Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Nicolas Dorier]

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I made up that, that's why I said luckily we are not at this point yet.
But this is what happens in other industries sadly.

When we examine the root cause of what caused any need for a subsidy, we often find another regulation. (be it price regulation, wage, or any other commodity)
Then it becomes like a license : you can then do business in the industry only if you can get the subsidy that make it profitable, which is at the good will of the bureaucrates and politicians.

[twiifm]

In the socialist mindset, they would say Mc Donald exploits low skilled people, and union would coerce Mc Donald to raise wages.
Diminishing the number of low skill people that would be employed, and the price of hamburger would raise, and consequently their demand drops. (Luckily we are not at this point yet)
Then they would pass a bill so they can give subsidy to Mc Donald for their loss... But that would be advertised the "Food for everyone campaign".
Strings are in place, making everybody, customers ,employees, employers dependent of government for no added value.
Do you want to compete now ? yes just beg for the mandatory subsidy of gov to be economically profitable because of these artificially raised wages.

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I briefly worked in a hardware store. I was on the public teat, as described in the post above. The state sent us there to work as free labor (from the perspective of the store). There was a huge turnover but no shortage of people to send so they just kept replacing us every few months and in doing so saved maybe 4-6 job positions they would otherwise have had to pay for. It's no different from if the state had given them a bag of money to hire those 4-6 people for, this just keeps more people busy and makes the system more convoluted so people who are not part of it can't see through it.

But would you have preferred to be unemployed?

[Ibian]

In the socialist mindset, they would say Mc Donald exploits low skilled people, and union would coerce Mc Donald to raise wages.
Diminishing the number of low skill people that would be employed, and the price of hamburger would raise, and consequently their demand drops. (Luckily we are not at this point yet)
Then they would pass a bill so they can give subsidy to Mc Donald for their loss... But that would be advertised the "Food for everyone campaign".
Strings are in place, making everybody, customers ,employees, employers dependent of government for no added value.
Do you want to compete now ? yes just beg for the mandatory subsidy of gov to be economically profitable because of these artificially raised wages.

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I briefly worked in a hardware store. I was on the public teat, as described in the post above. The state sent us there to work as free labor (from the perspective of the store). There was a huge turnover but no shortage of people to send so they just kept replacing us every few months and in doing so saved maybe 4-6 job positions they would otherwise have had to pay for. It's no different from if the state had given them a bag of money to hire those 4-6 people for, this just keeps more people busy and makes the system more convoluted so people who are not part of it can't see through it.

But would you have preferred to be unemployed?

I was. "I was on the public teat at the hardware store" means nothing when looking for actual work. It's just a way to keep people busy - at the taxpayers expense.

[twiifm]

In the socialist mindset, they would say Mc Donald exploits low skilled people, and union would coerce Mc Donald to raise wages.
Diminishing the number of low skill people that would be employed, and the price of hamburger would raise, and consequently their demand drops. (Luckily we are not at this point yet)
Then they would pass a bill so they can give subsidy to Mc Donald for their loss... But that would be advertised the "Food for everyone campaign".
Strings are in place, making everybody, customers ,employees, employers dependent of government for no added value.
Do you want to compete now ? yes just beg for the mandatory subsidy of gov to be economically profitable because of these artificially raised wages.

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I briefly worked in a hardware store. I was on the public teat, as described in the post above. The state sent us there to work as free labor (from the perspective of the store). There was a huge turnover but no shortage of people to send so they just kept replacing us every few months and in doing so saved maybe 4-6 job positions they would otherwise have had to pay for. It's no different from if the state had given them a bag of money to hire those 4-6 people for, this just keeps more people busy and makes the system more convoluted so people who are not part of it can't see through it.

But would you have preferred to be unemployed?

I was. "I was on the public teat at the hardware store" means nothing when looking for actual work. It's just a way to keep people busy - at the taxpayers expense.

I mean would you rather not be on the public teat and broke?

[Ibian]

In the socialist mindset, they would say Mc Donald exploits low skilled people, and union would coerce Mc Donald to raise wages.
Diminishing the number of low skill people that would be employed, and the price of hamburger would raise, and consequently their demand drops. (Luckily we are not at this point yet)
Then they would pass a bill so they can give subsidy to Mc Donald for their loss... But that would be advertised the "Food for everyone campaign".
Strings are in place, making everybody, customers ,employees, employers dependent of government for no added value.
Do you want to compete now ? yes just beg for the mandatory subsidy of gov to be economically profitable because of these artificially raised wages.

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I briefly worked in a hardware store. I was on the public teat, as described in the post above. The state sent us there to work as free labor (from the perspective of the store). There was a huge turnover but no shortage of people to send so they just kept replacing us every few months and in doing so saved maybe 4-6 job positions they would otherwise have had to pay for. It's no different from if the state had given them a bag of money to hire those 4-6 people for, this just keeps more people busy and makes the system more convoluted so people who are not part of it can't see through it.

But would you have preferred to be unemployed?

I was. "I was on the public teat at the hardware store" means nothing when looking for actual work. It's just a way to keep people busy - at the taxpayers expense.

I mean would you rather not be on the public teat and broke?

Without welfare the job market would be better. Those 4-6 people they don't hire now, they would have to hire if not for government subsidies in the form of free labor. That's thousands, maybe tens of thousands of extra jobs in the country. And this is a very small country.

[peeveepee]

In the socialist mindset, they would say Mc Donald exploits low skilled people, and union would coerce Mc Donald to raise wages.
Diminishing the number of low skill people that would be employed, and the price of hamburger would raise, and consequently their demand drops. (Luckily we are not at this point yet)
Then they would pass a bill so they can give subsidy to Mc Donald for their loss... But that would be advertised the "Food for everyone campaign".
Strings are in place, making everybody, customers ,employees, employers dependent of government for no added value.
Do you want to compete now ? yes just beg for the mandatory subsidy of gov to be economically profitable because of these artificially raised wages.

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I briefly worked in a hardware store. I was on the public teat, as described in the post above. The state sent us there to work as free labor (from the perspective of the store). There was a huge turnover but no shortage of people to send so they just kept replacing us every few months and in doing so saved maybe 4-6 job positions they would otherwise have had to pay for. It's no different from if the state had given them a bag of money to hire those 4-6 people for, this just keeps more people busy and makes the system more convoluted so people who are not part of it can't see through it.

But would you have preferred to be unemployed?

I was. "I was on the public teat at the hardware store" means nothing when looking for actual work. It's just a way to keep people busy - at the taxpayers expense.

I mean would you rather not be on the public teat and broke?

Without welfare the job market would be better. Those 4-6 people they don't hire now, they would have to hire if not for government subsidies in the form of free labor. That's thousands, maybe tens of thousands of extra jobs in the country. And this is a very small country.

Welfare is an indirect method to reduce crime. The cost of putting someone into prison for stealing and robbing to buy food is more expensive than just paying them a welfare check.

[Ibian]

In the socialist mindset, they would say Mc Donald exploits low skilled people, and union would coerce Mc Donald to raise wages.
Diminishing the number of low skill people that would be employed, and the price of hamburger would raise, and consequently their demand drops. (Luckily we are not at this point yet)
Then they would pass a bill so they can give subsidy to Mc Donald for their loss... But that would be advertised the "Food for everyone campaign".
Strings are in place, making everybody, customers ,employees, employers dependent of government for no added value.
Do you want to compete now ? yes just beg for the mandatory subsidy of gov to be economically profitable because of these artificially raised wages.

Are you sure about this?  Is there a Socialist country that does this, or are you making things up to serve your political agenda?

I briefly worked in a hardware store. I was on the public teat, as described in the post above. The state sent us there to work as free labor (from the perspective of the store). There was a huge turnover but no shortage of people to send so they just kept replacing us every few months and in doing so saved maybe 4-6 job positions they would otherwise have had to pay for. It's no different from if the state had given them a bag of money to hire those 4-6 people for, this just keeps more people busy and makes the system more convoluted so people who are not part of it can't see through it.

But would you have preferred to be unemployed?

I was. "I was on the public teat at the hardware store" means nothing when looking for actual work. It's just a way to keep people busy - at the taxpayers expense.

I mean would you rather not be on the public teat and broke?

Without welfare the job market would be better. Those 4-6 people they don't hire now, they would have to hire if not for government subsidies in the form of free labor. That's thousands, maybe tens of thousands of extra jobs in the country. And this is a very small country.

Welfare is an indirect method to reduce crime. The cost of putting someone into prison for stealing and robbing to buy food is more expensive than just paying them a welfare check.

And the price of that is that the fertility rate drops below sustainable levels (google it). Which is a direct path to extinction. The entire western world is, quite literally, dying.

Understand motherfucker? Indians bathe in a river filled with shit and corpses, and they are doing better on the long-term than the western world is.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Welfare is an indirect method to reduce crime. The cost of putting someone into prison for stealing and robbing to buy food is more expensive than just paying them a welfare check.

In a free market there is no unemployment.
So much people are sent in prison, not because they violated a property right, but because they exercised illegally their labor.
And when you ask yourself why it is the case, you discover that it is not because they are stupid, not because they are lazy, but because being legal is not economically viable for their case. Simple as that.

In France, for the lower class, it is dangerous to get a job because you can loose all your welfare if it is not good and you decide to stop.
So they exercise illegal activity, and with illegality, you enter a world were you can't count on the monopoly of government coercion to protect your individual rights, so here comes violence and degradation.
I won't blame them for that, it is just a matter of incentives.
Black market is developing when it is too difficult to stay on white market, and this is a world where your only protection is not government, but weapons and anonymity.

If government only goal is to protect individual property, then the development of black market is the proof of a total failure of its primary goal, Black market is not the cause of gov failure, but a consequence of it.
Black market is developed when it is too difficult and costly to be protected by the government for business and trade. Black market is an ultimate free market, but sadly without the protection of individual property by government.

Please take a look at this old video, always from Friedman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZlsR3tNI_c

[twiifm]

In a free market there is no unemployment.

This is an incredibly naive statement.  Somalia comes to mind

[Pente]

In a free market there is no unemployment.

This is an incredibly naive statement.  Somalia comes to mind

I really doubt that Somalia is a free market. Besides a better example would be a non-muslim country with little goverment interference and/or no minimum wage.

[twiifm]

In a free market there is no unemployment.

This is an incredibly naive statement.  Somalia comes to mind

I really doubt that Somalia is a free market. Besides a better example would be a non-muslim country with little goverment interference and/or no minimum wage.

Somalia has an ineffective Central Govt.  Its ran by warlords.  Very little in terms of regulations.  Just "law of the jungle"  aka his idea of free market.

BTW, My idea of free market is a regulated one, like US, EU, JP

[TaunSew]

Warlords?  What is your point again?  If you don't pay your taxes then armed men with guns will take you to prison.

[twiifm]

Warlords?  What is your point again?  If you don't pay your taxes then armed men with guns will take you to prison.

Its in context to Nicholas.  He's trying to convince me that we need an totally unregulated market to be a truly free market.  I think regulations define a free market.

I brought up Somalia as an example, hehe 

[TheGull]

I think this debate was settled in the 80s when the Soviet Union fell over (and please no one tell me China, one of the most capitalist countries in the world, is Communist). Socialism is great in theory but has not ever delivered for the people. The amazing world we have today was built on two key things: science and capitalism.

[u9y42]

I think this debate was settled in the 80s when the Soviet Union fell over (and please no one tell me China, one of the most capitalist countries in the world, is Communist). Socialism is great in theory but has not ever delivered for the people. The amazing world we have today was built on two key things: science and capitalism.

I'm not sure if the collapse of the Soviet Union answers any of this - I mean, to what extent was it actually socialist, aside from in name? Sure, it had a few socialist traits, but wouldn't state capitalism better describe it?

[TaunSew]

There's no such thing as a "socialist traits" with a plural S.  Socialism if we break it down is just the idea that workers control capital.  The Soviet Union was state capitalist as everything was a government industry and you as a worker had no control over anything, unless you were one of the bureaucrats.

The most pure form of socialism would likely be Syndicalism (where committees and unions, often direct democracy, control capital) and Syndicalism only occurred once in history in Bracelona during the civil war in Spain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

[Nicolas Dorier]

This is an incredibly naive statement.  Somalia comes to mind

You have to examine the reason why such unemployment rate is going.
As long as there is need for good, and men able to produce them there will be full employment.
So the real question is : why there is no need of good ?

And then you discover that basic necessities are provided by foreign aid, instead of letting people of the country provide it.
Aids kill local economies, by removing any demand for necessities.

I am not inventing it http://somalilandpress.com/somalia-and-foreign-aid-a-love-affair-48901
Typical example of altruist behaviors for humanity self destruction in motion.
From the Somalian perspective, the self-interest principle says that he should not refuse it, but this makes terrible long term consequences.

The fault is altruist behavior. Not Somalian for not refusing the help.

This is a law of nature that supplies and demands always reach equilibrium.
The equilibrium is not reached immediately, but if a market stays imbalanced for long time then it means there is always a conscious force manipulating demand or supply on one way or the other.
Imbalance can happen on the short term with free market mostly due to technology shift. But soon it stabilizes, it is never on long term, if it is, then something is preventing free market from happening.

The basic trade of labor in poor countries is about necessities. Labor against Necessities.

I don't have to ask why there is too much labor, because increasing population should increase demands proportionally.
So the only question I asked to google was about "somalia international aid".

If you want to help Somalia, don't send them food, but teach them to trade with each other.

[wealthy$]

capitalism is nothing all we need is good government, that all.

[Nicolas Dorier]

capitalism is nothing all we need is good government, that all.

Libertarian also wants a good government, the problems lies to the question : what is a good government ?
The libertarian says, the good government just enforces property rights.
The socialist says, the government must take care of people and protect them from businesses.
What do you say ?

Two quotes of Friedman

"A system which depends on the right man is a bad system"

"We will not solve our problem by electing the right people. We will only solve our problems by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing"

[cbeast]

capitalism is nothing all we need is good government, that all.

Libertarian also wants a good government, the problems lies to the question : what is a good government ?
The libertarian says, the good government just enforces property rights.
The socialist says, the government must take care of people and protect them from businesses.
What do you say ?

Two quotes of Friedman

"A system which depends on the right man is a bad system"

"We will not solve our problem by electing the right people. We will only solve our problems by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing"

Socialists want to see profits too. The difference is long term or short term profits. Libertarians only care about immediate profits.