of corporate welfare.  Mondragon in Spain is a perfect example and it is much more efficient than a company like GM.

There you go again looking in to your magic crystal ball that you think magically gives you to know things about my personal life you couldn't possibly know about. None of what you just said is fact, it is entirely your personal interpretation of reality. You just desperately need these people to occupy a victim class in order for it to justify your Marxist ideology.

Most people are poor because they don't do anything different to change their situation. There is not some hidden army of freelance ninjas running around oppressing everyone who doesn't go anywhere in life. Some people just don't give a fuck to look 2 inches past their face at what they are doing now. This is a fact.

Also your little story is cute... one month on a production line before you sat your fat ass behind a desk. You sold me on your working man creds HAH!

Everything we have different is highlighted in this discussion.

Your double standard first: when I say poor people can't do much about their situation it's bullshit, when you say "Some people just don't give a fuck to look 2 inches past their face at what they are doing now." it's a "fact".

Your absolutely lack of empathy and your incapacity to put yourself in the shoes of anyone in a different situation.

Your arrogance and contempt towards anyone you deem "too stupid" or "too lazy".


Anyone having such speech should be put in the life of a really poor personn just for a year. We'll see how your incredible mind will allow you to climb your way back to the top of the American dream...

I have plenty of empathy. I just don't make the mistake of confusing it with logic. All the empathy in the world doesn't help anyone without logic.

And where is the lack of logic in saying anyone working 40 hours a week on a physically demanding job can't really take the time and energy needed to step back and improve his life/skills/conditions?

You seem to say that people need to take care of themselves and government shouldn't provide to losers that are too lazy.

What you miss though it's that no "socialist" policy gives everything to people. Those policies are here to allow people to be in a less precarious position and to open new possibilities for them.

But government won't do the studies for you. Government won't give you new skills and better job. Government won't create your own company.

No. But government can grant you free college. Government can enact better work conditions and wages. Government can provide trainings for people already working. Government can insure you financially so that creating your company doesn't mean you risk everything.

The goal of socialism isn't to do everything for people. It's to give people as much possibilities as it can.

You like attributing motive to others a lot. Motives to me, motives to these people you talk about. No one deserves anything. People deserve what they can create for themselves. Just because some one works grinding themselves down forever does not mean they have no choice or are unable to change this. You insist on looking at everyone as victims. This doesn't help people. What helps people is not having a bloated bureaucracy sucking up endless resources while it regulates everyone around it to death while never actually attaining any of the goals it was designed to meet.

You only want to see the victim aspect of this story. The reality is some people belong in those factories, if you asked a few of these people a lot of them would tell you so themselves. A lot of them are grateful just to have a dependable wage, but no, here you come to save them from that for their own good! Aren't you morally superior!

Your vision of society and humankind is simply wrong and I can't do anything against that.

Not wrong as in "moraly wrong", simply wrong as in "stupidly wrong".

You believe in responsability, freedom and meritocravy. Those three things are believes and nothing more. They're the base of the American dream and the tools that hold current society together. All of them are false and have been provren false by all sociologic studies.

I can only advise you to try to read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste of Pierre Bourdieu which would, rather elegantly, demonstrate how the whole "rational choice" and "freedom" ideas are complete fallacies.

Anyway we've diggen far enough. We now know exactly where is the difference between you and me. Not much more to discuss unless you're ready to open yourself to new ideas or ready to support your core beliefs.

And there we go. All of your evidence comes from the least scientific branch of the most unscientific field of study that people barely qualify as a science. Social sciences can maintain no controls, can not directly observe results, can not account for so many variables... IE it doesn't follow scientific theory. It attempts to at best. You think we have diggen far enough though, so lets stop diggen.

You are forgetting about one thing:  we are not all born equal.  We respond differently to external stimuli.  You are painting everyone with the same brush.  That is your mistake.  Any study that does not take into account the fact that societies are heterogeneous systems is erroneous, right from the start.

Some of us are born 'slaves' while others are born 'slave' masters. If you don't like the word slave, substitute it with 'passive', 'submissive', 'weak', 'lazy', 'hopeless', 'apathetic',  'uneager' etc.

Equalizing outcomes is wrong, no matter who does it. It always leads to injustice.

This is utterly stupid.
So sociology is not a science because it doesn't directly observe results in a controled environment with controled variables? That's your argument against sociology and social sciences in general??


This is simply ridiculous.

Not being born equal is not the same thing as being born in a definitive way like you suggest.

Unless rare genetic disabilities, no one is born "submessive" or "weak" or "lazy".

Born lazy... And you dare calling yourself science supporter?

Unfortunately that only works when the workers own the company, not the State. So a cooperative, like Haier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haier), and not a state owned company like CNPC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Petroleum_Corporation) both Chinese.

Also unfortunately, many socialists advocate State ownership, not worker's ownership. As cooperatives are seen as another kind of capitalist company, only with a bit more horizontal hierarchy. Ideally there are no employees, but cooperatives can and often do employ people who do not own any shares.

In fact in a free capitalist society, a group of disgruntled "exploited" workers CAN leave en mass and form their own company, as long as that State isn't colluding with the former companies by giving them protections or special privileges. This is far from what we see in all "attempts" of socialism. Venezuela had a few attempts at worker's control, and the State itself dissolved them, or let them rot, because in a "command" central planned economy, if the bureaucrat doesn't "assign" you raw materials, or foreign currency (promptly), or let you set your own prices you go bankrupt. And they rather "assign" resources to their own (corrupt) people, ironically accusing the workers of being thieves or anti-revolutionaries (because in "socialist" Venezuela, if you don't raise prices to compensate inflation you go bankrupt, but if you raise the prices you are an agent of imperialism seeking to overthrow the gov.)...

The giant obstacle of socialism is the abysmal separation between theory and practice. "if only people behaved this, or that way", but they don't (unless coerced). Capitalism, at least exploits people's greed in a way where everyone ends benefiting, so long as the state remains small and out of the way...

The free market solves things with a near realtime highly scalable voting system called: "your wallet". This is forcibly taken away in Socialist States "in the name of... workers, revolution, party, blah, blahW) by bureaucracy. Even if you practice some form of "direct democracy", you cannot take decisions as quickly and efficiently as the free marker. By the time a decision is made, it is always too late, to little, too much, too high or too low.

"Communists" have it worse, as they push for a super strong omnipotent State dictating the economy and all aspects of life that "somehow" should later dissolve itself (never going to happen).

In "capitalism", you work because you need money. Socialism wants you to not need money, so there is no reason to work. Then no one makes anything.., except the bureaucrats who get to decide who eats and who doesn't, until the last resource is exhausted.

Thank you. Explaining basic things he should have learned in high school is getting tiresome.

no one is voluntarily a slave, people are made slaves, by others that teach them crap or scam, reducing them to capitalist money earning cattle etc.

I did not say Haier, I said mondragon.  The thing you need to realize about socialists adovocating for state ownership, is that they are viewing socialists the people as the state and you are thinking about socialism within a capitalist state like the U.S. or Soviet Union.  Two very different things. There is also a lot of nuance involved.  Natural resources should be collectively owned but that isn't the entire economy.

Exploited workers don't have the capital to do anything.  That is the point.  If they weren't being exploited, they would definitely start their own companies but that wouldn't be capitalism anymore. Capitalism is all about rewarding capital, not labor.

State control is not worker control.  Central planning is literally the opposite of worker control.
The free market is a mythological creature.  "Everyone ends benefiting" shows that you have bought into the externalization of costs.  Everyone loses long term because eventually you run out of resources to extract from the outside.  Capitalism is literally trashing the entire planet and only benefiting about 15% of the population.  Everyone else is in grave danger. 15% is far from everyone.  Most of the people on here are well into the top 1% and have no idea what its like for the 99%.

Capitalism is extremely inefficient and completely disregards the safety of the public as well as future sustainability.  Nothing is produced for actual consumption. Everything is produced to be sold.  This means we grow food for 10 billion people and feed 5 billion well while throwing half of it away.  We literally build products to break early so we can sell them again.  Don't ever mention efficiency and capitalism again.

First of all, you are way off base with the bold statement because one of the key requirements for communism is a stateless society.  The rest of your post is irrelevant.  Maybe you should read Marx instead of letting Jordan Peterson types tell you what communism and socialism are.  Once you learn about it, you might actually like it.    

You cant even make a post without contradicting yourself within it. Basically you are saying Socialism (Communism stage 2) is not for government control because they VIEW the government as the people more than the government. Then you proceed to claim this state control because viewed as the people is not really state control, and is actually stateless. Well shit if it is that simple why don't you just view every government that way? OH RIGHT YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE REALITY BY REDEFINING WORDS! DAMN!

I have actually read the work that the waste of space, boil covered ass, hypocrite Marx wrote. He was a joke from start to finish and himself met none of his own standards. He even had an in house servant which he refused to pay, which he then impregnated, and disowned the child. Essentially she was his house slave, but I am sure this man was serious about bringing power to the people and not just feeding his own fat boil infested ass. He was a tool, and you are a tool for following that hypocrite.

Techshare,
that is the one point we can agree on.
There are psychological and sociological considerations that tie into economic and political constructs.

m0glie,
I'm enjoying your perspective but there is an inspirational/aspirational quote near the end of The Road to Serfdom:
"If in the first attempt to create a world of free men we have failed;
We must try again."

coins4commies,
you keep pointing out Mondragon? This is an example of a business model, we also have co-op's in America and privately held companies that include their workers as stake holders. I am with you: our current system needs improvement, it sounds like you want people to be taken care of...so do I, I want people to thrive.

I guess you never had or worked with kids.  Some are born leaders, some are not.  No matter the circumstances.

Add to what you are saying, that...

The bankers like all the above points, as long as nobody ever wins. That is the way that they win.

8)

Most of the time, people who look and act like born leaders are born psychopaths, but some are born sociopaths.

8)

Environment plays a role but qualities like leadership or ambition are innate, IMHO.  You cannot make a stallion into a draft horse.

No question about it.  Many psychopaths are leaders, probably a higher percentage than non-psychopaths.

The issue I brought up is that we are all born with different innate qualities and applying the same outcome to everyone is just not right.

Socialism and communism are wrong because they start with the wrong assumption about our human nature.

you are writing nonsense.

nope thats not true, that would be a racist point of view, a stalion and a draft horse bodies are just vessels, can be any spirit inside. the one of an enslaving capitalists, and the one of a brainwashed money earning salary slave.

so if a sith lord with magical power shows up that is powerful with the "force" you would voluntarilly submit for the rest of your existence to be his salary slave?
isis tried to create such a sith lord actually

Well your humble opinion is deep deeeeeeeeeeeep shit according to every biologist and every sociologist!

There is no such thing as a gene of leadership for god's sake!

Actually, we are all born bloody and naked, with a high pitched little voice.

Also, some try to equalize outcomes, those being placed in powerful positions, for instance, who have more means to try and do so. I agree it should rather not be done, but in stead, trying to contribute towards equalizing opportunities amongst all, and this is by no stretch of the imagination an easy task, if you asked me; but we have to try and keep on trying, those that are able, and those willing. Watching a fair game, being played on a level playing field is satisfying, no matter which side wins, but what is even more satisfying, is being a player yourself, knowing your efforts are worthwhile on a level field, whether you win or lose the game.

I seriously think high school should teach more economy, the only reason some people fall for socialism, is that nobody ever told them about how prices and wages in a free market find its best point at any given time and place than any bureaucrat could ever do and what the results of attempting to do so have been in 40 centuries of human history:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/list_teaser/s3/static-page/img/Forty%20Centuries_Schuettinger%20and%20Butler_20140513_CreateSpace_bookstore.jpg
Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls: How Not to Fight Inflation (https://mises.org/library/forty-centuries-wage-and-price-controls-how-not-fight-inflation)

Things like "the law of supply and demand", lack of understanding it, or naively thinking "that law is unfair" (Oh, like Newton's "law of gravity")... Learn it and use it to your advantage, instead of pretending you can dismiss it, as socialists preach.

Speaking of which:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WZ0I9t9QoZ0/hqdefault.jpg
🤝 Supply and demand | How does The Law of Supply and Demand work? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ0I9t9QoZ0)

Also this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kUrQc9big4I/hqdefault.jpg
👨‍💼 Where do jobs come from? | Employment vs self-employment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUrQc9big4I)

If ISIS had done it, the sith lord would use the force to make you think that you had volunteered.

8)

Or the basic law that banks don't lend money, but when you loan them your loan app money, they repay the loan you made to them with cash money or bank check money.

8)

Sure they could teach even more capitalist propaganda in high school but that would not change the fact that people eventually go out into the world and experience the perils of this oppressive system.

Supply and demand explains how markets work but it does not explain the wisdom of if we should let markets work. 

Capitalist economics teaches us that things are made to be sold.

but should things only be made to be sold?
Should everything that can be sold be made?
Should things that cannot be sold be made?

Those are ethical questions that are not often taught. Economics should be taught through all three dimensions economic, social, and environmental. Capitalists only focus on economic and ignore the other two. 

We end up with a society where policies and solutions to problems are only catered towards one of those three dimensions which should never happen. An ideal solution should cater to all three and solutions that cater to two of 3 could still be considered.  21st century education is currently teaching economics through environmental and social lenses in multi-disciplinary classes such as engineering, environmental science, as well as social studies. 

Unlike many of you on this forum, I have experienced both ends of the stick.

Sooner rather than later you will revert to your natural predisposition.

What do you think an economy is?
It's food, houses, the clothes you are wearing, money, everything surrounding you right now was once an idea that has been materialized by capitalization.

When there is no more scarcity with logistics tied up neatly, there will exist an entirely different form of society that we have not yet invented and built the construct for
but we are far from there.

Milton Friedman and his wife Rose give one of the easiest explanations on whether we should let markets work: Yes
Free to Choose on PBS/Amazon or the book----or endless YouTube videos
Free market capitalism
*with little central interference the market will create its own products and pricing
*the individual can best create the greater good by the 'mechanism' of serving their own self interest



I don't subscribe to laissez faire but I do want less government interference on the flow of enterprise and more accountability for egregious actions towards the good of its citizenry/humanity ----> like Monsanto creating GMO seeds that don't naturally reproduce.
Government should provide the most opportunity for prosperity and citizens should look to themselves/each other for solutions and then...
"by the people for the people" needs to get to work for us.

There is a direction my country is heading to: Democratic Socialism it began during the depression and hasn't ended, so plenty of people (some of my favorite humans) agree with the socialist ideals and NO I don't think they understand what that really means.
Between Trump and Bernie things don't look hopeful for prosperity...which is the foundation for the largest group of humane humans.
And as for workers? Let's see how many jobs are left in the next couple decades.


AND LOL no BADecker don't add that to the list

"21st century education is currently teaching economics through environmental and social lenses in multi-disciplinary classes such as engineering, environmental science, as well as social studies.  "

And that is the crux of the issue. They are working Marxist Postmodernist theory into EVERY FUCKING SUBJECT destroying the very foundation of education itself. You are a walking example of the destructive effects of this leftist infiltration of the educational system from K-post graduate school.

Everything is through the lens of Postmodernism & Critical Theory, which of course is very conveniently designed to deconstruct every thought to the point that everything becomes meaningless, and our society no longer has any common reality to operate from. You are the walking cancer of the intellectual world and our society as a whole. You don't have to be... but you are as long as you keep spreading your stupidity.

Oh shit this random sentence in quote really convinced everyone I'm sure!

And I guess it's bad to learn economics through engineering and social science because... Sciences are bad I guess?
And I have no idea what environmental science is. I've never seen this class anywhere. Didn't you want to also add something like "gender studies" as you seem to chose things completely randomly?

You said "through environmental and social lenses" you didn't say to learn through. Sure integration is great, but substituting it for the classic educational model is just more deconstructivist Postmodernist Critical Theorist garbage specifically designed to erode the institutional foundations of... well everything.

This is why no one seems to be educated in school any more. They don't teach skills we need, they teach the world through the lens of social "sciences", and we have been over how scientific social sciences are. On a scale of 1-10 of maximum scientific method applied, social sciences rank in at about a 0.2.

Of course if your goal is endless deconstructivist subjectivity now that ambiguity is desirable now isn't it? I don't need to add "gender studies" because academia is one giant hybrid with Critical Theory already, which is what gender studies programs are based upon. AKA Marxism with a vinyl wrap of Bill Nye looking at some beakers over it so it looks extra sciencey.

Thanks for that!  :-*

Without staff personnel, executives would not be able to do their job and will never have their job. Minimum wages were made to at least give/provide salaries that is acceptable/considered as enough to live in the country but yes, it wasn't enough. Maybe because of the reputation of the country as well. The U.S is more established than Mexico and that is the reason why the wages of the U.S is ten times bigger than Mexico. I think for the world to solve this is to have a global minimum wage but that's near impossible to be executed as well.

When you state facts, you shouldn't try to use persuasaion techniques.  Facts are facts.  No one should have to convince you to believe them.  Thats how facts get mixed up with opinions.  Just because you guys don't know about something, doesn't mean it was made up randomly.  I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything and was just stating the way things are being taught in modernized education systems.  

You really can't figure out what environmental science is?  Sure, the same topics can be put into courses with various names.  In the IB, the "ES" program is called Environmental systems and society

Which, when you look into it, is basically the same thing I was referencing from the American "Next generation science standards" which are part of common core.  

Also, even though it was off-topic, I just want to post the UCLA gender studies description so that anyone who reads tecshares premodernist mind-mush can recognize its a legitimate field of study.
https://d172h4vc197skd.cloudfront.net/images/26/3f/263f8e2afef3c6d82eadfd6100a66874_390255a18c_t.png

that would be a jedi knight, only they are using psychological tricks, like banking cartels that pretend to look for you or corrupt cryptocurrency indexes, that tell whole world is shitcoiners except them.

sith lords and the dark side prefers force

I was directly referring to the social sciences part, so naturally you assume the environmental sciences part so you at least have a leg to stand on. Also what the fuck are you talking about persuasion techniques?

Gender Studies is not science. Social sciences are BARELY science as a whole. My point stands. Interesting graphics choice... strait out of The Frankfurt School of Marxist bullshit made to look scientific.

 [/quote]
https://d172h4vc197skd.cloudfront.net/images/26/3f/263f8e2afef3c6d82eadfd6100a66874_390255a18c_t.png
[/quote]

I was directly referring to the social sciences part, so naturally you assume the environmental sciences part so you at least have a leg to stand on. Also what the fuck are you talking about persuasion techniques?

Gender Studies is not science. Social sciences are BARELY science as a whole. My point stands. Interesting graphics choice... strait out of The Frankfurt School of Marxist bullshit made to look scientific.


[/quote]


Actually it's N.W.A. Straight Outta Compton
with a design based on the parental advisory warning

Thanks Easy-E.

Humanity is on a growth spurt for sure - en route to 9 000 000 000 in the not-to-distant future, and beyond after that. A Capitalist gleefully looks at the numbers and greedily rubs his fat fingers together, with an ominous grin shaping his fixated unbalanced and skewed look (purpose). If realized, earth will at some point, maybe not at the nine billion figure but non the less later on, actually need those narrated Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-class unites - WALL-E s, after all, to clean up the heaps and heaps of polluted piles of garbage. The only difference from the story to our reality, is there is no space ship to float us out in space to fatten up some more, while WALL-E does his dirty little job of cubing up the compressed blocks of total left over capitalist-created waste.

what are you talking about?