mikeman, no offense, but you really are starting to sound as if you have something against people treating themselves to stuff if they have the money for it. You and only you claim that it's somehow wrong because there are other people suffering. I agree with conquestor3, it sounds like you want to ban entertainment altogether.

Ugh, this is so what I'm not saying. "Ban entertainment"? Seriously? I'm a videogame developer! I'm simply arguing from the perspective of a socialist, that's all. This is a thread called "the problem with capitalism", right? :P

I mean, I pointed out a minor example of excessive decadence of rich kids partying(don't tell me spraying champagne is not such an example and it's just "fun"; the "guns" are not for drinking it; its only purpose is to show how much money you've got to waste; you might as well take out 100-dollar bills and burn them and call it "fun") just to drive my point home, and you guys got "you want to ban enternainment" from that? Geez! Did I phrase it *that* wrong? I don't think so!

But again, we come to the same point of "people treating themselves to stuff if they have the money for it". Depends on what "stuff". Socialists don't believe any one individual shouldn't be able to hold large private property(not personal property, like your house, your car, your HDTV, your XBox, your movie and CD collection). So, yes, of course I'm not for "banning entertainment" if by entertainment we mean books, music, films, theatre, videogames, having fun with friends. What the hell! Now, if the "things they treat themselves with" are huge mansions, private islands and private jets, yes, I'm for banning those; that is, organize society in such a way so nobody is permitted to own such big property, for the sole reason that it can be put to much better use than one(or few) person's indulgences.

So you're against extravagance. How does one ban extravagance or regulate it? I mean how do you determine what's extravagant and what isn't? One can easily argue that an Xbox One is extravagant if you look at it from the right perspective. Extravagance will always exist, it's just a matter of perspective. There's no such thing as universally extravagant. To someone who doesn't have very much, even driving a car may seem extravagant. To other people, they may have the means but feel that a larger car than the one they own is extravagant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_versus_private_property

In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist, and most anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important.

This cannot be stressed enough. The old cry "property is theft!" refers to the ownership of the "means of productions". *Not* to your personal belongings, used to satisfy your personal needs. The distinction between owning a TV or a radio or a car or a CD or a photo collection and owning a factory or a large piece of land is one that socialism absolutely makes, but capitalism just lumps them all under "private property". If I own an shiny HDTV, this is to satisfy my personal need to watch Breaking Bad. Owning the TV Station that produces Breaking Bad itself is very different, since now I've got the chance to employ people and be their boss, and accumulate capital. That's where the distinction is made.

Fact is, almost everyone has some kind of personal property. Very very few have any kind of private property to speak of. This is one very effective scare tactic where capitalists claim "communists will take your houses!". Communists never intend to abolish personal property, only private one.

Why should someone's earned wealth need to be used optimally?

This.

And moreover, who should decide how someone else's wealth is to be used? Let me guess :)

champagne guns

Right. Apart from some nouveau riche which are admittedly decadent to a sheer unbearable extent, and Formula-1 pilots, who actually spills Champagne?

Surely not the wealthy who know the value of money. That kind of thing is something the lower class does (if they get a chance). I've never seen someone who worked for his wealth do such a thing.

This is the same question as "Who will stop and bow down to pick up 10 cents?". I do, I even go down for a single cent. Which is funny because nobody else in the street seems to do it (I've seen that maybe half a dozen times in my entire life!), and I am in all likelihood more wealthy than any single one of them. Ironically, I find most of the change (about 4-5 Euros per week total) near a refugee shelter. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

It's the "poor and needy" who will drive 500 meters to the gas station in the evening to buy beer for 4x the price, and it's their wealthy capitalist pig friends asking them "Huh, are you crazy? First, this is easily within walking distance, and second... that would be the world's most expensive beer, and it isn't even good beer" (yep, another anecdote from my life).

It's the same "poor any needy" who use public transports for free being 45-year old students awaiting hopefully soon retirement, who never cook at home but instead order meals, always have the newest phone and a ton of ringtones and apps, and who always moan they can't afford anything. Sure enough they can afford playing with gotcha guns, though. And every DVD of every new movie. Fuck, your kitchen is twice the size of my entire apartment, you captialist pig. How do you do this! That's unfair (... a verbatim quote that I've gotten once).

It's the same people who forget their wallet every single time during the first half of the month when friends go to surf 'n turf, but promise to make it up next time. The next time, of course they would pay, only just there happens to be no money left on the bank during the second half of the month. But no worries, they'll pay you a beer some time. Eventually. Maybe.

It is not wages that need to be lowered, it is hours.

Some politicians seem stuck on the idea of lowering wages to increase employment. This only has the effect of forcing people to work more hours to make up for the shortage of pay while trying to cover rising expenses. The counter-argument is that higher wages won't be able to compete with A.I. automation.

So what.

Without directly benefiting from the overproduction of A.I. automation, you have no choice but to demand more money for the services you provide as the workload is divided among the workforce. But there is a problem: You are usually the last to know that the human-workload has been reduced. Although wages could remain the same while reducing working hours, competition between companies discourages employee retention. There is still yet another problem that underpins the ethical dilemma of "Employee retention" vs "Pocketing the profits" vs "Underselling competitors".

Inflation Catch 22

"Inflation, debt, profit, inflation, debt, profit..."

It's like a bad dream. You work, for 5 days (at least), you overproduce, but only have enough for 7 days. What is happening?

The economy is a giant pyramid/ponzi scheme with Central Banks right at the top. The Bank, answering to the Central Bank (independent of Government), feels it has no obligation to lower your debt if your Government lowers your wages. Just the opposite; Banks expect your wages to grow as inflation grows.

Banks are corporations that sell paper with some meaningful ink on them. What's the difference between a 1$ note and a 100$ note, except that one says "1" and the other says "100"? They can always print more, as long as they have enough paper and ink, so what made people so confident of its value? Initially, before your time, these "receipts" could be traded in for gold or silver (or copper), meaning those piles of paper were worth gold/silver/copper. So what went wrong? Well, those receipts seldom returned because they were being re-traded over and over again*. So some of these money-changers started taking risks, issuing more "receipts" than they had gold for. i.e. inflation. And so the bullshit began.

*(or got burned in the last village-pillage). :D

The Central Bank is at the top of this pyramid/ponzi scheme because it has leverage over everything. It takes a piece of the action of all Banks and issues loans to your Government for which it expects the tax-payers to repay. These days you cannot return these piles of paper to the original issuer in exchange for precious metals. It means that the money-changer has dishonoured their contract. So why do people still use this money?

I gotta say, it took balls on the part of the Federal Reserve to declare: "Fuck you. That's just paper. We don't owe you shit. But you still owe us."

But it also took cunning. Though granted, their opponent was the ignorant masses. The reasons why people kept using this money as though it was business-as-usual was because they; a) were already in too deep; b) had no convenient alternative and; c) didn't know the ****ing difference.

We've entered a catch-22 phase of the economy:

• We need higher profits because everything is more expensive,
• we get into debt because we need more money because everything is more expensive,
• more money enters the economy making everything more expensive,
• sooooo... we need higher profits because everything is more expensive...

As long as your economy operates under this system, inflation will never stop. When people asked "Who is it hurting?" my replied had evolved into "Well, obviously, nobody that you would know." People complain all the time, but they don't see the solution because they don't "see" the real problem. When Greece's economy collapsed and then Venezuela's, people weren't ready because they had no contingency plan. They still have no contingency plan.

Is there a solution?

Of course.

What is it?

Why, what's your hurry?

LOL @ samoth's "lazy poor people suck us dry!" rant. Man, do you have a warped sense of the real world or what. :P

Sure, sure, last time I went to Mykonos(a common destination for rich-and-famous) for a one-day trip, one chair on the larger part of the beach cost 70E. 70 Euros! We just sat in the sand in the small part that was free for all, of course. Yes, I'm *betting* those that rented a single chair for 70E were poor immigrants that just didn't know the value of money, saving and hard work!

(I'm sorry, but I'm imagining Samoth walking around refugee camps looking for quarters to get his 4-5E per week and I'm literalling LOLing right now). :P

Why should someone's earned wealth need to be used optimally?

This.

At the end of the day, the socialist view is it's not his "earned wealth", but has been accumulated through a system of exploitation, even if it's not apparent to those involved. We go back to the surplus value concept, which of course a capitalist(and many wannabe ones that probably won't ever get to reach that status though) won't accept and proclaim "I earned this profit, based on my contribution, not because I exploit my workers!".

But I think we at least talked about how nobody can really earn, in any way, land ownership, for example, but nevertheless the right to own land(and huge amounts of it) exists as a a man-made and man-enforced law by the current society.

So let's reverse the question : Why do *you* think someone can perform any action that allows him to say "I earned the right to own this land and its resources"? How has he "earned" it exactly? How is this land that existed even before life started is now considered his "earned wealth"? And why should society not only allow it, but offer resources(police/army/courts) in order to help him keep it?

If you say "there is no higher moral authority or rationale that says that right(large private property) should exist, it's just how we decided to organize our society in order to achieve greater economic growth and prosperity", well, there's your answer on "why" that right won't exist in socialist societies and the state won't offer resources to protect it. Because that society will have decided that this right has now become detrimental to further growth and prosperity for all, which would be its goal.

If we can at least talk inside this context, and not ask questions like "who gives you the right to take away my hard-earned mountain", we can maybe have a more focused discussion. We are talking some concepts here(like private property/inheritance of private property) and we seem to keep alternating between "it's a god-given human right that nobody should take away" and "it's a man-made right that just results in a better society and economic growth". Which one of them is it?

Assume the next government nationalizes the means of productions, by law. When you ask "why should you take away my mountain/island/mine/oil well/factory", are you saying the law is immoral because it robs you of an inalienable human right(to own a mountain/island/mine/oil well/factory), or are simply saying it's an unproductive and sub-optimal way to organise the economy and will result in less economic growth(or whatever else you think the goal should be)? Because those are 2 different arguments, though both can be used. Is it the former, the latter, or both? If it's the former though, you have to explain where exactly your "right" to own a mountain or an oil well comes from.

At the end of the day, the socialist view is it's not his "earned wealth", but has been accumulated through a system of exploitation, even if it's not apparent to those involved.

I guess this must be the reason why socialist politicians pay themselves monthly salaries of 18,000€ and a "honorary pay" upwards of 200k per year for life once they resign, even if that happens for no good reason or because they were caught with something criminal (all tax-free, of course).

It's a great step towards tax justice that they don't pay a dime, don't you think.

I guess it is also the reason why high-ranking work union representatives pay themselves such horrendous salaries (taken from the workers!) despite having a clear and present conflict of interest and despite being paid by the industry, too. I'll name as an example the head of Ver.di who, as a good socialist, takes 175k per year from his "worker comrades" and 427k in bribe, uh... I mean, supervisory board work from Lufthansa and RWE. Truly: Stand up, damned of the Earth, stand up, prisoners of starvation.

Surplus value, eh?

But I think we at least talked about how nobody can really earn, in any way, land ownership, for example, but nevertheless the right to own land(and huge amounts of it) exist as a a man-made and man-enforced law by the current society

It has been an agreement for many centuries (millenia?) that people own, and are entitled to own things, and this includes land.

Yes, you can lead a debate over how we are only visitors to this world and we do not truly possess anything, not even our lives. And in the end, we are just dust and bones, and we go to Nirwana or Krishna or whatever/whoever it is. But that esoteric stuff leads you nowhere. The world isn't like that, and people aren't like that.

It's a well-accepted fact that people own things (buy things, trade things, do things for things). It is also well-accepted that people can own land. Which means that even if they can't pick it up, they have the right to tell others to stay outside (or they can rent it, or whatever).

This is not something you will be able to change, owning land is natural. Every dog pisses on the next tree to mark its territory, do you really think we, the superior race of awesome evolved humans, are so distinctly different from this animal? If someone pricks you, do you not bleed? And if someone steals your bone, do you not growl? :)

It's a natural desire to own. Everybody wants to have something, no matter how small, and be able to say "this is mine, and mine alone". And sure, everybody wishes for his own "no trespassers" place. Why do you think most civilized nations have inviolability of the home as one of the first paragraphs in their constitution? It is exactly for that reason. Your home is sacred (note that it applies even though it may be possession, not ownership).

Yes, jealousy is also a very human trait, and although it has an ugly face, it sure is something that we will not be able to get rid off. But only because jealousy is (like greed) a natural thing, it doesn't mean we have to worship it. Greed does have its ugly aspects, but it also has positive sides. I find it hard to find a positive angle on jealousy.

Someone owns more than you do? Well, get over it. I bet there is also someone who is taller, fairer, better looking, has a prettier girlfriend, has a larger penis, is a better soccer player or a better chess player. Maybe he can play the piano, too. Geez, how I hate all these guys. They make me feel inferior. Let's kill them all!

Is that the ideal you want to worship?

The Greeks scammed me over a sunchair, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt

Wow, did you hear that? That was the world's saddest song, played on the world's smallest violin.

Look, if you decide to go to the most abusive little piece of tourist trap that you can find on one of the most well-known tourist-scam isles in the world, and someone asks 70€ for a sunchair, you have two options. You can just accept that you've been a fool for coming here in the first place, but now you're here and you still want to sit in this chair, so you pay. Or, you can go a hundred meters down the beach and sit on the sand, if you deem that sunchair a tidbit too expensive.

Even if that particularly obnoxious sunchair owner steals your wallet and your car keys, drives your car against a wall, comes back and rapes your girlfriend... how is that in any way related to the millions of people who acquire wealth through honest, ethical means every day? Such as "work" or "add value". How does it in any way justify to say that someone's house is not his house?

(Since I said "honest" means: Not like it's technically dishonest to take 70€ from a fool who is willing to pay that... but I certainly agree that it is outrageous. This is the same difference that I tried to point out earlier in the Apple example. There is a difference between what's "legal" and what's "right". This is what socialists usually get wrong when they point out how something is very much legal and good because they do things in their fucking legal constitutional-state way. But whatever it is, it is very, very rarely right in an ethical sense. Especially because usually when they play that card, they are only citing the 50% of the law that are advantageous to their ideology, and the 50% of the truth that seem to confirm their story.)

Things are the way they are because they are the way they are. It is known, Khaleesi.

Okay. :P

...


I'm just trying to understand what kind of answer you expect when you ask the (hypothetical) socialists "by what right you take my mountain/oil well and use it to feed everybody". You reject answers that it can't possibly belong to you, no matter the amount or importance of labour you exacted in your lifetime, because you didn't give birth to the liquified dinosaurs and didn't shit out the minerals beneath the mountain, because they're "esoteric". Okay, fair enough. You reject more rational-based answers like "this is a better arrangement for most" because you counter with "but we've had the previous arrangement for millennia" and also "why should I care about what is the best arrangement for most?". Well then, what is exactly the argument that will convince you? The barrel of a gun?

And don't try to confuse this with "some people are taller or smarter or prettier or more talented" please; I already made the distinction between private property and personal property(and your home that you need to live is also personal property that socialists don't want to touch), go back and read - and your body, face, and brain are most definitely the most sacred personal property. If you fear that the evil communists will demand to share your beautiful wife with them because it's not fair they don't have as pretty ones and they're jealous, don't worry, ain't gonna happen (and if some morons do understand socialism in such a way, I will fight on your side against them). :D

Can you at least acknowledge that I demonstrated that socialists make a distinction between personal and private property? I know your view is that owning the house you sleep in and owning an oil well and a mountain are basically the same thing, but can you at least acknowledge that socialists do make that distinction, and don't want in any way to touch personal property, only the means of production? Can you at least give me that?

It's about ending(or reducing) exploitation, war and poverty. It has nothing to do with "jealousy". I rather think Picasso, a known communist and member of the Communist Party until his death, would have very little reason to be jealous of you, samoth. Heck, Engels owned a factory. You think socialism and marxism, as theories, came from a petty, jealous and illiterate proletariat? No freaking way. They came from bourgeoisie apostates. Look them up, the major figures of socialism. Almost all of them! How can it be a product of "jealousy" then? What they were jealous of, Engels, a factory owner, Lenin, born in a wealthy family, Guevara, an aristocrat, Kropotkin, born a freaking prince!.

It's the "poor and needy" who will drive 500 meters to the gas station in the evening to buy beer for 4x the price, and it's their wealthy capitalist pig friends asking them "Huh, are you crazy? First, this is easily within walking distance, and second... that would be the world's most expensive beer, and it isn't even good beer" (yep, another anecdote from my life).

It's the same "poor any needy" who use public transports for free being 45-year old students awaiting hopefully soon retirement, who never cook at home but instead order meals, always have the newest phone and a ton of ringtones and apps, and who always moan they can't afford anything. Sure enough they can afford playing with gotcha guns, though. And every DVD of every new movie. Fuck, your kitchen is twice the size of my entire apartment, you captialist pig. How do you do this! That's unfair (... a verbatim quote that I've gotten once).

It's like you didn't read any of the links I posted earlier in the thread about what being poor is actually like.

It's a natural desire to own. Everybody wants to have something, no matter how small, and be able to say "this is mine, and mine alone".

Dying of pneumonia is "natural," too, yet now we can treat it. We are already subverting what's "natural" just by living in a high-technology society. Just because it's natural, does not mean that it is good - only that it is "easy."

If you really think "it's natural" is a valid excuse, then you can justify all kinds of things, and you'll have to change your lifestyle. You'll get all your food solely from hunting and gathering, wear only what you kill, and refuse all modern medicine in favour of herbs and religion. Full-on "Paleo" lifestyle. :P

It's the "poor and needy" who will drive 500 meters to the gas station in the evening to buy beer for 4x the price, and it's their wealthy capitalist pig friends asking them "Huh, are you crazy? First, this is easily within walking distance, and second... that would be the world's most expensive beer, and it isn't even good beer" (yep, another anecdote from my life).

It's the same "poor any needy" who use public transports for free being 45-year old students awaiting hopefully soon retirement, who never cook at home but instead order meals, always have the newest phone and a ton of ringtones and apps, and who always moan they can't afford anything. Sure enough they can afford playing with gotcha guns, though. And every DVD of every new movie. Fuck, your kitchen is twice the size of my entire apartment, you captialist pig. How do you do this! That's unfair (... a verbatim quote that I've gotten once).

It's like you didn't read any of the links I posted earlier in the thread about what being poor is actually like.

Nah, he knows. It's about being lazy and stupid and wasting your money and constantly being jealous of the moral, upstanding citizens that earn their paycheck and pay for your living. He knows. I mean, he saw that guy with the washing machine, and have you noticed how many refugees have iPhones?

So... All things that move the balance of power and reward away from workers and redirect it to the owners?

Yes, but they're external. The only solution to preventing those erosions are tariffs. Going to a socialist system does nothing to correct the issue.

Owning the TV Station that produces Breaking Bad itself is very different, since now I've got the chance to employ people and be their boss, and accumulate capital. That's where the distinction is made.

So then who runs the TV station/produces the show? The government? That's a recipe for disaster.

This is one very effective scare tactic where capitalists claim "communists will take your houses!". Communists never intend to abolish personal property, only private one.

And for those of us who worked to get "private property" it seems unfair. It seems like a much easier solution for people to work more productively and tailor their skills to valuable ones/save to establish investment capital.

Without directly benefiting from the overproduction of A.I. automation, you have no choice but to demand more money for the services you provide as the workload is divided among the workforce.

Employment supply/demand... As more are out of jobs wages fall fast.

So let's reverse the question : Why do *you* think someone can perform any action that allows him to say "I earned the right to own this land and its resources"? How has he "earned" it exactly? How is this land that existed even before life started is now considered his "earned wealth"? And why should society not only allow it, but offer resources(police/army/courts) in order to help him keep it?

It's a social contract. Money is power, and earned by adding value as a service or product. The social contract is that the government's willing to lease out land it gained through conquest for power (money) per year.

They have the right because they have the ability to control/protect the land, this has been the process way back since cavemen days.

When you ask "why should you take away my mountain/island/mine/oil well/factory", are you saying the law is immoral because it robs you of an inalienable human right(to own a mountain/island/mine/oil well/factory), or are simply saying it's an unproductive and sub-optimal way to organise the economy and will result in less economic growth(or whatever else you think the goal should be)? Because those are 2 different arguments, though both can be used. Is it the former, the latter, or both?

Both to an extent. While that would be legal, traditionally the government has offered values for property it seizes (eminent domain). Suddenly switching away from this with no warning would be pretty immoral, but still legal.

It's also an extremely sub-optimal way to continue production.

It's about ending(or reducing) exploitation, war and poverty.

This is not something Socialism does. Globalism + capitalism accomplishes this by making everyone trading partners.

It's like you didn't read any of the links I posted earlier in the thread about what being poor is actually like.

Most of those are wrong, really. I grew up poor and the only relevant items are having a bad school district/needing to teach myself at home, having Spaghetti/unhealthy food every night, and having parents fight all the time about money. None of which I feel crippled my life too much.

How would socialism treat me, though? I started with pretty much nothing, dropped out of highschool, got federal aid for state college, failed out of that because of untreated depression, and got a good job because I'd been programming for a while. By the time I was in my mid 20's I had an entry-C-Level job. Now I'm 29 and have a C-level job at a mid-cap company, making low 6 figure income after taxes.

But, I still "live like a poor person" in that I drive a car with 110,000 miles, have a $130,000 house, and spend as frugally as possible.

For the past few months I've been looking into houses to buy and rent out.

In a capitalist system this is looked as great, because capitalism drives profits large enough for me to do this. In a socialist system, this wouldn't be possible as profits would be much smaller.

How would someone who adds value to the economy advance themselves in a socialist economy?

I just disagree with the equality demand part of Socialism I guess.