Capitalism Run Amok: What went wrong and how to fix it

[Cinnabar]

Economist and Professor Richard Wolff analyzes the deficiencies of modern capitalism, articulating the benefits of a socialist system and the road to a more equitable society. He promotes not a radical shift in economic system, but a gradual transformation involving a shift in consciousness from profits before people to people above all else.

 

[BidenPresident]

The problem is that a nation cannot make capitalism a political system.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The guy's an idiot. Giving people stuff for free doesn't make better people. It makes worse people.

You want to fix society and make it better? Make the economic system such that you maximize the number of owners in society. That is, maximize the number of people that own land, homes, stuff, they got through participating in society. No handouts involved.
When people are owners they take an interest in society and keeping things working. They have an interest in not having their stuff taxed or taken away. The man that owns his boat rarely has time to rock it.

Socialism breeds sloth and idle hands. If you don't have to lift a finger to get fed, clothed, or sheltered, many will simply accept that and have nothing but idle time on their hands. Unchallenged boredom will undo society. Socialism doesn't work and we have well over a century of proof of that now.

 

[no worries]

The guy's an idiot. Giving people stuff for free doesn't make better people. It makes worse people.

You want to fix society and make it better? Make the economic system such that you maximize the number of owners in society. That is, maximize the number of people that own land, homes, stuff, they got through participating in society. No handouts involved.
When people are owners they take an interest in society and keeping things working. They have an interest in not having their stuff taxed or taken away. The man that owns his boat rarely has time to rock it.

Socialism breeds sloth and idle hands. If you don't have to lift a finger to get fed, clothed, or sheltered, many will simply accept that and have nothing but idle time on their hands. Unchallenged boredom will undo society. Socialism doesn't work and we have well over a century of proof of that now.

Exactly, corporate socialism has never worked, it only added to the debt.

"That is, maximize the number of people that own land, homes, stuff, they got through participating in society. No handouts involved'.

OR, participating in war, the GI bill was the greatest expansion of the middle class, EVER.

Thanks to a handout by...........................the US government.

"They have an interest in not having their stuff taxed or taken away".

In more placid times, news that the president of the United States was encouraging aides to break the law by seizing swaths of private property along the southwestern border to build a wall might have caused more than a day's ripple.

After all, legitimate controversy over the promiscuous threat of eminent domain (as well as illegitimate fears of a NAFTA Superhighway) dogged former Texas Gov. Rick Perry for a full decade, prompting him to eventually abandon his dreams of a Trans-Texas Corridor tollroad. And Perry wasn't out there dangling pardons and barking "take the land" to his staff.

As former Fox News and current CNN host Alisyn Camerota asserted Wednesday, "Any time there was any suggestion about President Obama using eminent domain for anything, Roger Ailes, and therefore Fox News, blew a gasket about the idea of seizing private land."



.

 

[no worries]

The problem is that a nation cannot make capitalism a political system.

But it is.

Corporate tax cuts = Capitalism.
Middle class tax cuts= Socialism.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"That is, maximize the number of people that own land, homes, stuff, they got through participating in society. No handouts involved'.

OR, participating in war, the GI bill was the greatest expansion of the middle class, EVER.

Thanks to a handout by...........................the US government.

It wasn't a "handout." The GI Bill is payment-in-kind for military service. You don't just get handed that money for doing nothing.

"They have an interest in not having their stuff taxed or taken away".

In more placid times, news that the president of the United States was encouraging aides to break the law by seizing swaths of private property along the southwestern border to build a wall might have caused more than a day's ripple.

Wrong. Eminent domain has always been allowed as a means for government to take land with fair compensation to the owner for public purposes. The government didn't simply seize land from private owners and not give them compensation.

After all, legitimate controversy over the promiscuous threat of eminent domain (as well as illegitimate fears of a NAFTA Superhighway) dogged former Texas Gov. Rick Perry for a full decade, prompting him to eventually abandon his dreams of a Trans-Texas Corridor tollroad. And Perry wasn't out there dangling pardons and barking "take the land" to his staff.

As former Fox News and current CNN host Alisyn Camerota asserted Wednesday, "Any time there was any suggestion about President Obama using eminent domain for anything, Roger Ailes, and therefore Fox News, blew a gasket about the idea of seizing private land.".

Who cares what some talking head on cable news says? As for eminent domain, it is a legal doctrine that has been used repeatedly. That doesn't mean every call for its use is heeded.

 

[no worries]

It wasn't a "handout." The GI Bill is payment-in-kind for military service. You don't just get handed that money for doing nothing.



Wrong. Eminent domain has always been allowed as a means for government to take land with fair compensation to the owner for public purposes. The government didn't simply seize land from private owners and not give them compensation.



Who cares what some talking head on cable news says? As for eminent domain, it is a legal doctrine that has been used repeatedly. That doesn't mean every call for its use is heeded.

YES, it has for government purposes only, teabaggers, ( www.teaparty.org) started using it for private enterprise.

"The GI Bill is payment-in-kind for military service. You don't just get handed that money for doing nothing".

Weren't they already paid?

People paying taxes is doing nothing?

 

[Ross Dolan]

The guy's an idiot. Giving people stuff for free doesn't make better people. It makes worse people.

You want to fix society and make it better? Make the economic system such that you maximize the number of owners in society. That is, maximize the number of people that own land, homes, stuff, they got through participating in society. No handouts involved.
When people are owners they take an interest in society and keeping things working. They have an interest in not having their stuff taxed or taken away. The man that owns his boat rarely has time to rock it.

Socialism breeds sloth and idle hands. If you don't have to lift a finger to get fed, clothed, or sheltered, many will simply accept that and have nothing but idle time on their hands. Unchallenged boredom will undo society. Socialism doesn't work and we have well over a century of proof of that now.

You are so fucking clueless, it is amazing you come in out of the rain...IF IN FACT YOU DO COME IN OUT OF THE RAIN WHEN IT IS RAINING.

In most socialistic societies...RUSSIAN AND CHINA, for instance...if you do not work, you end up in a gulag or a retraining camp (gulag). You end up dead.

That piece of bullshit on your part aside...anyone who does not see that our capitalistic society has more problems with it than a system more influenced by socialistic thinking...is just NOT THINKING.

Socialistic societies realize that their systems are not perfect...and are smart enough to incorporate some capitalistic ideas into their systems...and make them better. That is how China, and to a slightly lesser degree, Russia...have managed to go from where they were economically...to where they are now.

China, the most socialistic society on this planet, will at some point during the next decade or so...BECOME THE STRONGEST, MOST ROBUST ECONOMY ON EARTH.

Wake the fuck up.

We Americans have an opportunity to fix our system and get ourselves running robustly again...but in order to do so we have to incorporate some socialistic facets (GREATLY IMPROVE OUR SAFETY NET PROGRAMS)...which primarily means we must stop the relentless assault on decency and reasonableness from our fascistic right wing...from the likes of you, TA.

"Maximize the numbers of owners in society."

Yeah, sure. Wave a magic wand and make all the troubles go away.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"The GI Bill is payment-in-kind for military service. You don't just get handed that money for doing nothing".

Weren't they already paid?

So? Corporations give perks like that too. Many pay for employees to go to college, pay for health insurance, and provide other benefits besides pay.

People paying taxes is doing nothing?

People getting government welfare handouts are doing nothing to earn them.

 

[no worries]

"The GI Bill is payment-in-kind for military service. You don't just get handed that money for doing nothing".


So? Corporations give perks like that too. Many pay for employees to go to college, pay for health insurance, and provide other benefits besides pay.



People getting government welfare handouts are doing nothing to earn them.

Yes, they do, all tax deductible as it should be.

Until you lose your job, company closes or they move, poof, there goes your benefits.

Very rare people getting welfare without having worked at somepoint in their lives.

Teabagger (www.teaparty.org) talking point for the last 40 years, since Reagan.
40 years of teabaggers (www.teaparty.org) trying to eliminate every saftey net for Americans.

 

[BattleofHodow]

The guy's an idiot. Giving people stuff for free doesn't make better people. It makes worse people.

You want to fix society and make it better? Make the economic system such that you maximize the number of owners in society. That is, maximize the number of people that own land, homes, stuff, they got through participating in society. No handouts involved.
When people are owners they take an interest in society and keeping things working. They have an interest in not having their stuff taxed or taken away. The man that owns his boat rarely has time to rock it.

Socialism breeds sloth and idle hands. If you don't have to lift a finger to get fed, clothed, or sheltered, many will simply accept that and have nothing but idle time on their hands. Unchallenged boredom will undo society. Socialism doesn't work and we have well over a century of proof of that now.

Capitalism is killing its self through automation.

When the majority of jobs are automated we have no choice but to tax corporations more & have Universal Basic Income.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Capitalism is killing its self through automation.

When the majority of jobs are automated we have no choice but to tax corporations more & have Universal Basic Income.

Not true. The industrial revolution changed the nature of work from 90% of people working in agriculture to less than 10% while the number of factory and other manufacturing jobs rose to about 75%. Now, with the electronics revolution, that's changing again with less than 10% in agriculture, about 20% manufacturing, and around 60% being things like code writing, tech support and such. Automation is no guarantee that the supply of jobs will run out, but rather that the nature of work will change.

The biggest challenge is that work is becoming more complex while people remain essentially no smarter-- that is more and more people are becoming useless because they are too stupid to do the work required.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Not true. The industrial revolution changed the nature of work from 90% of people working in agriculture to less than 10% while the number of factory and other manufacturing jobs rose to about 75%. Now, with the electronics revolution, that's changing again with less than 10% in agriculture, about 20% manufacturing, and around 60% being things like code writing, tech support and such. Automation is no guarantee that the supply of jobs will run out, but rather that the nature of work will change.

The biggest challenge is that work is becoming more complex while people remain essentially no smarter-- that is more and more people are becoming useless because they are too stupid to do the work required.

Not the same, automation isn't producing jobs like it is destroying them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Not the same, automation isn't producing jobs like it is destroying them.

Wrong. Automation produces different jobs. For example, if you have CNC or industrial controller (ladder logic) type machines in a facility these require programmers and technicians to operate them even if there are not actual machine operators on the floor. The problem that comes with that is fewer people are inherently able to do these new jobs as the level of intelligence, training, and skill has increased. Thus, more people who are unskilled and stupid can't get these jobs.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Wrong. Automation produces different jobs. For example, if you have CNC or industrial controller (ladder logic) type machines in a facility these require programmers and technicians to operate them even if there are not actual machine operators on the floor. The problem that comes with that is fewer people are inherently able to do these new jobs as the level of intelligence, training, and skill has increased. Thus, more people who are unskilled and stupid can't get these jobs.

For every programmer how many jobs are taken away by automation!?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For every programmer how many jobs are taken away by automation!?

Likely some. That doesn't mean there aren't new opportunities for those capable and skilled enough to take them.

I read about a steel mill in the Chicago area that closed back in the early 2000's. Obama was part of a group that sought to help all the displaced workers find new jobs (and, no this isn't to bash Obama in the least here it was just the reason I was looking at the story to begin with).

Anyway, this group started interviewing the workers asking what they made in wages and what they did at the plant. One guy described in the article was making like $30 an hour plus benefits (that's a fantastic wage in the early 2000's). He operated a bar straightening machine. He described his job as pushing a button to load the bar, then another to straighten it, and a third to release it and send it to the next operation. He had a high school diploma and was completely unskilled. The group couldn't find anything better than a minimum wage job for him.
The union at the steel plant had effectively overpriced his value as a worker grossly.

Or, a clip I watched on 60 Minutes where this kid in his 20's was griping about losing his job at a GM auto factory. This was in the late 80's. They showed him on the line putting doors on cars using an assisting robot arm to maneuver the door into place where he hooked it up and secured it with an impact driver. He was making the equivalent of almost $70 an hour in wages and benefits. He had a house, vacation house, boat, RV, etc. and was crying that he'd have to sell most of that. He too was a high school graduate with no real skills or training.
60 Minutes then showed the plant in Mexico GM opened to replace the one the kid worked in. They interviewed a worker who did the same job the kid did. He was ecstatic that he made a whole dollar an hour doing the same job for the same quality.

My point here is that US business and industry has often found itself priced out of the labor market. It just isn't worth doing some things in the US because the labor costs too much. Unions, regulations, excessive government rules and taxes, all play a role in doing that. Right now, a single worker costs an employer over $10,000 a year or more in meeting all those regulations and paying all the employer tax burden on that employee.

Automation is a way around that for employers, thus they use it.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Likely some. That doesn't mean there aren't new opportunities for those capable and skilled enough to take them.

I read about a steel mill in the Chicago area that closed back in the early 2000's. Obama was part of a group that sought to help all the displaced workers find new jobs (and, no this isn't to bash Obama in the least here it was just the reason I was looking at the story to begin with).

Anyway, this group started interviewing the workers asking what they made in wages and what they did at the plant. One guy described in the article was making like $30 an hour plus benefits (that's a fantastic wage in the early 2000's). He operated a bar straightening machine. He described his job as pushing a button to load the bar, then another to straighten it, and a third to release it and send it to the next operation. He had a high school diploma and was completely unskilled. The group couldn't find anything better than a minimum wage job for him.
The union at the steel plant had effectively overpriced his value as a worker grossly.

Or, a clip I watched on 60 Minutes where this kid in his 20's was griping about losing his job at a GM auto factory. This was in the late 80's. They showed him on the line putting doors on cars using an assisting robot arm to maneuver the door into place where he hooked it up and secured it with an impact driver. He was making the equivalent of almost $70 an hour in wages and benefits. He had a house, vacation house, boat, RV, etc. and was crying that he'd have to sell most of that. He too was a high school graduate with no real skills or training.
60 Minutes then showed the plant in Mexico GM opened to replace the one the kid worked in. They interviewed a worker who did the same job the kid did. He was ecstatic that he made a whole dollar an hour doing the same job for the same quality.

My point here is that US business and industry has often found itself priced out of the labor market. It just isn't worth doing some things in the US because the labor costs too much. Unions, regulations, excessive government rules and taxes, all play a role in doing that. Right now, a single worker costs an employer over $10,000 a year or more in meeting all those regulations and paying all the employer tax burden on that employee.

Automation is a way around that for employers, thus they use it.

Obviously automation destroys far more jobs than it creates.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For every programmer how many jobs are taken away by automation!?

Who knows? It could produce more jobs. The problem is that the jobs taken away and the new jobs are very different and many of those who lost their jobs find they can't do the new ones because they're too complex, require too much education, etc. This is really where the problem is. There is an increasing segment of the population who are simply unable to do what are good paying jobs because they're just not mentally capable of learning them.

Humans are not interchangeable cogs in a machine. Not everyone is an Einstein. There are smart and stupid people. The number of people incapable of doing complex work is increasing as the complexity of work increases.

You'd be surprised by how many people can't grasp ladder logic and machine automation. I know, I do that sort of thing.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Technology Creates More Jobs Than It Destroys
Despite the claims to the contrary, innovation is a job creator, not a job demolisher.

https://fee.org/articles/technology-creates-more-jobs-than-it-destroys/

https://www.businessinsider.com/mor...but,automation. In the US, that number is 91%.

Can automation create more jobs than it destroys?
Some experts believe that automation will destroy jobs. Others feel it will create more, new, better jobs. Here's how businesses can prepare for the shift.

https://techhq.com/2018/09/can-automation-really-help-create-more-jobs-than-it-destroys/

Automation Can Actually Create More Jobs
Evidence shows increased productivity leads to more wealth, cheaper goods, greater spending power and ultimately, more jobs

https://www.wsj.com/articles/automation-can-actually-create-more-jobs-1481480200