Socialism does work

[thelerner]

Anyway, I was saying that it should be no larger than a family unit. Village elders were fine in a community of a few hundred, but there can never be total representation when a few hundred are ruling several tens of millions. Government should be cut down then totally localised.

Might work in a low tech 2nd or third world country.  But if you want technology, electricity and modern commerce you need roads, power plants, $$ commitment to education, police to protect within, and sadly an army to protect from outside. 

 

Do you have any country that'd you'd want to emulate?  Or is a place like Haiti the closest to your dream?   Little government, low taxes..

[ralis]

Might work in a low tech 2nd or third world country.  But if you want technology, electricity and modern commerce you need roads, power plants, $$ commitment to education, police to protect within, and sadly an army to protect from outside. 

 

Do you have any country that'd you'd want to emulate?  Or is a place like Haiti the closest to your dream?   Little government, low taxes..

 

Well said! Actually, Somalia has virtually no government and virtually anyone with a few guns can become a warlord.

[Karl]

No organisation at all at a macro level?

 

No need.

[Karl]

Well said! Actually, Somalia has virtually no government and virtually anyone with a few guns can become a warlord.

 

Another fallacy. Somalia is a failed state. The state is the warlord.

[Karl]

Might work in a low tech 2nd or third world country.  But if you want technology, electricity and modern commerce you need roads, power plants, $$ commitment to education, police to protect within, and sadly an army to protect from outside. 

 

Do you have any country that'd you'd want to emulate?  Or is a place like Haiti the closest to your dream?   Little government, low taxes..

 

Usual bollox. We aren't third world countries. Privatise everything.

[Karl]

It seems that he is comfortable with chaos. I suppose each unit will have it's own military?

 

We already have chaos or have you been sleeping ? There are many ways to create defence. However, the thing about defence is that it states that attack States. We only got to world wars when states became powerful enough to harness the entire population around its empire.

[ralis]

Usual bollox. We aren't third world countries. Privatise everything.

 

Then your street should be bought by a corporation and said corporation can charge a toll every time you come and go. I seriously doubt you have thought about that one.

[Karl]

Never going to happen! Dwindling resources, war, overpopulation, health issues and food shortages for many, are variables that must be considered. I presume you missed the real world which is beyond your family values ideology.

 

In your family unit, are you the supreme ruler?

The only dwindling resources are people. We have more land and natural resources than we have people to utilise it. Over population is the usual cry of the Fabian. If you think you are over populating the world then you have a choice.

 

Supreme ruler ? We have a partnership. No one is in charge.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Karl

[ralis]

The only dwindling resources are people. We have more land and natural resources than we have people to utilise it. Over population is the usual cry of the Fabian. If you think you are over populating the world then you have a choice.

 

People are a dwindling resource? Population is not dwindling, but increasing. Fossil fuel resources are on the decline unless you believe in abiotic oil pseudoscience. Top soil loss worldwide translates to lesser amounts of food crops which translates to food shortages. Drought and drinking water being polluted. Deforestation etc. There is much more, but I doubt you want your worldview disturbed

 

. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare

 

 

The vast majority -- 99.7 percent -- of human food comes from cropland, which is shrinking by more than 10 million hectares (almost 37,000 square miles) a year due to soil erosion, Pimentel reports, while more people than ever -- more than 3.7 billion people -- are malnourished.

Edited August 27, 2015 by ralis

[thelerner]

Do you have any country that'd you'd want to emulate?  Or is a place like Haiti the closest to your dream?   Little government, low taxes..

 

 

Usual bollox. We aren't third world countries. Privatise everything.

Jeez.. usual bollox of not answering my question.  Is there any country close to your ideal or like your ideal financial system it's based on fantasyland, ie doesn't exist in real life anywhere. 

 

I assume there's no country close because in the real world, it'd fail.  It doesn't exist because its a bad idea.

 

I assume you'll dodge and deflect but do you have any countries you'd like to emulate?  <& thank you for your insight that we aren't third world countries. 

 

 

<also we're probably not third world because we developed Unions that fought for and created a 40 hour work, 5 day work week and nonlethal working conditions.  Things you take for granted did not come easy.  Didn't want to mention that cause it gives you more reason not to answer my original question.

Edited August 27, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

Then your street should be bought by a corporation and said corporation can charge a toll every time you come and go. I seriously doubt you have thought about that one.

 

It already has, it's called the Government. They charge me for living in my house, they charge me for using the local roads, they charge me for having a car, motorcycle etc, they charge me for parking in my street. Then the pavements and roads are of poor quality, overcrowded and dangerous, but there is no blame to be applied to the state. I cannot choose another organisation because they have a monopoly.

[Karl]

People are a dwindling resource? Population is not dwindling, but increasing. Fossil fuel resources are on the decline unless you believe in abiotic oil pseudoscience. Top soil loss worldwide translates to lesser amounts of food crops which translates to food shortages. Drought and drinking water being polluted. Deforestation etc. There is much more, but I doubt you want your worldview disturbed

 

. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-soil-erosion-threatens-human-health-and-welfare

 

Childbirth declines in wealthier countries. Soil erosion is the fault of states that either give subsidies for growing crops in areas that are unsuitable, preventing private ownership of land, common land misuse (tragedy of the commons), growing of subsidised crops to be turned into fuel.

 

We have more oil than we know what to do with, we have oil tankers circulating the oceans with no buyers. Back in the 1800s there was spreading fear of oil shortages, but it never happened. Two things make it unlikely this will ever happen. The first is new techniques constantly allow new sources of fossil fuels to be found. Indeed, even the environmentalists have had to change tack on 'peak oil' because they realised its a myth. Secondly the market and the law of supply and demand mean that as resources become more scare/more costly to obtain the price rises. We have far, far less gold than oil, but we still mine it and the price has been falling, as has the oil price. If it reverses and begins to rise, then it means that new innovations become possible in alternative sources.

[Karl]

Jeez.. usual bollox of not answering my question. Is there any country close to your ideal or like your ideal financial system it's based on fantasyland, ie doesn't exist in real life anywhere.

 

I assume there's no country close because in the real world, it'd fail. It doesn't exist because its a bad idea.

 

I assume you'll dodge and deflect but do you have any countries you'd like to emulate? <& thank you for your insight that we aren't third world countries.

 

 

 

Stupid question. No doubt the slavers used that old argument to protect their trade.

 

We aren't third world countries, but you obviously haven't understood that if a country is going to have a lawless, warlord society then a Government won't stop it. Hence what happened in Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Columbia etc.

 

The world is full of people who said 'it could never work'. Then there are those that did it. Still, there will always be a nice North Korea or Venezuela for people that can't live without a good helping of statism.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Karl

[Apech]

he's more than slightly bonkers but he says some interesting things ...

 

[thelerner]

I assume there's no country close because in the real world, it'd fail.  It doesn't exist because its a bad idea.

 

I assume you'll dodge and deflect but do you have any countries you'd like to emulate?  <& thank you for your insight that we aren't third world countries.

 

 

 

Stupid question. No doubt the slavers used that old argument to protect their trade.

 

We aren't third world countries, but you obviously haven't understood that if a country is going to have a lawless, warlord society then a Government won't stop it. Hence what happened in Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Columbia etc.

 

The world is full of people who said 'it could never work'. Then there are those that did it. Still, there will always be a nice North Korea or Venezuela for people that can't live without a good helping of statism.

Fantastic deflection.  Way to avoid the question.

 

righht, slavers used the argument  I can see it now, Ol' Ironchains saying 'After we sell these slaves lets get on the internet and challenge Karl to answer a simple question.  The other slaver says, Won't work, he won't answer direct questions, he just moves onto tangents.'

 

Just like when I asked, what rights were being taken away from you, you didn't answer the question.  You avoid and deflect. 

 

I think its exactly a strong government that keeps a country from going lawless and falling into warlords/dictatorship (like N. Korea)  When government falls apart, crap tends happens, at least on the larger scale.   <I'd argue the exceptions are protected by the law and order around them.  Set such anarchic utopias in a lawless country and they'd probably be destroyed.>

 

In other words, you can't think of a country that close to your ideal of almost no government.   You don't even dare list any countries which are somewhat close to your ideal.  A country that had no government except by family or block would end end up like Somalia, Libya, Haiti.

 

I'd ask how your fantasy land would develop electricity and roads, things are too expensive for a small group but I doubt I'd get an answer from you.  You'd avoid and deflect. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by thelerner

[thelerner]

Thing is I could ask people here are there any socialist countries that work.  And they'd give me good solid answers (..Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada..) and defend them intelligently.  They can name them because they exist.. in reality.. now.  They're not tied to concepts like 'in my imagination' or 'I theorize its possible'

 

They exist and thrive now.  You can visit them.  The idea you have in your head is just that.  Your wonderful fantasy.

 

Basically its silly for me to argue about an idea (fantasy?) that you have in your head.  Just like its silly to argue with a child whose solution to world problems is why don't we all share.   Wonderful idea, but in practice it falls apart as numbers get bigger <kinda becomes communism when people try to enforce it.> 

 

All I could say is, go create it.  Just be careful, in creating your utopia, you might start a tax to pay for roads or schools or electrical factory, then some ideologue would make you the enemy for daring to start such evil travesties.  In order to get big important things done, you'll end up forming government or you won't get first world things done. 

 

In many ways what you're really after is anarchy; a nice idea, that rarely works out well, for countries.

Edited August 28, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

Thing is I could ask people here are there any socialist countries that work.  And they'd give me good solid answers (..Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada..) and defend them intelligently.  They can name them because they exist.. in reality.. now.  They're not tied to concepts like 'in my imagination' or 'I theorize its possible'

 

They exist and thrive now.  You can visit them.  The idea you have in your head is just that.  Your wonderful fantasy.

 

Basically its silly for me to argue about an idea (fantasy?) that you have in your head.  Just like its silly to argue with a child whose solution to world problems is why don't we all share.   Wonderful idea, but in practice it falls apart as numbers get bigger  

 

All I could say is, go create it.  Just be careful, in creating your utopia, you might start a tax to pay for roads or schools or electrical factory, then some ideologue would make you the enemy for daring to start such evil travesties.  In order to get big important things done, you'll end up forming government or you won't get first world things done. 

 

In many ways what you're really after is anarchy; a nice idea, that rarely works out well, for countries.

 

It doesn't need to be pure anarchy. Just as I said that a family unit has governance. All that is required is for property rights to be upheld by rule of law.

 

If warlords are going to happen, then they will happen anyway. This is what you don't understand. Government won't make it any better, it will simply make it worse. We have many classic examples of strong government. It isn't strong government that creates acceptance of government, but law abiding people going about their business being tolerant of of government.

 

It's impossible to 'create' and it isn't a 'utopia' it's just natural. You are thinking like a statist. Somalia has improved economically since they got rid of their government. They were already tribal warlords who wouldn't accept being ruled. It was the attempt to force them all to accept western government that plunged them into civil war. However it isn't true that Somalia is complete chaos either. They have a stronger economy than their neighbours and have the best/cheapest mobile phone network in Africa.

 

Removing Government/state is the necessary, but not sufficient cause of having a better society. People and cultures are complex. However, I maintain that the world will be a safer, more prosperous world without them.

 

As fir Sweden et al, it's an old story, socialists like to look at those countries and hold them up as classic examples, but in fact, they are tiny, low population countries that avoided two world wars. The people are particularly law abiding and organised. The government they get only needs to be minimally oppressive in a society that could largely manage itself anyway. Government hasn't added in any sense, it created a burden on Sweden which is beginning to erupt. The reason Greeks, Germans, Italians and Spanish are taking to the streets is that there governments have become such a burden that they have found their standard of living falling. The promised utopia of state and government is an illusion.

[Marblehead]

The only dwindling resources are people. We have more land and natural resources than we have people to utilise it.  If you think you are over populating the world then you have a choice.

 

 

I must disagree with you.  Hundreds of people die every day from starvation.  There are many places on the planet where over population is a drastic problem.  Look at all the migrations of people today.  They are moving from areas that have no resources hoping for a chance to live a dignified life.

 

Too many people means cheap labor.  This equates to just barely staying alive while the wealthy reap the benefits.  This is why so many religions, governments, and wealthy are so fiercely against birth control.

 

And socialism would do no better with this problem than any other system has done.

 

It must be learned that it is beneficial to not have so many children.

 

Zero population growth or negative population growth will naturally solve many of the world's problems.

[Marblehead]

Thing is I could ask people here are there any socialist countries that work.  And they'd give me good solid answers (..Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada..) and defend them intelligently.  They can name them because they exist.. in reality.. now. 

But beware.  Great migrations of people is happening right now, today.  As soon as the migrants reach these countries the system will no longer be able to support itself.

[Karl]

I must disagree with you.  Hundreds of people die every day from starvation.  There are many places on the planet where over population is a drastic problem.  Look at all the migrations of people today.  They are moving from areas that have no resources hoping for a chance to live a dignified life.

 

Too many people means cheap labor.  This equates to just barely staying alive while the wealthy reap the benefits.  This is why so many religions, governments, and wealthy are so fiercely against birth control.

 

And socialism would do no better with this problem than any other system has done.

 

It must be learned that it is beneficial to not have so many children.

 

Zero population growth or negative population growth will naturally solve many of the world's problems.

 

They aren't starving for lack of resource, they are starving through lack of opportunity and state oppression. People are moving from areas where there is no stability. The Middle East and Africa have been systematically plundered, destabilised, bombed and brutalised for several hundred years by the West and we are still at it.

 

Britain was once a starving nation struggling to feed a mere 6 million inhabitants. Even then there was talk of a need for population reduction, but now we have 70 million obese people getting gastric bands and taking slimming pills. A massive industry has grown up to try and persuade people to stop eating so much. That is in a boggy, rocky little Island with few natural resources, but it hasn't stopped us flourishing. The same could happen in every nation on Earth.

 

Every consumer is a producer. There can never be too many people. As soon as a society gets wealthy the birth rate collapses. There are now serious concerns in many of the Western countries that the birth rate has sunk to a catastrophic level. It may well be that we find ourselves with too few people. It's amazing to me that many people who complain of there being 'too many people' are actually living in the highest density populations on the planet. They see the world as too crowded because they are choosing to live in cities that give them access to enormous resource and services. It is in high density cities that wealth grows quickest. In Britain, London is the envy of the sparsely inhabited North/Scotland. We have thousands of square miles of wasted space and declining wealth standards.

 

It is not beneficial to restrict child bearing by force. It's beneficial to allow nation states to flourish by allowing them opportunity to own land and create capital. It is the lack of private ownership and capital that has blighted poor nations and meant them becoming dependent on handouts that largely go to their corrupt officials in order to sweeten the trail for western oligarchs.

 

More people equals more production, less people equals less production. It's as simple as that. A sustainable population is one in which there are producers and consumers in balance. The myth of over population has been one of the worst lies of modern times. It has allowed genocide to be an acceptable form of culling throughout the globe.

 

[Marblehead]

Oh Karl!  You surely are brainwashed.  Humans are daily causing the extinction of other species because of it greed for the land that these other species inhabit.  We then destroy the land so that it is unusable by any species. 

 

Desertification is a big problem because we humans are destroying the vegetation that used to keep the deserts in place.

 

Potable water is becoming more of a problem And it is getting worse on a daily basis.

 

This from Wikipedia:  Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.  No, not all of it can be said to be starvation but they die none-the-less.  And what a painful short life that must have been.  I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

 

According to Wikipedia the average tax rate for the individual is 45%.  That means that half of the money a person earns goes to support the other half of the people who have no income.  That means there are twice as many people in the UK than the economy can properly support.

 

Interesting though, the tax rate on corporate income is only 19%.  Sounds like another screw job.

[Karl]

Oh Karl!  You surely are brainwashed.  Humans are daily causing the extinction of other species because of it greed for the land that these other species inhabit.  We then destroy the land so that it is unusable by any species. 

 

Desertification is a big problem because we humans are destroying the vegetation that used to keep the deserts in place.

 

Potable water is becoming more of a problem And it is getting worse on a daily basis.

 

This from Wikipedia:  Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.  No, not all of it can be said to be starvation but they die none-the-less.  And what a painful short life that must have been.  I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

 

According to Wikipedia the average tax rate for the individual is 45%.  That means that half of the money a person earns goes to support the other half of the people who have no income.  That means there are twice as many people in the UK than the economy can properly support.

 

Interesting though, the tax rate on corporate income is only 19%.  Sounds like another screw job.

 

Tell you what. Find me some examples, not hearsay, but actual real life examples of what you are talking about and I will show you how and why it happened. We can look at each example and discuss it, otherwise it turns into gross generalisations which don't help discussion.

 

Your tax argument is flawed. Partially you have it right, but for the wrong reasons. It's a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Big government and the welfare state has created its own demand. This is what happens when you just steal money from one group of producers and give it to another whilst taking a healthy slice of the pie for doing so. However, your 45% argument is just nuts, it is a non sequitur and a bad generalisation to boot.

 

Corporation tax is ridiculous, it shouldn't even exist. That's going to be a ton of effort to explain why judging by the previous generalisation. Suffice to say that corporations never pay tax, but their employees and customers do.

[Marblehead]

Tell you what. Find me some examples, not hearsay, but actual real life examples of what you are talking about and I will show you how and why it happened. We can look at each example and discuss it, otherwise it turns into gross generalisations which don't help discussion.

I cannot explain the ecology of the world in a single post in this thread.  The data is available though.  Give me a specific argument and I will speak to it else my generalization stands.

 

Your tax argument is flawed. Partially you have it right, but for the wrong reasons. It's a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

So tell me what is wrong with it.  That data is available too.  Again, if you are going to challenge be specific.

 

Big government and the welfare state has created its own demand.

Yes.  And it is extremely inflated and except for some of the government spending on the nation's infrastructure and defense nearly all the rest is non-productive.

 

This is what happens when you just steal money from one group of producers and give it to another whilst taking a healthy slice of the pie for doing so.

Exactly the point I was making.  Welfare is stealing from those who are productive and giving the resources to those who are non-productive.

 

However, your 45% argument is just nuts, it is a non sequitur and a bad generalisation to boot.

Not my figure.  It is the figure presented by the government of the UK.  So you are telling me that your government is presenting false data?

 

Corporation tax is ridiculous, it shouldn't even exist. That's going to be a ton of effort to explain why judging by the previous generalisation. Suffice to say that corporations never pay tax, but their employees and customers do.

That is a fair argument but only if the government taxed the owners (share holders) at the same rate as everyone else.  Here in the US it is taxed at 7%.  This is income for millionaires and billionaires.  Lower income individuals get taxed at 14% or greater.  So we can easily see that billionaires have half the tax burden that a lower income person has.  I would imagine that it is about the same in the UK because it are the wealthy in the UK who write the laws just as they do here in the US.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Marblehead

[Karl]

I cannot explain the ecology of the world in a single post in this thread.  The data is available though.  Give me a specific argument and I will speak to it else my generalization stands.

 

 

So tell me what is wrong with it.  That data is available too.  Again, if you are going to challenge be specific.

 

 

Yes.  And it is extremely inflated and except for some of the government spending on the nation's infrastructure and defense nearly all the rest is non-productive.

 

 

Exactly the point I was making.  Welfare is stealing from those who are productive and giving the resources to those who are non-productive.

 

 

Not my figure.  It is the figure presented by the government of the UK.  So you are telling me that your government is presenting false data?

 

 

That is a fair argument but only if the government taxed the owners (share holders) at the same rate as everyone else.  Here in the US it is taxed at 7%.  This is income for millionaires and billionaires.  Lower income individuals get taxed at 14% or greater.  So we can easily see that billionaires have half the tax burden that a lower income person has.  I would imagine that it is about the same in the UK because it are the wealthy in the UK who write the laws just as they do here in the US.

 

Each of your points requires a small book in itself. I cannot do justice to it in a few lines of reply. Literally everything you have said is pure bunkum and I really don't mean that as an insult. It's not like our arguments on more esoteric subjects, here I am talking about concretes and I don't think you have a sufficient basic understanding of economics to progress things.

 

It isn't that there is false data ( all though there is certainly selective data such as CPI and GDP), it's your interpretation of the data. If say we privatised all health care, schools and pensions then, would the cost of these things be zero ? Would we then say that x amount of money was being spent privately on the provision of these services in support of the non productive if it was privately funded directly ? Do you think when you buy at the local supermarket that you are supporting the non productive by paying over money for food ?

 

The median taxation rate does not apply equally because it is a progressive tax. The higher earners pay more as the tax rate reduces. This has always been the case, it just isn't a popular notion amongst governments and their supporters. It's an inconvenient truth. It should be too difficult to spot why this is true and the corollary from that truth.

 

The fact is that everything is about production and that's it. Money is a convenient method of trading by making goods and services effectively fluid. It should be obvious that if you steal from one guy to give to another, then you deprive that guy of spending that money on goods and services of another person. You cannot create production this way, but you can create poverty by dis incentivising production and the employment it brings.

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Each of your points requires a small book in itself.

That is what I said.  Specifics can be argued.

 

I cannot do justice to it in a few lines of reply.

And that is what I said also.

 

Literally everything you have said is pure bunkum and I really don't mean that as an insult.

But you have not presented one single example with supporting data to show this.  I presented data from Wikipedia.  I know that some people don't trust Wikipedia.  That's their problem, not mine.

 

Oh, you cannot insult me without proving that I have been feeding invalid data in order to support my position.

 

I have presented data.  You don't like it.  That's your problem.  Prove it wrong.

It's not like our arguments on more esoteric subjects, here I am talking about concretes and I don't think you have a sufficient basic understanding of economics to progress things.

Well, please don't underestimate my abilities.  I have presented data that you call BS without offering a single piece of data to support your claim.  My position therefore still stands. 

 

It isn't that there is false data ( all though there is certainly selective data such as CPI and GDP), it's your interpretation of the data.

I did not interpret the data.  I presented it to support my argument.  Apparently it worked well.

 

If say we privatised all health care, schools and pensions then, would the cost of these things be zero ?

This is a different discussion.  Please remain with the discussion at hand.

 

Would we then say that x amount of money was being spent privately on the provision of these services in support of the non productive if it was privately funded directly ? Do you think when you buy at the local supermarket that you are supporting the non productive by paying over money for food ?

That's actually a silly concept as well as being not part of our discussion.

 

The median taxation rate does not apply equally because it is a progressive tax. The higher earners pay more as the tax rate reduces.

WTF?!?

 

We are talking about percentage of income.  For example, 10% flat tax rate.  Everyone pays the same percentage.  Yes, the higher the income the higher the amount but still a fair share.

 

What you suggested puts a greater burden on the poor.

This has always been the case, it just isn't a popular notion amongst governments and their supporters. It's an inconvenient truth. It should be too difficult to spot why this is true and the corollary from that truth.

Yes, the wealthy have always taken more from the poor than they take from the wealthy.  And that is why the wealthy are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer.

 

The fact is that everything is about production and that's it.

Yes, and welfare is counter productive.  And so are most government agencies.

 

Money is a convenient method of trading by making goods and services effectively fluid. It should be obvious that if you steal from one guy to give to another, then you deprive that guy of spending that money on goods and services of another person. You cannot create production this way, but you can create poverty by dis incentivising production and the employment it brings.

I think you just said the same thing I am saying.