This is not something Socialism does. Globalism + capitalism accomplishes this by making everyone trading partners.
So that can't happen with globalism and socialism? Socialism doesn't allow trading partners?
The Problem With Capitalism
September 23, 2016 04:06 PM
So that can't happen with globalism and socialism? Socialism doesn't allow trading partners?
6,371
September 23, 2016 04:32 PM
So then who runs the TV station/produces the show? The government? That's a recipe for disaster.
Not necessarily. The people who work at the station could own the station collectively. Why jump immediately to "the government owns everything?"
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.
In my book, driving a car and owning a house is not living like a poor person. Driving a car and owning your own residence at all makes you lower-middle class, at worst.
My views may be somewhat skewed by the fact that I live in Vancouver - a place where the average single-family separated house costs over $1 million (one bedroom apartments can cost upwards of $100,000), rental vacancies are <1%, and the living wage is $20 an hour. For perspective, the minimum wage here is $10.70 an hour. I make a typical junior programmer salary and it will take me years to save up enough for just a down-payment on an apartment, never mind a house, and for now I'm paying ~$1000 a month in rent. That is considered ot be on the cheap end, and the fact that my rent hasn't gone up by at least a hundred a month in the two years I've lived in this place is frankly astounding. I know people years older than me who will never be able to afford a house on their own here. Comedians joke in comedy shows about being perpetual renters, and the response is typically a chorus of agreement. If you got into the housing market less than 20 years ago, and you own a house here, you are NOT living like a poor person no matter how frugally you live.
The usual response we get when we describe this to outsiders is, "why don't you move somewhere else?" To which I answer... where? This is where the jobs are in these parts. And it's only going to get worse, as folks from Alberta flood the place looking for jobs after the oil crash.
You want to see what unrestrained capitalism as applied to property looks like? I just described it. Not pretty, is it?
For the past few months I've been looking into houses to buy and rent out.
I would point out that by owning multiple houses and renting them out, you're taking away somebody else's opportunity to own the extra houses - and purely for your own profit. That doesn't seem fair - you're potentially shutting some people out of the market to milk them for their wealth. That being said, I'm not entirely opposed to this, if the circumstances are right for it - like in places where the rental supply is really low, like where I live. But still - mine is a city that is practically the face of unrestricted real-estate speculation and house flipping to the detriment of people who actually live and work here, so I get kind of grumpy when I see people casually talking about taking advantage of that kind of thing.
202
September 23, 2016 05:10 PM
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/681014-the-problem-with-capitalism/?view=findpost&p=5312076
conquestor3, replied:
Employment supply/demand... As more are out of jobs wages fall fast.
In such an event:
Do company profits fall fast?
Do CEO salary/bonuses fall fast?
No.
Workers owe it to themselves to have contracts that look out for their best interests. How often, though, do people make this a priority or even think about in great detail before joining the workforce? Unfortunately you are right. When unemployment is too high, desperate people will offer to work for less pay, but then have the nerve to complain about being poor (Hah!).
1,592
September 23, 2016 06:44 PM
So that can't happen with globalism and socialism? Socialism doesn't allow trading partners?
Not as easilly. A government has less incentive to get the best deals/trade for niche commidities compared to a free market.
The people who work at the station could own the station collectively
Like a share... They can own a share of it. Like a ... corporation or something? :P
In my book, driving a car and owning a house is not living like a poor person. Driving a car and owning your own residence at all makes you lower-middle class, at worst.
This is a screenshot of my bank account around that time.
The rightmost column is my total bank account worth, the column to the left is a transaction ammount.
I ran out of money. Legit. My girlfriend and I weren't able to buy groceries, so I mowed a lawn for $50 to afford dinner, and sold my car (My auto insurance was killing me, that's the $300 transaction).
I said I grew up poor and I meant it, I've lived with $0-$30 in my bank account for the majority of my life, and my parents have spent 30~ years of their life in that condition as well.
I was paying $600 in rent for a 900 square foot apartment shared with 4 people. Seriously, how did my girlfriend (now fiance) love me enough to stick through that crap?
Capitalism saved my quality of life. I was able to show companies my programming skills and some took note, thought I'd add plenty of value, and hired me. My first week working I actually had to work from home because I didn't have any money to renew my bus pass.
I would point out that by owning multiple houses and renting them out, you're taking away somebody else's opportunity to own the extra houses
It adds value in liquidity of living arrangements. People who rent houses may only want to rent for a few months, or may want to be able to leave on a whim. That's why they'll pay above-mortgage prices to rent. It's a fair trade. I provide the house, they provide a premium on the house. I have to pay the mortgage whether or not someone's renting.
September 23, 2016 06:53 PM
Like a share... They can own a share of it. Like a ... corporation or something? :P
Except they have to actually work there :D
2,315
September 23, 2016 10:37 PM
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!.
I understand your point and what you are trying to get at. Leaving personal housing aside, let's talk about corporations/oil wells/etc. If they aren't owned and/or controlled by a person, then does nobody own it or does everybody own it? Who makes the big decisions then? Who takes responsibility when something doesn't work or when something does work? What happens to the wealth generated by the corporation?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just want to make sure you don't feel like I'm being excessively harsh or something.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
3,017
September 23, 2016 11:47 PM
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!.
I understand your point and what you are trying to get at. Leaving personal housing aside, let's talk about corporations/oil wells/etc. If they aren't owned and/or controlled by a person, then does nobody own it or does everybody own it? Who makes the big decisions then? Who takes responsibility when something doesn't work or when something does work? What happens to the wealth generated by the corporation?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just want to make sure you don't feel like I'm being excessively harsh or something.
Come on man, do you really think those aren't questions socialists of any stripe haven't toiled with for decades, and even disagreed about the answers with themselves?
There's a wealth of material out there, if you're so interested about what socialism or marxism says you can read it yourself and make up your mind. I'm hardly an expert on the theory myself, just have a rudimentary grasp on it based on things I've read so far, which you can read too if you're so inclined.
Here, I'll get you started:
https://www.marxists.org/
https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm
It'll be better for you to read them, if those are genuine questions you have, than me just posting some bad rehash of those things. If nothing else, it will be a history/philosophy lesson, whether you agree with marxism/socialism or not, it played a pretty big role in the 20th century.
1,592
September 23, 2016 11:57 PM
Figures a marxist website would hotlink an image with no credit
https://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
http://www.library.northwestern.edu/spec/siege/images/par00819.jpg
Hotlink redirected to http://www.library.northwestern.edu/libraries-collections/index.html
:P
Marxism was an existential threat to society in the 19th century, responsible for most of the century's strife/war.
It's only not a threat now because countries that followed Marxist principles imploded.
3,017
September 24, 2016 12:02 AM
Hey, he asked a question(about what socialists think), I directed him where the answers are. If you don't care, don't read it :)
I can also accuse capitalism of being responsible for the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade(but "greed is good", right?), 2 World Wars and a hundred smaller ones, environmental destruction that is *still* not addressed as it should because corporations' interests always get in the way(but "greed is good", right?), and hundreds of million of children not even having clean water and million others toiling away in sweatshops to make our nice clothes and gadgets. But okay, since it personally "saved your life" and gave you the chance to buy a second house, all is forgiven and there's no reason for us to even question it or try to imagine a successor system.
I can also accuse capitalism of being responsible for the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade(but "greed is good", right?), 2 World Wars and a hundred smaller ones, environmental destruction that is *still* not addressed as it should because corporations' interests always get in the way(but "greed is good", right?), and hundreds of million of children not even having clean water and million others toiling away in sweatshops to make our nice clothes and gadgets. But okay, since it personally "saved your life" and gave you the chance to buy a second house, all is forgiven and there's no reason for us to even question it or try to imagine a successor system.
1,592
September 24, 2016 12:10 AM
Hey, he asked a question(about what socialists think), I directed him where the answers are. :)
I can also accuse capitalism of being responsible for 2 World Wars and a hundred smaller ones, environmental destruction that is *still* not addressed as it should because corporations' interests always get in the way(but "greed is good", right?), and hundreds of million of children not even having clean water. But okay, since it personally "saved your life" and gave you the chance to buy a second house, all is forgiven and there's no reason for us to even question it or try to imagine a successor system.
Have Marxist states done better? They've caused more death/environmental damage (China). I guess you don't need to worry about children not having clean water when they're indentured for crimes their parents committed, right?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
