Socialism
This letter has not been edited.
Sounds like an anti-socialist piece of propaganda.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 22, 2007 02:56 PMWhat on earth are we supposed to do with that, George? On top of Al Qaeda, are you worried now about some perceived communist invasion? No kidding we don't want this country to be socialist, George. 99% of Americans agree with you. So what are you saying?
Posted by Dan on August 22, 2007 03:14 PMDan, the 1% who do run the country.
Posted by on August 22, 2007 03:18 PM3:18PM,
So you're saying Bush & Co. are socialists? Wanna-be dictators, I could see... but socialists? Seriously-- where do you people come up with this stuff?
By the way, the big red scare ended two decades ago. Your boy Reagan finished 'em off good. Are there just some people out there that have to fear and hate something-- ANYTHING-- even if it's the big commie bogeyman?
Posted by Dan on August 22, 2007 03:25 PMDan, the puppet in the White house is no different from the ex 1st lady. They all want to eliminate the rule of law and replace it witht he rule of the elite, and leave the crumbs to the rest, just like the old sssr
Posted by on August 22, 2007 03:34 PM3:34PM,
I agree.... but that's not socialism. Our situation now would be defined more appropriately as a plutocracy. Whether it's a corporate plutocracy or a theocratic plutocracy is up for debate.
3.18pm
I don't know who you are stanger but I like your style.
Posted by James Jones on August 22, 2007 03:49 PMDan
Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? All pigs are created equal except that some are more equal than others...
That's the prevailing beliefs of the power elites of the two major parties. We're, the regular farm animals, are all "equal", but they are more equal because they know what's best for us. Therefore, they are entitled to more based on the "more equal" status and because they bear greater responsibility for the welfare of the entire farm.
Posted by Trinity on August 22, 2007 03:59 PMGeorge, what have you got against velvet gloves? Are you some kind of pinko Liberal? With a name like Lilly, I think you might be. You need to be re-educated good and proper. I suggest you move to Colorado Springs and attend some John Birch Society meetings. And stop supporting the terrorists!
Posted by Silas on August 22, 2007 04:00 PMSilas,
I'm assuming your post is sarcasm, if so, very funny.
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 04:09 PMLets see:
Socialist:
1. Take care of the hungry
2. Make sure all americans get good healthcare at reasonable price.
3. Make sure all children get a quality education no matter how much money mommy & daddy have.
4. Make sure the thousands of dollars taken out of our pay checks for social security is returned with interest when we retire.
Capitalism:
1. Allow company CEO's to rack in profits and give themselfs millions in bonuses while their workers make pennies and lose.
2. Let CEO's do insider trading and steal their employees retirement savings.
3. Let oil & insurance companies raise their prices that the average wage can not keep up.
4. Let the government give no bid contracts to big companies that rob the tax payers blind.
5. Give big tax cuts to the rich & the shaft to the little guy.
I guess by now you have figured out which I perfer.
Posted by larrymc on August 22, 2007 05:07 PMLet's see:
Socialist:
1. Take from those who earn and give to those who do not.
2. Force people into dependence on the government for health care
3. Remove choice from parents on where their children are educated, and force them into dependence on the government for education.
4. Take thousands of dollars out of our paychecks for social security, and then spend that and the interest on pork projects.
Capitalism:
1. Foster an environment where risk and acheivement is rewarded in the free market, and not punished by excessive taxes.
2. Allow people who risk their money through investment in business to benefit when business does well, and not be punished by excessive taxes.
3. Allow energy policy to be determined by free market, and not by those with an advantage caused by government subsidies
4. Give big tax cuts to people who actually pay taxes.
I guess by now you have figured out which I prefer.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 05:25 PMLarry,
You know that Socialism and liberalism are now as horrible a word as communism. The marketing by the neo-cons is very good, they are great at turning anything into communism and socialism which has to be bad. Society's have to have a balance of social programs and capitalism or the balance of rich and poor become too great to overcome. The new buzz word is Secular Progresive (I'm not sure if Bill O'Reilly invented that phrase or not) but by definition the phrase means forward thinking religiously unaffilited. Of course I guess that is supposed to be bad because you aren't pandering to some religion. But to me I like the phrase, I am a forward thinking religiously unnaffilited person, so by definition according to the conservatives the enemy is me..
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 05:30 PMWhat a bunch of crap!!!!
Posted by on August 22, 2007 06:24 PMTruth-
Congratilations my brother, there is hope for you yet!
Cheers!
Posted by Get Real on August 22, 2007 06:30 PMYea, I know, that should have been CONGRATULATIONS.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you forged a post in my name because you are anxious to once again read my explanation of socialized capitalism. Always happy to oblige:
People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?
We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. However, we found that largely unregulated capitalism didn’t work because it begot such evils as child labor, unsafe working conditions, exploitation of the poor through long working hours and poverty level wages, unsafe food and drugs, exploitation of natural resources and the environment, deception of consumers, dishonest and fraudulent business practices, etc. It became clear that in order for capitalism to work in a fair and balanced way, it had to be socialized, that is, made fit to live among the people without exploiting them. That is why there have been laws and regulations to rein in raw, unregulated capitalism.
It is still capitalism, but it bears little resemblance to the predatory capitalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These various laws and regulations may be said to have the purpose of socializing predatory capitalism so as to make it fit for the general population in the same sense that we socialize children and animals so that they can fit comfortably into society without hurting society too much.
The genius of capitalism is that it gives people freedom to do as they want, so that their instincts for improving their own personal lot can result in improving the lot of society as a whole. In effect, it puts man’s greed to work for the benefit of all. But greed is not inherently concerned with the rights of others, so, left untended, greed will find a way to exploit rather than benefit. It is like a campfire that initially warms people but, left untended, reaches out to devour the forest, or like a wild horse that can be of great service to man but only if it is socialized, that is, only if reins are put on it to control it.
So, laws and regulations are put in place are to rein in man’s greed, to socialize capitalism so that it can benefit society without exploiting it. Socialize in a sense similar to the way owners socialize dogs, prisons attempt to socialize criminals, and juvenile detention facilities attempt to socialize delinquents so that society can benefit from their presence without being victimized. Domesticate, civilize and tame might also be used to describe the process.
Because of this socialization of capitalism, we now have child labor laws, wage and hour laws, industrial safety laws, food and drug laws, business regulation laws, securities regulation laws, environmental protection laws, usury laws, deceptive advertising laws, consumer protection laws, etc.
Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But it is not the predatory capitalism of the past but the present socialized capitalism that has given the United States its greatness. Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, an never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.
It should be no surprise that the extremes of capitalism and socialism don't work and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus.
Posted by Truth on August 22, 2007 06:44 PMsocialism: noun
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
capitalism: noun
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Truth,
The letter (sentence?) had nothing to do with what you call "socialized capitalism". Obviously, capitalism needs to be regulated. Regulation is necessary to protect against fraud, unsafe food and drugs, etc...
But, capitalism on its own is not evil; and what you call greed, I might call ambition.
Socialism, however, flies in the face of human nature; and requires the confiscation and redistribution of the fruits of the labor of individuals against their will.
Every step we take toward socialism (with higher tax rates on higher income earners, with a smaller number of people paying an increasingly higher percentage of taxes), is a step in the wrong direction.
Posted by Mike on August 22, 2007 07:04 PMTruth 6:44-
Who exactly do you think forged a post in your name?
Please clarify.
Posted by Get Real on August 22, 2007 08:41 PMGet Real,
I don't think Truth knows who forged a post in his name but, obviously, the one at 5:25 P.M. was not really Truth.
Posted by Mike on August 22, 2007 08:52 PMDan,
All these orgaizations protesting for human rights, amnesty, etc,etc, are "Socialists"
IN 1986 I heard them say I'm not Democrate I'm a Socialist. and now 22 yrs later it's in full swing. Free everything to everybody and anybody. I myself don't believe in socialism.,
because they're looking after ithe illegals not the American Citizen. These other posts explain it well.
mike,for the first time I think you are right.Because every educated person knows truth is a idiot.A idiot didn't write that post.
Posted by Keith on August 23, 2007 01:01 AMSingle-payer healthcare--higher costs with less service!
Posted by Hank on August 23, 2007 07:00 AMSocialists: Stalin, Mao, Hilter. They took care of the hungry and sick. If you complain, you die. Remember the lessons of history. Socialism is the enemy of individual freedom and is a mask for totalitarianism.
Posted by Tom on August 23, 2007 07:17 AMRight - Stalin, Mao & Hitler were "socialists." This gives you some insight into the level of ignorance that these wingnuts wallow in. And then you wonder why we're in a situation like Iraq - until you realize we were put there by the Ignoramus in Chief.
The "lessons of history" are not a Republican strong point, Tom. I suggest you stick to the usual Karl Rove talking points, like KW.
Posted by drew on August 23, 2007 07:53 AMMke,
I couldn't have said it better. Liberals define elements of their philosophy differently than others. We are seldom on the same page because of it.
Regulations are good to a point, just like speed limits for drivers on our highways. When government distorts the free market with regulations that restrict free enterprise (healthcare) then the health of the market is diminished....
If you want to really make the current leadership shutter though, threaten to pass a progressive consumption tax and repeal the IRS and all FICA deductions.....the power they now have with their 2.6 million word tax code they love! They can manipulate the market so much better that way and they can manipulate our emotions by constantly screaming, "Tax the rich and make them pay their fair share".
According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 percent of total income taxes in 2000.
So how does Hillary and the rest of the liberal crowd get away with their lies?
Because most Americans, when anything political is mentioned "turn off".
It is inappropriate to mention politics and religion right? How did politics get lumped in with religion on that little rule??? grin....
Have a good one...
Basically moderation in all things is best, not extremes to one side or the other. But this nation is currently being forced into Global Socialism however, with the ambitions of those pushing for the North American Union, and their desire to "even the playing field" worldwide.
What that means is this: take away the wealth and prosperity from the USA, and redistribute it to all the developing nations of the world, so the giant multi-national corporations can have millions of more customers. In that way, they can have millions of more 'equals', while keeping about the same number of 'more equals'.
When this bill comes due, it will make the current foreclosure debacle seem like a walk in the park.
Drew, do you have a point or just want to call people names? Hilter was a socialist. Nazi was a socialist party. Communism is a short step from socialism. Total government control of business and government ownership of business is a matter of degree not quality. I could have mentioned Hussain and Chavez, but facts do not matter when your opinion or ignorance is in the way. Socialism/communism is an enemy of personal freedom. To say such a thing in those countries would place me in a "re-education camp" or gulag. Such is the inevitable totalitarianism of that political system.
Posted by Tom on August 23, 2007 09:32 AMTom,
How then would you define Mussolini's Fascism?
Since in Hitler's Germany there was NO government ownership of business, what makes Nazism "socialist"?
With Communism being, as you say, "a short step from socialism", which came first in historical terms? And who is regarded as the principal architect of each?
Since, as you would have it, "Socialism/communism is an enemy of personal freedom", why then do avowedly socialist nations, such as Sweden for instance, NOT have "re-education camps", or "gulags"; and in REALITY AND FACT actually enjoy greater personal freedoms than can be found even in the United States?
Or perhaps you might want to actually get some education into the whole matter of that about which you rant so senselessly?
I doubt that the answer to the last question would be a yes. But, that's up to you, of course.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 23, 2007 10:05 AMAs I have been repeatedly teaching you people, socialism, like predatory capitalism, does not work. The basic reason why neither predatory capitalism or socialism work is the basic reason for most evil in the world: power corrupts. While there isn't any cure for that, it can be somewhat controlled by various checks and balances, that is, programs which divide the power. That is why we have socialized capitalism; it provides a check on the power of the capitalists.
But this business of saying that socialism in not just ineffective but is evil is patently hogwash. The goal of socialism is a laudatory one, but human nature prevents socialism from working because it does not provide a sufficient check on the power of the government. Just as human nature prevents predatory capitalism from working because it does not provide a sufficient on the power of the capitalists. Socialized capitalism, like everything else in this world, is far from perfect, but it does provide the checks and balances we need to control the hunger for power. But this forum is populated with a lot of extremists who don't have the wisdom to recognize the need to take the middle course.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 10:12 AMHey, don't cut me off like that; I'm not through.
The other stupidity extremists engage in is to claim that the reason Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people is socialism. Of course, this is more hogwash. Many good, loving and intelligent people are socialists. There is nothing in socialism that calls for the destruction of people. Hitler and Stalin did what they did because they were evil people in search of power. Did they use socialism, or rather misuse it? Yes, just as historically many people have misued religion to destroy people.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 10:19 AM"The goal of socialism is a laudatory one..."- Truth
What?!?!?
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved
From Merriam Webster:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
That's a laudatory goal?
Sweden?
I remember reading back in 2005 that they had the highest tax revenue as percentage of GDP of any country rated in that year. Matter of fact I don't don't remember seeing any other country that had a total tax revenue higher than 50% of GDP.
And if my memory serves me correctly, I believe Sweden's blue collar workers are paid better than most comparable positions in the world and the white collar workers are paid less.
Let's see, more taxes from the rich to give to the poor! Yep! sounds like the Dems to me.
Tom,
Yes I do have a point, actually. The primary one being that you are trumpeting your ignorance for all to see. The NATIONAL SOCIALISM of the Nazi party was not SOCIALISM as you know it. It was a totalitarian system with racist & hero-cult elements attached. Good grief.
And "socialism is a short step from Communism?" I suggest you go to Denmark & see how long it takes to be arrested & sent to a gulag - I think you might wait awhile.
Do some reading before the next time you have the urge to put foot in mouth.
Posted by drew on August 23, 2007 10:52 AMTruth said:
"As I have been repeatedly teaching you people, socialism, like predatory capitalism, does not work. The basic reason why neither predatory capitalism or socialism work is the basic reason for most evil in the world: power corrupts. While there isn't any cure for that, it can be somewhat controlled by various checks and balances, that is, programs which divide the power. That is why we have socialized capitalism; it provides a check on the power of the capitalists."
It is so funny to hear Truth lecture folks on any topic. As I've exposed over and over again, Truth's knowledge of how the world works is extremely lacking.
Truth has just declared that socialism does not work, but socialized capitalism does. That's like saying fire won't burn your hand if your feet are in the water.
There's no such thing as "socialized capitalism". There is simply degrees of socialism. Obviously, we do not have a 100% capitalistic society. For example, the government owns the mail delivery business. Truth's version of "socialized capitalism" is simply the acceptance of a certain degree of socialism. If he could have a higher degree of socialism, Truth would gladly accept it. Another example, Truth desires socialized medicine. If socialism is bad, why would we want to socialize our medical system?
Posted by John II on August 23, 2007 11:14 AMJohn 2,
And just how do your postings prove that your "knowledge of how the world works" is any better than that of "Truth"?
Someone who propounds the nonsense that the Constitution is limited to a particular interpretation, because the 1789 words are the sole and only possible implementation - as you propound regularly, along with a number of other fantastic and imaginary fixed beliefs - certainly is not one much qualified to speak about "how the world works", in REALITY.
Truth demonstrates a far better knowledge of the REAL WORLD and how it works than I've seen coming from you in all the time I've been reading this blog.
Your analogy of hand burning and Truth's use of the expression "socialized capitalism" is hilariously ludicrous. The fundamental economic pattern in this country is capitalism. That capitalism is tempered with, and in ways modified by, considerations for the social welfare of the citizens as a whole. A description, such as "socialized capitalism" is very accurate in the REAL WORLD.
The fact that you just dismiss anything and everything that disagrees with your fantasy of what "free enterprise" ought to be as being "socialism" - without the slightest regard to the actual meaning of the word - is certainly no indication that you are a better judge of "how the world works".
You might try to stop labeling that which you neither know anything about nor understand with an epithet that doesn't realy apply. If you were to do that, you might begin to learn "how the world actually DOES WORK".
Ooops! Sorry! I forgot to take into consideration your very convenient "forgetter", the mechanism whereby you don't have to bother with anything being other than what you imagine it "ought to be", even after you have had the opportunity to learn what it really is. And I surely wouldn't want you to have to go to any effort that might strain your capacities, or capabilities.
When we talk about the truly wealthy in this country, that 1-2 %, do they have incomes? Or is their wealth inherited, coming from stocks and bonds or investments.
The truly wealthy (TW) always seem to be arguing to reduce taxes on other then income sources.
Inheritance, capital gains, etc.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 03:20 PMRegulation is not the socialism of capitalism. It is forcing costs external to the manufacturing process into the costs of goods sold, i.e., known as externalities in economics. Socialism is taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. The socialism of capitalism is excessive taxation.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 03:49 PMIf I were some of you, I wouldn't use my real name either.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 23, 2007 03:57 PMRe Mike's post questioning my statement that the goals of socialism are laudatory.
All Mike does is provide dictionary definitions of socialism. Of course while dictionary definitions tell how socialism operates, they say nothing about what the goal of such operation is. So Mike's post is useless in determining what those goals are.
Most people who oppose socialism but do not a chip on their shoulder recognize that the people who espouse socialism are good people who want to do good. For example, there is an article in Reason magazine, a strongly conservative anti-socialism publication, which is in opposition to socialism. It states:
"The goal of socialism is a fairer allocation of economic resources, which its advocates often claim will also be a less wasteful one. Socialism is about who gets the goods and how. Socialism objects to markets because markets allocate resources in ways socialists believe to be unfair on both counts: both the who and the how."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31174.html
The problem with socialism is what I said it was. Its goal is indeed laudatory, but we in America think there is a more effective way to strive for that goal, that is, the goal of making people's lives better.
We may not like or agree with the system of government in countries like Sweden, but only an extremist with a big chip on his shoulder and a disregard for the truth would claim that the goal of the Swedish government is to make the lives of its people worse rather than better.
Too many people subscribe to the Bush doctrine that if he disagrees with it, it must be evil. It's the same attitude that says if your religion is different from mine, your religion is evil.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 04:38 PM"Most people who oppose socialism but do not a chip on their shoulder recognize that the people who espouse socialism are good people who want to do good."
Yes, good as YOU would define it; with OTHER PEOPLE'S money.
"The goal of socialism is a fairer allocation of economic resources"
Fairer decided by whom? I think it's fair to let people keep the money they earn; not have it transferred to someone else to be "fair", as Truth would see it.
Let me decide where to be generous and compassionate with my money, Truth; do with yours what you wish.
I've asked you the following question before and you've never answered it. Do you care to answer it this time?
Which is worse? Being selfish with your own money or, being generous with someone else's?
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 05:02 PMMike, I'm sorry to hear that you are so opposed to the way the United States is governed, that is, with so much of your tax money going to help other people. Since that is not going to change, I hope you find a way to get used to it. Of course, there are the hills of Montana; if you go, I hope you can convince John II to join you. And I promise not to tell the IRS where you are. By the way, I'm told that the weather is not bad there in the fall, before the winter winds start to blow.
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 07:11 PMTruth,
Are you capable of answering a question?
Obviously, the US has instituted social programs with tax dollars being transferred from some people to others. The question is: How much farther down that road will we go?
Someone points out the flaws in your childlike beliefs and presentations of those beliefs; and your response is to try to make some stupid joke.
You're pathetic.
Posted by Mike on August 23, 2007 08:57 PMThat wasn't a joke, Mike. The weather in Montana really is nice in the fall. Unfortunately, it's ice in the winter. Have you heard back from John II?
Posted by Truth on August 23, 2007 09:06 PMThis country and its principles belongs to its citizens living or dead. Many have paid the price to keep her free. Another person envisioned this country as a socialist utopia, he wrote about it in "Mein Kampf". Have the decency not to challenge freedom in this house. Show some courage and immigrate to your socialist utopia. There are plenty of choices.
Posted by Breeze on August 24, 2007 06:06 AMBreeze, as I read your post, I swear I could hear the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background. And I forgive you for thinking that Mein Kampf was about the United States.
Posted by Truth on August 24, 2007 07:40 AMI wouldn't expect an answer, Mike, because Truth is a direct beneficiary of socialism. Why would he want to criticize the very system that sends him checks every month to fund his cozy retirement?
It's pathetic, isn't it? This moron preaches about the benefits of "socialistic capitalism" (socialism) and lectures us about "predatory capitalism" while his retirement is funded by money stolen from our capitalist endeavors. Truth tells us capitalism is bad yet he has no problem skimming capitalism's profits.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 08:12 AMIt's great to hear from the tantrum twins again.
Old Johnny Boy says that an employee should not try to get a raise because that might result in fellow employees getting less than he is. And Johnny claims to support capitalism!!!
He is not in tune with the fact that if an employer raises the wages of one employee, that does not reduce the number of employees he needs, and he'll likely end up having to provide the raise to the rest of his employees.
Nonetheless, Johnny is always good for a laugh: "his retirement is funded by money stolen from our capitalist endeavors." Thanks, Johnny, this forum tends to get too serious.
Posted by Truth on August 24, 2007 09:48 AMTruth,
I have a friend who sometimes reads these postings. He has identified himself as a "Libertarian" for a goodly number of years. And, to the best of my knowledge, has voted that way whenever there was a Candidate on the ballot. After reading some of John 2 - who calls himself a "Libertarian", more or less when it suits him to avoid being labeled a Right-wingnut - my friend couldn't stop laughing.
He asked me how anyone could even begin to take John 2's writings seriously. And I told him to just read on; and he would find that very few, if any, either do, or can.
In re: the above,
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush;
Here we go round the mulberry bush, all the rest of this posting.
John II says this; but he doesn’t say that. Or was it that, not this?
He doesn’t remember. But you must be wrong.
He meant it was neither. You must go along,
Or, “Dishonest you are”, he says with a hiss.
Oh! Left is right; and upwards is down. Or is it turn-about?
And both of them do go round and round;
Spinning and twirling all over the ground;
And through the air too, you may have no doubt.
“Mind your manners with me”, says he with a frown. There is no other way.
“But you are a stooge; and she is too”;
No word of respect for the likes of you.
“And spell my name fully throughout the day.”
Don’t bother with logic in answer to me. I know none from the start.
Context means nothing when I pronounce
Judgments on meaning, and then denounce
Whoever, and all,, would dare from their dooms depart.
I’m always right. I’m never wrong. No matter what I say.
I always make sense, and take great offense
At any suggestion I’m the slightest bit dense,
MY writings trump yours, and all the rest, in every possible way.
Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush;
Here we go round the mulberry bush; John II is doing the posting.
Not original, of course; but Jonesey and Johnny are such close clones that very little needs changing.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 10:52 AMTruth said:
"Old Johnny Boy says that an employee should not try to get a raise because that might result in fellow employees getting less than he is. And Johnny claims to support capitalism!!!"
Thanks, Truth. Now, I get to use my "I never said that." button again. This keyboard was a great investment. Ready?
I never said that.
"He is not in tune with the fact that if an employer raises the wages of one employee, that does not reduce the number of employees he needs, and he'll likely end up having to provide the raise to the rest of his employees."
I don't know what companies you've worked for, Truth, but no company I've ever worked for gives raises to all employees if it gives a raise to one employee.
Have you studied economics at all? I'm not talking about advanced stuff. I mean basic economics. Have you?
This is the fundamental problem with liberalism: a gross misunderstanding of basic economic principles.
If a specific labor pool collectively demands a wage that is much higher than the employer was willing to pay, and the employer is coerced into only hiring from this specific labor pool,thereby creating a labor monopoly, the employer will hire less employees than he would have under a lower wage. This is no secret, Truth. Union bosses know this.
How can you not know this yet have the temerity to lecture about "predatory capitalism"? Shouldn't you first understand what capitalism is before you apply minatory modifiers it?
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 11:01 AMChildish poems are fine, Old Grouch, but your opening paragraph hinted at something much more interesting. I was hoping you were going to explain what points of mine your libertarian friend disagrees with. Instead, I was treated to a nursery rhyme.
For a brief second, I thought perhaps you were going to dispute my arguments in an iambic pentameter rhymed verse. Alas, I found no such intellectual flair in your little lyric. How disappointing!
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 11:28 AMJohn 2,
I've invited him to visit the website, and speak for himself, many times. Whether he has or not - or will sometime or not - is up to him. I didn't ask him about specifics; and he didn't go into details.
Gee, Johnny, you should want Iambic, yet? Such self-esteem you have. And such flattery your offer me. Or maybe that's the other way around, nuh? Either way, sorry to disappoint. Maybe next time, when you're acting as tour guide through your Petrified Constitution Park preserve. A sort of monument to a monument, eh? Or even a tribute to the Cardiff Giant maybe?
Just in passing, I think Truth understands what capitalism is just as well as- or even better than - you understand socialism.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 01:53 PMJohn II: "If a specific labor pool collectively demands a wage that is much higher than the employer was willing to pay,"
The way you find out how much an employer is willing to pay is not to ask him but to force his hand. One person may not have much success, but if the whole labor force joins together ........
Posted by Truth on August 24, 2007 03:06 PMJohn II: "the employer will hire less employees than he would have under a lower wage."
If an employer needs a hundred employees in order to get the job done, the fact that he raises the wages of one or more will not reduce that need.
Posted by Truth on August 24, 2007 03:10 PM"Just in passing, I think Truth understands what capitalism is just as well as- or even better than - you understand socialism."
Truth understands very little about most things. But, I'm working to change that.
For the past eight months, he has received a first-class education from me . But, there's still a long way to go. And that's fine because I am Truth's Albatross. Wherever he goes on this forum, I will be there to correct him, to remind him, to scold him and to inculcate him. Eventually, others will observe the lessons I have taught him. And they will reprimand Truth in every thread of conversation he stumbles upon until his inculcation is complete.
As for you, Old Grouch, consider me your Moby Dick. You will spend all your thoughts and energy trying to slay my arguments. You will write poems about me; you'll discuss me with your friends; you'll lament to others about my mere existence on this forum.
But, in the end, you will never succeed in your monomaniacal mission to discredit me. For I swim in the Sea of Logic and Knowledge, and you are just a crazy old sea captain, blindly piloting a rickety wooden boat called Sweet Madness, and it cannot handle my wake.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 03:16 PMJohn II: "but no company I've ever worked for gives raises to all employees if it gives a raise to one employee."
Most sizable businesses operate on the basis of a fixed pay scale for different levels of employees who are outside of management.
Posted by Truth on August 24, 2007 03:22 PMTruth said:
"The way you find out how much an employer is willing to pay is not to ask him but to force his hand. One person may not have much success, but if the whole labor force joins together ........"
Didn't I already describe that scenario? That is what happens with unions. They create a monopoly on labor. The goal is not to "force his hand" by monopolizing the labor pool. Look to Detroit to see what happens when labor "forces" an employers hand. Labor loses. The business loses. Eventually, the business will relocate to a friendlier labor pool. Look at where the Japanese and Germans build their manufacturing plants. It's not Detroit.
"If an employer needs a hundred employees in order to get the job done, the fact that he raises the wages of one or more will not reduce that need."
Well, of course the need is not reduced. But, how the business decides to fulfill that need is what's important. It may decide to relocate to another state. It may relocate to another country. It may spend more money on automation. It may cut other benefits like health insurance and training. It may even decide to cut back on production (see GM and Ford). It may decide to slow it's growth expectations until a more favorable labor environment presents itself.
It may even decide to give in to the union's demands at the cost of a substantial reduction profit. This loss of profit means investors will not invest in the business. A loss of capital investment reduces growth. Reduced growth leads to layoffs. Layoffs lead to renegotiated labor contracts. Renegotiated contracts leads to union legal fees. Union legal fees lead to high union membership dues. High union membership dues leads to a smaller paycheck.
One more thing, Truth. An employer's needs are not always fixed. The employer may be able to sell 100 units with five employees and 300 units with eight employees. The need is elastic. The employer may have big plans but does not attempt to execute the plan because he knows he cannot afford enough labor for his plan.
Truth said:
"Most sizable businesses operate on the basis of a fixed pay scale for different levels of employees who are outside of management."
Of course. Therefore what? There's usually a salary range for various jobs. The salary is still negotiated. And raises are on an individual basis. One raise does not trigger a raise for all.
This doesn't mean that all employees of a certain job function get paid the same amount. It just means there's a range that an employer doesn't feel comfortable outside of (whether higher or lower), based on research about what a specific job function usually costs. For obvious reasons, an employer would not want to overpay. It would also not want to underpay because then the employer risks the cost of training a worker only to see her leave when she realizes her worth in the market.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 03:58 PMJohn II said: "That is what happens with unions. They create a monopoly on labor. The goal is not to "force his hand" by monopolizing the labor pool. Look to Detroit to see what happens when labor "forces" an employers hand. Labor loses. The business loses. Eventually, the business will relocate to a friendlier labor pool. Look at where the Japanese and Germans build their manufacturing plants. It's not Detroit."
Whoa. Wait a minute. While my knowledge about the auto industry and its woes is only very, very general, I do have a basic understanding of a few factors in this issue that you're not even acknowledging.
First, while domestic automakers are shutting down plants in the US and laying off workers, foreign automakers are opening them here. And yes, they're union shops.
Second, look at the number of recalls on cars from domestic automakers each year. That has to cost millions upon millions of dollars. Is shoddy workmanship to blame? Could be, but from what I understand, workers are saying a lot of parts are shoddy - the ones management is ordering from non-union suppliers. IF that's the case (and I don't know if it is...I have never worked in the auto industry and it seems this particular argument would best be judged by someone who has), isn't that a bad decision on management's part?
And speaking of management, they are tasked with remaining competitive with foreign car companies. This involves design decisions, which of course relies on inventiveness, innovation, etc. Again, decisions that come from the top.
Of course, you know I'm going to have to add that providing healthcare benefits to tens of thousands of employees can't be helping either the bottom line, either.
I just think you left out a lot of possible considerations in your deduction that labor wages are largely to blame for our domestic automakers financial quagmire, John II. And since you claim to be an expert in economics, its a bit surprising you would boil things down to one simplistic factor.
Posted by mytwosense on August 24, 2007 04:15 PMmytwosense said:
"First, while domestic automakers are shutting down plants in the US and laying off workers, foreign automakers are opening them here. And yes, they're union shops."
Yes. That's why I mentioned Japan and Germany. They are building plants in the US, but not in Detroit. They chose friendlier states like Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina. And yes, those are also union shops. But, those unions lack the entitlements that the Detroit unions have become accustomed to.
"Second, look at the number of recalls on cars from domestic automakers each year. That has to cost millions upon millions of dollars. Is shoddy workmanship to blame? Could be, but from what I understand, workers are saying a lot of parts are shoddy - the ones management is ordering from non-union suppliers. IF that's the case (and I don't know if it is...I have never worked in the auto industry and it seems this particular argument would best be judged by someone who has), isn't that a bad decision on management's part?"
First of all, domestic manufacturers have done a great job catching up to foreign competition. Do you have the recall figures handy? I'm not so sure domestics lead in that category. Even Toyota had a big recall recently.
Regardless, labor costs directly affect quality. A company like GM, which is strapped with enormous pension obligations, has less to reinvest in it's factories because of those pension costs. Instead of paying billions in pension and health benefits, it could be spending that money on R&D, newer factories, and better machinery. I'm not suggesting it's entirely labors fault. Of course, there are other factors. But, the topic is labor unions and how they affect business.
"Of course, you know I'm going to have to add that providing healthcare benefits to tens of thousands of employees can't be helping either the bottom line, either."
You're absolutely correct. This is a part of labor's cost to business. Unions demand a certain level of health insurance from employers. Unions should provide this benefit to their members instead of forcing an employer to pay for it. This is another example of how unions affect the amount of workers an employer is willing to take on. The more that labor demands, the less labor that will be employed.
If you're working in a union for $35 per hour, good for you. If you couldn't get into the union because the employer won't hire anymore workers, that's tough luck for you. Even if you were willing to work for $25 per hour, the union will not allow you to work.
Posted by John II on August 24, 2007 05:38 PMJohn 2,
"Swim in the sea of logic", huh? I guess that explains that little kiddies wading pool off there in the corner. Just a precaution, so you won't wind up too far out of your depth. Have fun.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 07:36 PM