Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[TECSHARE]

This has already happened.  I already gave you empirical data on the success of Marcora law in Emelia-Romagna.  Yes it stimulated the economy.  Yes people became happier.  Yes that region with 30% GDP coming from worker cooperatives is more resilient during economic crashes that affect the rest of the country.  No they did not collapse into inevitable dictatorship.

It should be simple to grasp
1.government spends money
2. businesses are created with that money (buying goods and services from other business)
3. business hire workers who produce goods and services (economic activity)
4. workers are paid, taxes are paid, and those workers go and consume more from the economy

"This has already happened." This what? I already responded to your single go to "Marcora laws". This is not empirical data that Socialism will stimulate the economy. First of all because the country is not Socialist. Second, even if it was, Socialism can coast on the fruits of the previous Capitalist system for some time until it fails.

This is the lie Socialists are best at selling. This is why I said Socialists are like an 18 year old with a credit card. Sure you can live off of a credit card and not produce as much as you consume for a little while, but eventually the debt comes due and your lie collapses.

It should be simple to grasp

1. Government has to take that money from workers by force
2. Businesses are already created with that money
3. Economic activity is already stimulated because we are operating under Capitalism
4. Workers are already paid and consume more from the economy

[1715261297]

1715261297

[1715261297]

1715261297

[1715261297]

1715261297

[coins4commies]

This has already happened.  I already gave you empirical data on the success of Marcora law in Emelia-Romagna.  Yes it stimulated the economy.  Yes people became happier.  Yes that region with 30% GDP coming from worker cooperatives is more resilient during economic crashes that affect the rest of the country.  No they did not collapse into inevitable dictatorship.

It should be simple to grasp
1.government spends money
2. businesses are created with that money (buying goods and services from other business)
3. business hire workers who produce goods and services (economic activity)
4. workers are paid, taxes are paid, and those workers go and consume more from the economy

"This has already happened." This what? I already responded to your single go to "Marcora laws". This is not empirical data that Socialism will stimulate the economy. First of all because the country is not Socialist. Second, even if it was, Socialism can coast on the fruits of the previous Capitalist system for some time until it fails.

This is the lie Socialists are best at selling. This is why I said Socialists are like an 18 year old with a credit card. Sure you can live off of a credit card and not produce as much as you consume for a little while, but eventually the debt comes due and your lie collapses.

It should be simple to grasp

1. Government has to take that money from workers by force
2. Businesses are already created with that money
3. Economic activity is already stimulated because we are operating under Capitalism
4. Workers are already paid and consume more from the economy

So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism.  Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism? 

1. Nope we've been through this.  Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency. 
2,3.  The economy is not running at full steam.  There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services.  We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone. 

The usual goals of monetary policy are to achieve or maintain full employment, to achieve or maintain a high rate of economic growth

I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy. 

[TECSHARE]

So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism.  Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism?  

1. Nope we've been through this.  Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency.  
2,3.  The economy is not running at full steam.  There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services.  We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone.  

The usual goals of monetary policy are to achieve or maintain full employment, to achieve or maintain a high rate of economic growth

I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.  

That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.

Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?

1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.

2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.

A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.

4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?

[bones261]

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.  

   I actually think the old school way of workers forming unions and negotiated a deal with the "evil" capitalists gets a far better deal than government mandated minimum wages, etc. I also don't think government inspired wealth redistribution inspires healthy innovation. Many nouveau riche deserve to be rich and some of their contributions are so good, they should be able to ensure that their descendants get some advantages too.

[coins4commies]

So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism.  Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism?  

1. Nope we've been through this.  Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency.  
2,3.  The economy is not running at full steam.  There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services.  We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone.  

The usual goals of monetary policy are to achieve or maintain full employment, to achieve or maintain a high rate of economic growth

I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.  

That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.

Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?

1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.

2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.

A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.

4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?

There are many types of socialism.  These systems lie on a spectrum which harkens back to your giant blind spot on the political compass.  Even amongst socialists, there are many means to many ends.  

Workplace democracy is the form of socialism I have been arguing for all along.  You've been dying to get back to a semantic argument of how you define socialism but I refused to continue.  You're still going to have to be consistent.  No one wants a system like the Soviet union.  Every socialist I have ever met wants democratic socialism.  Please point me to one who wants totalitarianism.   You can't have it both ways to say that "my ideology" has killed millions of people then say the success of Marcora law and workplace democracy is not my ideology.  

1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.  

2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about.

4. Could be a chicken egg thing.  Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money.  

Simplisitic example:

-Unemployed shoe workers start shoe cooperative and make money selling shoes, pay taxes.

then

-Said workers buy bikes with their extra money, expanding the bike market

then

-More workers start a bike cooperative to help meet increased bike demand

then

-All of these new bike workers buy shoes.....GDP increases

This process doesn't continue forever. Cooperatives are only improved in areas where resources are idle and there is need.  If all aluminum was already in the economy, a business plan for aluminum bikes would not be funded.  

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.  

   I actually think the old school way of workers forming unions and negotiated a deal with the "evil" capitalists gets a far better deal than government mandated minimum wages, etc. I also don't think government inspired wealth redistribution inspires healthy innovation. Many nouveau riche deserve to be rich and some of their contributions are so good, they should be able to ensure that their descendants get some advantages too.

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

[TECSHARE]

There are many types of socialism.  These systems lie on a spectrum which harkens back to your giant blind spot on the political compass.  Even amongst socialists, there are many means to many ends.  

Workplace democracy is the form of socialism I have been arguing for all along.  You've been dying to get back to a semantic argument of how you define socialism but I refused to continue.  You're still going to have to be consistent.  No one wants a system like the Soviet union.  Every socialist I have ever met wants democratic socialism.  Please point me to one who wants totalitarianism.   You can't have it both ways to say that "my ideology" has killed millions of people then say the success of Marcora law and workplace democracy is not my ideology.  

1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.  

2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about.

4. Could be a chicken egg thing.  Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money.  

Simplisitic example:

-Unemployed shoe workers start shoe cooperative and make money selling shoes, pay taxes.

then

-Said workers buy bikes with their extra money, expanding the bike market

then

-More workers start a bike cooperative to help meet increased bike demand

then

-All of these new bike workers buy shoes.....GDP increases

This process doesn't continue forever. Cooperatives are only improved in areas where resources are idle and there is need.  If all aluminum was already in the economy, a business plan for aluminum bikes would not be funded.  

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?


"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.

[bones261]

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.  

   I actually think the old school way of workers forming unions and negotiated a deal with the "evil" capitalists gets a far better deal than government mandated minimum wages, etc. I also don't think government inspired wealth redistribution inspires healthy innovation. Many nouveau riche deserve to be rich and some of their contributions are so good, they should be able to ensure that their descendants get some advantages too.

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

If the family is multiplying, the resources become diluted among the individuals. If they indeed are consuming at a high rate and contributing nothing, the resources are likely to be squandered in short order.

[coins4commies]

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

Its a visual aid that is specifically relevant to showing you that our ideology is further from totalitarianism than the status quo current day.  If I say I am moving to Florida and the entirety of your argument "against" that idea is why I shouldn't move to California, showing you a map might be the best place to start. 

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that.  In fact, workers owned less in those societies than they do in the capitalist societies we have today.  Naming two things the same doesn't make them the same. 

Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?

The problem is your argument is that moving further away from it will cause it.  Democracy is decentralization of power. You haven't explained how decentralizing power would lead to centralization of power. 

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?

Its a fact of math for currencies with finite value like a gold standard.  The US dollar does not have a static total value and that value is derived from the strength of the US economy.  Money holders who would feel like inflation robbed them aren't wise because who would walk into a situation where people are being robbed and stay there.  Purchasing power has been on the decline and the economy is stronger.

"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

Are you claiming that the economy is running at full capacity?  4% of the country is just sitting on their hands because there is no work.  That is idle resources.  You should take a trip to the rust built.  GM just announced they are laying off 15% of its employees and closing 3 plants.  All that capital that was stolen from American workers will be sent overseas.  Everytime something like this happens, there are idle resources. Grocery stores are an easy example.   Capitalism will never allow full employment because at that point, the tables are turned and people are no longer coerced to taking a bad job.   

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!

Another nice straw man.

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.

I was talking about rich heirs!

Most people enjoy the fruits of some of the labor.  The fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value) only go to the 1%.  People would have much more quality of life without the fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value).  They would be able to keep most of the value they produced.  Apple profits 400,000 per employee per year but the average employee salary (before profit) is only 28,000-178,000.   What quality of life would these same people have if they controled the labor value they actually worked to produce?

[af_newbie]

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

Its a visual aid that is specifically relevant to showing you that our ideology is further from totalitarianism than the status quo current day.  If I say I am moving to Florida and the entirety of your argument "against" that idea is why I shouldn't move to California, showing you a map might be the best place to start.  

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that.  In fact, workers owned less in those societies than they do in the capitalist societies we have today.  Naming two things the same doesn't make them the same.  

Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?

The problem is your argument is that moving further away from it will cause it.  Democracy is decentralization of power. You haven't explained how decentralizing power would lead to centralization of power.  

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?

Its a fact of math for currencies with finite value like a gold standard.  The US dollar does not have a static total value and that value is derived from the strength of the US economy.  Money holders who would feel like inflation robbed them aren't wise because who would walk into a situation where people are being robbed and stay there.  Purchasing power has been on the decline and the economy is stronger.

"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

Are you claiming that the economy is running at full capacity?  4% of the country is just sitting on their hands because there is no work.  That is idle resources.  You should take a trip to the rust built.  GM just announced they are laying off 15% of its employees and closing 3 plants.  All that capital that was stolen from American workers will be sent overseas.  Everytime something like this happens, there are idle resources. Grocery stores are an easy example.   Capitalism will never allow full employment because at that point, the tables are turned and people are no longer coerced to taking a bad job.  

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!

Another nice straw man.

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.

I was talking about rich heirs!

Most people enjoy the fruits of some of the labor.  The fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value) only go to the 1%.  People would have much more quality of life without the fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value).  They would be able to keep most of the value they produced.  Apple profits 400,000 per employee per year but the average employee salary (before profit) is only 28,000-178,000.   What quality of life would these same people have if they controled the labor value they actually worked to produce?

Stolen?  Are you sure?

You are completely ignoring the cost of capital and the initiatives and the entrepreneurship of the capitalists.  

BTW, nobody is stealing anything from workers.  Workers work willingly.  

Who is taking the risk?  Capitalists or workers?

The risk in any venture is correlated with the potential ROI.  What do workers risk?  Not being bored at work?

Why do you think the Apple employees deserve the 400k/year?  Who risked their capital?  Apple employees or the capitalists who own the company?

Do you want to benefit from Apple success?  Buy the APPL stock.

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

[BADecker]

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

That's the point. Legal and lawful are two different things. Lawfully you don't have to pay taxes that you have to pay legally. How can this be? If it's your property, nobody can legally take it from you until they lawfully give you something in return. Prove that you received anything from government in return. Taxes are unlawful, even though they might be legal.

[coins4commies]

Stolen?  Are you sure?

You are completely ignoring the cost of capital and the initiatives and the entrepreneurship of the capitalists.  

BTW, nobody is stealing anything from workers.  Workers work willingly.  

Who is taking the risk?  Capitalists or workers?

The risk in any venture is correlated with the potential ROI.  What do workers risk?  Not being bored at work?

Why do you think the Apple employees deserve the 400k/year?  Who risked their capital?  Apple employees or the capitalists who own the company?

Do you want to benefit from Apple success?  Buy the APPL stock.

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

Capitalists take much more than the cost of capital.  If they only took the cost of capital, that would be fair and no one would be complaining.  Its misleading to say workers choose to work for capitalists, they work or starve.  That is coercion.  This is why homelessness and poverty are necessary for sustaining capitalism.  If you ended them, there wouldn't be a viable threat to coerce people into accepting these predatory work agreements.   This is why there is so much slander of anything remotely socialist.  Any policy that might help people take control of their lives (funds for welfare, education, healthcare or starting your own business) is an existential threat to capitalism as we know it.

I'm glad you brought up risk because capitalists don't really risk much at all.  They risk not making as much money as they could have made elsewhere.  Thats it.  Meanwhile, workers risk everything.  They risk their life.  If a machine blows up, capitalists aren't going to lose a finger, an arm, or their lives.  Capitalists aren't going to develop cancer because of the conditions in their factories.  Capitalists aren't going to fall to their death at work.  It is workers who risk the most.  

If apple workers paid the company for the capital and kept the phones, they would be arrested.Workers have no control.  They live under dictatorship of the capitalist above them.  

A worker cannot decide to work in a different way because the current way is a bit too dangerous.  A worker cannot decide to stay home when they feel like it. Their only decision is which capitalist they will work for.  

The bold quote is very out of touch for most of the working class.  This is something true for people born into the capitalist class.  Working class people cannot afford to stop working.   They cannot afford expensive graduate tuition and they certainly do not have the capital to start their own company or they wouldn't be working class, they'd be capitalist class.  

It may be true to say that anyone could become capitalist class but capitalism requires most people to be working class.

[TECSHARE]

Stolen?  Are you sure?

You are completely ignoring the cost of capital and the initiatives and the entrepreneurship of the capitalists.  

BTW, nobody is stealing anything from workers.  Workers work willingly.  

Who is taking the risk?  Capitalists or workers?

The risk in any venture is correlated with the potential ROI.  What do workers risk?  Not being bored at work?

Why do you think the Apple employees deserve the 400k/year?  Who risked their capital?  Apple employees or the capitalists who own the company?

Do you want to benefit from Apple success?  Buy the APPL stock.

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

Capitalists take much more than the cost of capital.  If they only took the cost of capital, that would be fair and no one would be complaining.  Its misleading to say workers choose to work for capitalists, they work or starve.  That is coercion.  This is why homelessness and poverty are necessary for sustaining capitalism.  If you ended them, there wouldn't be a viable threat to coerce people into accepting these predatory work agreements.   This is why there is so much slander of anything remotely socialist.  Any policy that might help people take control of their lives (funds for welfare, education, healthcare or starting your own business) is an existential threat to capitalism as we know it.

I'm glad you brought up risk because capitalists don't really risk much at all.  They risk not making as much money as they could have made elsewhere.  Thats it.  Meanwhile, workers risk everything.  They risk their life.  If a machine blows up, capitalists aren't going to lose a finger, an arm, or their lives.  Capitalists aren't going to develop cancer because of the conditions in their factories.  Capitalists aren't going to fall to their death at work.  It is workers who risk the most.  

If apple workers paid the company for the capital and kept the phones, they would be arrested.Workers have no control.  They live under dictatorship of the capitalist above them.  

A worker cannot decide to work in a different way because the current way is a bit too dangerous.  A worker cannot decide to stay home when they feel like it. Their only decision is which capitalist they will work for.  

The bold quote is very out of touch for most of the working class.  This is something true for people born into the capitalist class.  Working class people cannot afford to stop working.   They cannot afford expensive graduate tuition and they certainly do not have the capital to start their own company or they wouldn't be working class, they'd be capitalist class.  

It may be true to say that anyone could become capitalist class but capitalism requires most people to be working class.

So it is only fair if people don't make a profit is what you are saying? Of course you are the one who gets to determine the appropriate amount of profit if it is even allowed right? What is the motive to take the risk tying up your resources if there is no profit? No one would be complaining? I highly doubt that.

You drop a naked man in the middle of a forest and he either works or he starves. The world doesn't owe people a living, and Capitalism did not invent this situation. Which would you rather lose? A finger or all your profit from 20 years of labor? A lot of people would chose a finger.

You act as if "Capitalists" waved a magic wand and made these people rich, as if they didn't work or provide value to the economy to earn it. So now you think you can take that same magic wand and just make everyone rich. If everyone gets the same then exceptional people have no motive to work exceptionally hard to create all the great things we enjoy, you know like more food than we know what to do with for example.

I don't know what you are rambling about here but most jobs in modern nations have quite strict safety regulations. People do have a choice to choose a more dangerous job and be compensated more for that risk, or choose a safer job that pays less. Also who ever heard of grants or scholarships right? Or educational loans, I mean that is clearly an evil Capitalist invention.

[TECSHARE]

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

Its a visual aid that is specifically relevant to showing you that our ideology is further from totalitarianism than the status quo current day.  If I say I am moving to Florida and the entirety of your argument "against" that idea is why I shouldn't move to California, showing you a map might be the best place to start. 

Except Florida and California are real places. Socialism is a concept. You showing me a subjective picture about a subjective topic that exists only within your mind is not proof of its efficacy. In fact it is not even an argument, it is just you repeating your pathological need to always play the role of the educator, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant and in need of your benevolence graced upon them via your superior knowledge. It is a stale shtick and you are essentially a walking appeal to authority.

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that.  In fact, workers owned less in those societies than they do in the capitalist societies we have today.  Naming two things the same doesn't make them the same. 

Your definition of Socialism is constantly shifting depending on how little of an argument you have at the time to support it. You can define Socialism as a can of smashed assholes, you still don't explain how that can comes into reality, or how the workers "own the means of production" without stealing the property and rights of others. All of the failures I have mentioned involved people just like you spouting about how they were going to return the means of production back to the workers. Saying it is not the same as doing it.

Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?

The problem is your argument is that moving further away from it will cause it.  Democracy is decentralization of power. You haven't explained how decentralizing power would lead to centralization of power. 

Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?

Its a fact of math for currencies with finite value like a gold standard.  The US dollar does not have a static total value and that value is derived from the strength of the US economy.  Money holders who would feel like inflation robbed them aren't wise because who would walk into a situation where people are being robbed and stay there.  Purchasing power has been on the decline and the economy is stronger.

No, it is just math, you don't get to deconstruct math out of reality too. It is a fact endless money printing will inevitably debase the buying power of a currency. There is nothing to debate there, it is a fact no matter how "strong" the economy is. Thanks for the nifty chart proving my pointing that the policies you advocate debase the buying power of the wages of workers. You want to lie to them so they can be robbed by bankers, have them dependent on these policies, and grateful for them getting handed back SOME of their own money. Banks are the primary beneficiaries of money printing.

Communism and Socialism are banker lies designed to strip our bones, and you gleefully welcome them barely understanding what you do on a superficial level while claiming the authority of an expert and educator.

"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

Are you claiming that the economy is running at full capacity?  4% of the country is just sitting on their hands because there is no work.  That is idle resources.  You should take a trip to the rust built.  GM just announced they are laying off 15% of its employees and closing 3 plants.  All that capital that was stolen from American workers will be sent overseas.  Everytime something like this happens, there are idle resources. Grocery stores are an easy example.   Capitalism will never allow full employment because at that point, the tables are turned and people are no longer coerced to taking a bad job. 

People are resources now? I thought they were workers. Which one of us is fighting for the workers again? You don't get to determine what resources are idle, the market does. Supply and demand create price signalling which tunes the supply and price of products and resources EXACTLY where they need to be to be most efficient at delivering these products. Now you want to come in and play around with this finely tuned machine that keeps us all warm, fed, and safe cause "workers should own the means of production".



  

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!

Another nice straw man.

You need to stop naming logical fallacies if you aren't even going to bother to take the time to learn to use them correctly. It is just sad... like picking up a gun and threatening to shoot as you point it at your face. I made very specific criticisms in direct response to your premise.

A straw man would be for example when you reply

"My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that."

to my statement of

"I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried."

that would be a straw man, because I point out the end result of attempting to implement your ideology and you simply say "workers owning the means of production isn't totalitarianism!". You give the appearance of arguing against my point while never even addressing it. You go ahead and keep misusing logical fallacies though if you like, I will keep showing you the real definitions with examples of you yourself demonstrating them.

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.

I was talking about rich heirs!

Most people enjoy the fruits of some of the labor.  The fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value) only go to the 1%.  People would have much more quality of life without the fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value).  They would be able to keep most of the value they produced.  Apple profits 400,000 per employee per year but the average employee salary (before profit) is only 28,000-178,000.   What quality of life would these same people have if they controled the labor value they actually worked to produce?

Oh were you? So I suppose some how magically your ideology would only effect the RIGHT people wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't indiscriminately steal wealth from people arbitrarily designated as the "1%" now would it?

What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.

[af_newbie]

Stolen?  Are you sure?

You are completely ignoring the cost of capital and the initiatives and the entrepreneurship of the capitalists.  

BTW, nobody is stealing anything from workers.  Workers work willingly.  

Who is taking the risk?  Capitalists or workers?

The risk in any venture is correlated with the potential ROI.  What do workers risk?  Not being bored at work?

Why do you think the Apple employees deserve the 400k/year?  Who risked their capital?  Apple employees or the capitalists who own the company?

Do you want to benefit from Apple success?  Buy the APPL stock.

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

Capitalists take much more than the cost of capital.  If they only took the cost of capital, that would be fair and no one would be complaining.  Its misleading to say workers choose to work for capitalists, they work or starve.  That is coercion.  This is why homelessness and poverty are necessary for sustaining capitalism.  If you ended them, there wouldn't be a viable threat to coerce people into accepting these predatory work agreements.   This is why there is so much slander of anything remotely socialist.  Any policy that might help people take control of their lives (funds for welfare, education, healthcare or starting your own business) is an existential threat to capitalism as we know it.

I'm glad you brought up risk because capitalists don't really risk much at all.  They risk not making as much money as they could have made elsewhere.  Thats it.  Meanwhile, workers risk everything.  They risk their life.  If a machine blows up, capitalists aren't going to lose a finger, an arm, or their lives.  Capitalists aren't going to develop cancer because of the conditions in their factories.  Capitalists aren't going to fall to their death at work.  It is workers who risk the most.  

If apple workers paid the company for the capital and kept the phones, they would be arrested.Workers have no control.  They live under dictatorship of the capitalist above them.  

A worker cannot decide to work in a different way because the current way is a bit too dangerous.  A worker cannot decide to stay home when they feel like it. Their only decision is which capitalist they will work for.  

The bold quote is very out of touch for most of the working class.  This is something true for people born into the capitalist class.  Working class people cannot afford to stop working.   They cannot afford expensive graduate tuition and they certainly do not have the capital to start their own company or they wouldn't be working class, they'd be capitalist class.  

It may be true to say that anyone could become capitalist class but capitalism requires most people to be working class.

Are we in the 1920s?  Are you sure?  Who in the western countries works because they starve?  Most work because they have mortgages, car loans, and cc debt and no income-generating investments.  Food is cheap and abundant.

There are so many opportunities in the capitalist societies that is just not funny anymore.  

BTW, any worker can become capitalist.  There is no law that says if you are born poor you must die poor.  This is not 1300s England.

People stay poor because of their inability to understand the system, or simply they stay poor by choice.

Who says that the working class has to move up to the 1%? The education system is designed to produce workers, managers, and future leaders.  Only a small percentage of people born in the working-class families can improve their socio-economic status.  Why?  Because of the IQ distribution.  You have heard of scholarships, haven't you?  Score perfect on SATs and you are guaranteed free education in the US.

The system works well with nature.  IQ distributions are natural.  So is the system.  Is it cruel?  Sure, so is nature.

[DireWolfM14]

Who says that the working class has to move up to the 1%?

I don't think that's what communists and socialist want.  They want the 1% notched down to the 100%.

It's a combination of ignorance, jealousy, greed, laziness, and incompetence.  Since they are completely incapable of reaching the 1%, then nobody should.

[Spendulus]

Who says that the working class has to move up to the 1%?

I don't think that's what communists and socialist want.  They want the 1% notched down to the 100%.

It's a combination of ignorance, jealousy, greed, laziness, and incompetence.  Since they are completely incapable of reaching the 1%, then nobody should.

In the real world, nothing is like what wanna be communists claim.

It's even okay to be rich in Cuba today.

[BADecker]

Capitalism is similar to using your private property to gain more private property.

Bad capitalism is when some people use their private property to steal the private property from other people. Often this is done through embezzlement.

Socialism is when capitalistic private property owners voluntarily use some of their private property to help the less fortunate.

Bad socialism is when socialists suggest that they are going to use private property donated to them to help the less fortunate. Then they use it for their own capitalist activities instead.

[DireWolfM14]

Capitalism is similar to using your private property to gain more private property.

Jealous much?

Bad capitalism is when some people use their private property to steal the private property from other people. Often this is done through embezzlement.

That's why there are laws against that...

Socialism is when capitalistic private property owners voluntarily use some of their private property to help the less fortunate.

False!  More fantasy definitions because reality doesn't suit your argument?

Bad socialism is when socialists suggest that they are going to use private property donated to them to help the less fortunate. Then they use it for their own capitalist activities instead.

Lifting your head out of the sand, just long enough for your eyes to adjust? 

[BADecker]

Capitalism is similar to using your private property to gain more private property.

Jealous much?

Bad capitalism is when some people use their private property to steal the private property from other people. Often this is done through embezzlement.

That's why there are laws against that...

Socialism is when capitalistic private property owners voluntarily use some of their private property to help the less fortunate.

False!  More fantasy definitions because reality doesn't suit your argument?

Bad socialism is when socialists suggest that they are going to use private property donated to them to help the less fortunate. Then they use it for their own capitalist activities instead.

Lifting your head out of the sand, just long enough for your eyes to adjust? 

Well, what I posted is what it really is about.

Having laws when they promote the things that are against proper capitalism doesn't really help anyone.

Every socialist uses capitalism in some ways. If he receives some property through his socialistic government, he uses it capitalistically in private.

Capitalism is what it is really all about. Reducing capitalism among people, except when they voluntarily agree to it, with the right to volunteer out, destroys incentive to do anything. It's part of the reason why the U.S.S.R. fell.

[coins4commies]

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

Its a visual aid that is specifically relevant to showing you that our ideology is further from totalitarianism than the status quo current day.  If I say I am moving to Florida and the entirety of your argument "against" that idea is why I shouldn't move to California, showing you a map might be the best place to start. 

Except Florida and California are real places. Socialism is a concept. You showing me a subjective picture about a subjective topic that exists only within your mind is not proof of its efficacy. In fact it is not even an argument, it is just you repeating your pathological need to always play the role of the educator, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant and in need of your benevolence graced upon them via your superior knowledge. It is a stale shtick and you are essentially a walking appeal to authority.

Florida and California are political constructs superimposed over actual native nations.  Its all subjective which is why a political map is important for showing you which specific location on Earth I am talking about.  Even if we call them different things, the map specifies where we are referring to.   

The same can be said about the compass.  Regardless of what you call different points on the map, I, and everyone else in these threads is quite far away from the ideology you constantly refer to.   The compass solves the problem of semantics.  Reasonable critics may argue its not completely accurate, a bit skewed, or unnecessary, but only a person who prefers a semantic debate would refuse to acknowledge the existence of 4 quadrants of political ideology.

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that.  In fact, workers owned less in those societies than they do in the capitalist societies we have today.  Naming two things the same doesn't make them the same. 

Your definition of Socialism is constantly shifting depending on how little of an argument you have at the time to support it. You can define Socialism as a can of smashed assholes, you still don't explain how that can comes into reality, or how the workers "own the means of production" without stealing the property and rights of others. All of the failures I have mentioned involved people just like you spouting about how they were going to return the means of production back to the workers. Saying it is not the same as doing it.

The only argument you've made about it being "stealing the property of rights of others" is that printing money does that which is already standard procedure. 

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?

Its a fact of math for currencies with finite value like a gold standard.  The US dollar does not have a static total value and that value is derived from the strength of the US economy.  Money holders who would feel like inflation robbed them aren't wise because who would walk into a situation where people are being robbed and stay there.  Purchasing power has been on the decline and the economy is stronger.

No, it is just math, you don't get to deconstruct math out of reality too. It is a fact endless money printing will inevitably debase the buying power of a currency. There is nothing to debate there, it is a fact no matter how "strong" the economy is. Thanks for the nifty chart proving my pointing that the policies you advocate debase the buying power of the wages of workers. You want to lie to them so they can be robbed by bankers, have them dependent on these policies, and grateful for them getting handed back SOME of their own money. Banks are the primary beneficiaries of money printing.

Who said anything about "endless money printing".  This is a very specific policy used in a very specific way.  Money loses some of its value when you grow the economy but where do you think the value of the dollar comes from?  What has happened to the value of the dollar over the last 50 years?  What is so bad about that?

"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

Are you claiming that the economy is running at full capacity?  4% of the country is just sitting on their hands because there is no work.  That is idle resources.  You should take a trip to the rust built.  GM just announced they are laying off 15% of its employees and closing 3 plants.  All that capital that was stolen from American workers will be sent overseas.  Everytime something like this happens, there are idle resources. Grocery stores are an easy example.   Capitalism will never allow full employment because at that point, the tables are turned and people are no longer coerced to taking a bad job. 

People are resources now? I thought they were workers. Which one of us is fighting for the workers again? You don't get to determine what resources are idle, the market does. Supply and demand create price signalling which tunes the supply and price of products and resources EXACTLY where they need to be to be most efficient at delivering these products. Now you want to come in and play around with this finely tuned machine that keeps us all warm, fed, and safe cause "workers should own the means of production".

Have you never heard of HR?   Supply and demand being used on humans is what makes capitalism such a moral quandry. Capitalists need to reduce costs to stay competitive in the market so they keep wages as low as possible and terminate jobs that extract less profit.  Market forces means jobs chase poverty.  This is why GM is moving their plants overseas. 


  

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!

Another nice straw man.

You need to stop naming logical fallacies if you aren't even going to bother to take the time to learn to use them correctly. It is just sad... like picking up a gun and threatening to shoot as you point it at your face. I made very specific criticisms in direct response to your premise.

A straw man would be for example when you reply

"My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that."

to my statement of

"I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried."

that would be a straw man, because I point out the end result of attempting to implement your ideology and you simply say "workers owning the means of production isn't totalitarianism!". You give the appearance of arguing against my point while never even addressing it. You go ahead and keep misusing logical fallacies though if you like, I will keep showing you the real definitions with examples of you yourself demonstrating them.

No one said "burning through resources" was "automatically better".   That was the straw man because the argument was about creating companies in areas of need with workers who are unemployed to fill in the gaps of the economy capitalism cannot address.   

Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.

ok I'm glad we have finally established that it is democracy you are against. 

What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.

The idea I have laid out have been done and do not strip any rights.  You haven't mentioned any rights that would be stripped but have only repeated that statement.  Its almost as if you have operant talking points that were crafted by someone else against something else.