Posts: 509
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2016
04-13-2021, 12:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2021, 02:43 PM by Einzige.)
Again, neoliberalism is not synonymous with radical laissez-faire free market dogma ala Ayn Rand. The neoliberals accepted pro-business government intervention, and even a measure of welfare as long as the ultimate beneficiaries were businesses, where Austrian Randroid types never would, at least consciously. State regulation was to be used from the outset as a "pro-growth" engine rather than merely implicitly as wjth rhe Keynesian knock-on effect. I mean, make no mistake, Traditional New Dealer Keynesian social democrat types were also believers in regulated capitalism of course, but the neoliberals thought there need be no inherent contradiction between this and pro-business policies.
Reagan would personally have preferred retarded Austrian libertarianism, just as Clinton would have preferred Keynesian liberalism. Both ended up promoting neoliberalism instead as an apparent consensus compromise model.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(04-12-2021, 11:35 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-12-2021, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-03-2021, 09:43 AM)David Horn Wrote: (04-02-2021, 12:21 PM)Anthony Wrote: Not surprisingly, I agree with Joe Manchin. Let's go to $11 an hour for now - so long as the minimum wage is thereafter indexed to an "unchained" CPI once the minimum wage does reach that figure.
And the Democrats have only themselves to blame - because of the Culture Wars, which they started - for being forced to compromise on this, and so many other issues.
$15 is low today and far outdated by the time it finally arrives. $11 is an insult. If the minimum had kept pace since 1973, it would be $20+. I do agree that the laser focus on culture issues has been much of the problem. It seems to be that advancement on trend line A must be offset by stagnation on trend line B. It’s not right, but it seems to be the case. And no, I don’t have a solution for that.
I think you should go big and impose 60$. You won't have much of an economy left but whatever, that's beside the point.
The fact of the matter is that wage labor and money are almost entirely arbitrary. Why do cooks make ten an hour? Why not fifty, or fifteen, or five hundred? If adjusted radically upwards l, would not everything else adjust itself according to the "natural laws of the market" given time?
But this isn't an argument for increasing the minimum wage. It's an argument for the abolition of wage labor.
True, it's nothing more than an alternative means that's being used by the left to achieve the same result. I'll give you credit, you don't mince words and you're more honorable and a bit smarter than the typical Democratic minded Progressive these days. So, what are you going to be doing during the cultural war that's coming soon. Are you going to be living like a renegade Indian while we're settling our obvious differences with the Democratic party? You're right, the only thing the Democrats and us have in common is that we are both directly related to capitalism, currently related to the same country and we are humans. The Democrats think they're God like but in reality, they're just humans among humans.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(04-13-2021, 09:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: (04-12-2021, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-03-2021, 09:43 AM)David Horn Wrote: (04-02-2021, 12:21 PM)Anthony Wrote: Not surprisingly, I agree with Joe Manchin. Let's go to $11 an hour for now - so long as the minimum wage is thereafter indexed to an "unchained" CPI once the minimum wage does reach that figure.
And the Democrats have only themselves to blame - because of the Culture Wars, which they started - for being forced to compromise on this, and so many other issues.
$15 is low today and far outdated by the time it finally arrives. $11 is an insult. If the minimum had kept pace since 1973, it would be $20+. I do agree that the laser focus on culture issues has been much of the problem. It seems to be that advancement on trend line A must be offset by stagnation on trend line B. It’s not right, but it seems to be the case. And no, I don’t have a solution for that.
I think you should go big and impose 60$. You won't have much of an economy left but whatever, that's beside the point.
If we had followed the trend from the end of WW-II through roughly 1973, the minimum wage would be between $20 and $22 an hour. People getting paid at that level have disposable income, meaning more spending overall. More spending leads to more profits for businesses, who then need more workers to do what they do. So how is this bad?
In theory, it should only take an hour to punch a hole through the rim of a house in St Paul. An old boss told me that one time. Evidently, the boss's theory didn't take into account the overall thickness or the density of the concrete that ruined his theory. He didn't want to hear that from me anymore than you want to hear what I have to say to you and your beliefs these days. I assume that you aren't fortunate enough to be a multi millionaire like Obama, Biden and Pelosi or a multi billionaire like the Facebook dude or Google dude or Bill Gates or even Trump for that matter. I assume that you are as susceptible to rising costs and shortages like everyone else living below them.
I never thought that I'd be around long enough see you and every other partisan left wing hack in the position that you are all in these days. Here you are pretty much being set up to find yourselves discarded and finding ways to live off whatever revenues associated with American entertainment and the drama associated with Left Wing propaganda for the most part. So, what's an Oscar worth to most Americans these days? Is it worth nearly as much as it did to America before it was taken over and politicized by today's Left? Does education cost more than its worth as well? Guess who took that over and turned it to shit? It's the same group. I hope you don't have to guess? So, how long is it going to take for the Left to adjust to presence of people who aren't as dumb or a gullible as them? Can they adjust or are they pretty much stuck?
Posts: 509
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2016
04-13-2021, 05:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2021, 06:45 PM by Einzige.)
(04-13-2021, 02:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-12-2021, 11:35 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-12-2021, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-03-2021, 09:43 AM)David Horn Wrote: (04-02-2021, 12:21 PM)Anthony Wrote: Not surprisingly, I agree with Joe Manchin. Let's go to $11 an hour for now - so long as the minimum wage is thereafter indexed to an "unchained" CPI once the minimum wage does reach that figure.
And the Democrats have only themselves to blame - because of the Culture Wars, which they started - for being forced to compromise on this, and so many other issues.
$15 is low today and far outdated by the time it finally arrives. $11 is an insult. If the minimum had kept pace since 1973, it would be $20+. I do agree that the laser focus on culture issues has been much of the problem. It seems to be that advancement on trend line A must be offset by stagnation on trend line B. It’s not right, but it seems to be the case. And no, I don’t have a solution for that.
I think you should go big and impose 60$. You won't have much of an economy left but whatever, that's beside the point.
The fact of the matter is that wage labor and money are almost entirely arbitrary. Why do cooks make ten an hour? Why not fifty, or fifteen, or five hundred? If adjusted radically upwards l, would not everything else adjust itself according to the "natural laws of the market" given time?
But this isn't an argument for increasing the minimum wage. It's an argument for the abolition of wage labor.
True, it's nothing more than an alternative means that's being used by the left to achieve the same result. I'll give you credit, you don't mince words and you're more honorable and a bit smarter than the typical Democratic minded Progressive these days. So, what are you going to be doing during the cultural war that's coming soon. Are you going to be living like a renegade Indian while we're settling our obvious differences with the Democratic party? You're right, the only thing the Democrats and us have in common is that we are both directly related to capitalism, currently related to the same country and we are humans. The Democrats think they're God like but in reality, they're just humans among humans.
There's th Left-Wing Of Capital, i.e. Democrats (even very liberal ones like Sanders etc.), and the Revolutionary Left. And the two want entirely different things, even if a lot of the rhetoric sounds superficially similar.
I don't want a minimum wage hike, not necessarily because I am concerned with prices (there is very little evidence that controlled minimum wage increases correlate to price inflation) but because it reinforces wage labor, which is a social relationship with a definite history (e.g. most Egyptians, Roman's etc. did not work for wages as we understand them except when they worked for the State in various capacities) and therefore a definite end.
Money, again, is illusory. This is why e.g. I can go to a place like Laos or Vietnam, rent a very modest (<100k) American house out here while I'm gone, and live an upper middle class life - why will $700 a month get me a hovel in the U.S. and a normal middle class life (except for some high end consumer electronics or cars, neither of which I care about) in Hanoi? I can literally pay for all my needs and a good few wants from one low end rental property here, whereas I'd need to own dozens in Vietnam or Indinwsia to finance a life here. Why is money valued differently in different places if it expresses timeless universals? Is being in Vietnam really that much worse than being in America? No, almost certainly not, unless you are bourgeois and have business interests here.
Because money is not real. It is a social abstraction. You'd probably agree to the extent that fiat money is a thing - to which I would remind you that money was backed by all kinds of shit before the implementation of the gold standard in the nineteenth century.
The Democrats etc. are not about to abolish it. They just want the illusion of money to appear a little more pleasant.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(04-13-2021, 05:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: There's th Left-Wing Of Capital, i.e. Democrats (even very liberal ones like Sanders etc.), and the Revolutionary Left. And the two want entirely different things, even if a lot of the rhetoric sounds superficially similar.
I don't want a minimum wage hike, not necessarily because I am concerned with prices (there is very little evidence that controlled minimum wage increases correlate to price inflation) but because it reinforces wage labor, which is a social relationship with a definite history (e.g. most Egyptians, Roman's etc. did not work for wages as we understand them except when they worked for the State in various capacities) and therefore a definite end.
Money, again, is illusory. This is why e.g. I can go to a place like Laos or Vietnam, rent a very modest (<100k) American house out here while I'm gone, and live an upper middle class life - why will $700 a month get me a hovel in the U.S. and a normal middle class life (except for some high end consumer electronics) in Hanoi? I can literally pay for all my needs and a good few wants from one low end rental property here, whereas I'd need to own dozens in Vietnam or Indonesia to finance a life here. Why is money valued differently in different places if it expresses timeless universals?
Because money is not real. It is a social abstraction. You'd probably agree to the extent that fiat money is a thing - to which I would remind you that money was backed by all kinds of shit before the implementation of the gold standard in the nineteenth century.
The Democrats etc. are not about to abolish it. They just want the illusion of money to appear a little more pleasant.
OK, so economic happiness is essentially a ratio of rewards to the ability to achieve personal needs. Much of this reflects a cost of living that is obviously far higher in Japan than in Bolivia. But this also reflects the difference of opportunity to meet one's means in Bolivia or Japan. Costs of housing are obvious enough, as one can easily spend more than half one's "disposable" income on a tiny flat in New York, London, or Hong Kong and nowhere near as much in upstate New York or rural England.
Even within the United States, low costs of living may also correspond with abysmal economic conditions. If you want to contrast state capitols, Boston, Massachusetts is one of the most expensive and Jackson, Mississippi is one of the least expensive. A big problem in Jackson, Mississippi is violent crime because... well, Mississippi is dreadful at many things from poor educational standards to a very poor safety net. Mississippi is a good place to live if you are part of a farm family with a high income... but to live in Jackson, Mississippi means that one is much more likely to experience violent crime. Unless one is a police officer there could be no bright side of violent crime.
I am not certain that Americans are living better than they did their grandparents in the 1950's unless those grandparents lived in some hell-hole in the Third World or experienced severe deprivation and degradation as the result of Jim Crow practice in "Kukluxistan". The medical miracles are better, but many of those simply extend the stage of life known as debility. The main improvement that I see in life expectancy is that people have better habits than people had in the 1950's, when people in their sixties were still smoking heavily (and dying of lung cancer or other ailments related to tobacco), were not staying physically active, and when driving a car was far more dangerous. (OK, I want no return to Blood Alley roads; I can drive 150 miles more safely now on freeways than I could have driven 20 miles on the awful roads of the 1950's, let alone the much more frequent encounters with a BAC near 0.15). Technology? Are 200 channels of vapid entertainment and re-runs better than three channels on the Idiot Screen? Would listening to monaural recordings of classical music hurt you more than listening to the stupefying schlock recorded with undeniable clarity? Is e-mail better than what the USPS delivers? Do you really communicate better with a cell phone than with a phone with a rotary dial?
I've known people born in the early part of the twentieth century, and even if they did work that required nothing more than a "solid eighth grade education" they were often anything other than unsophisticated. They read books, which is typically far more enriching than vegetating before the Idiot Screen.
...Money is simply a surrogate for value, and it allows one to sell one's labor for cash and buy stuff for cash. It makes barter less necessary for survival (unless hyperinflation has so reduced the value of money that one wants to deal off one's pay as quickly as possible so that one has something). One has far more choices in life with $60K a year than with $15K a year.
Money is valuable for what one can buy with it. Such is a function largely of its scarcity, and woe is it to any society that grows its money far faster than its population unless it is getting some huge increase in value. I can imagine other things -- OK, tobacco was once money -- that could be surrogates for money. Most obviously, electrical power and computing power present themselves.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 509
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2016
Money cannot represent value, at least not directly. It can at bet represent the exchange-value of a commodity. But it certainly cannot represent all aspects of value, use and exchange, directly.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
OK. Ed owns a restaurant, and Jack is a barber. The exchange-value of a steak dinner at Ed's restaurant is about the same as the value of a haircut by Jack. Exchanging a steak dinner for a haircut might not be practical at the moment. Money is simply a surrogate. Jack may not be hungry when Ed wants a haircut, and Ed might not want to serve Jack a steak dinner in a barbershop.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(04-13-2021, 08:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK. Ed owns a restaurant, and Jack is a barber. The exchange-value of a steak dinner at Ed's restaurant is about the same as the value of a haircut by Jack. Exchanging a steak dinner for a haircut might not be practical at the moment. Money is simply a surrogate. Jack may not be hungry when Ed wants a haircut, and Ed might not want to serve Jack a steak dinner in a barbershop.
Also Jack may get hungry more often than Ed needs a haircut? Having something that represents the exchange value is convenient. Among other things, it allows specialization.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(04-13-2021, 09:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (04-13-2021, 08:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK. Ed owns a restaurant, and Jack is a barber. The exchange-value of a steak dinner at Ed's restaurant is about the same as the value of a haircut by Jack. Exchanging a steak dinner for a haircut might not be practical at the moment. Money is simply a surrogate. Jack may not be hungry when Ed wants a haircut, and Ed might not want to serve Jack a steak dinner in a barbershop.
Also Jack may get hungry more often than Ed needs a haircut? Having something that represents the exchange value is convenient. Among other things, it allows specialization.
The most obvious. People generally prefer cash to in-kind payments. Also -- Jack could be a vegetarian, or he might prefer an add-on to his meal such as a beer or a pie. Ed might be bald due to his chemotherapy.
Money is easy to standardize for rational exchanges in a free market. This has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
04-14-2021, 01:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2021, 01:49 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(04-13-2021, 05:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-13-2021, 02:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-12-2021, 11:35 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-12-2021, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-03-2021, 09:43 AM)David Horn Wrote: $15 is low today and far outdated by the time it finally arrives. $11 is an insult. If the minimum had kept pace since 1973, it would be $20+. I do agree that the laser focus on culture issues has been much of the problem. It seems to be that advancement on trend line A must be offset by stagnation on trend line B. It’s not right, but it seems to be the case. And no, I don’t have a solution for that.
I think you should go big and impose 60$. You won't have much of an economy left but whatever, that's beside the point.
The fact of the matter is that wage labor and money are almost entirely arbitrary. Why do cooks make ten an hour? Why not fifty, or fifteen, or five hundred? If adjusted radically upwards l, would not everything else adjust itself according to the "natural laws of the market" given time?
But this isn't an argument for increasing the minimum wage. It's an argument for the abolition of wage labor.
True, it's nothing more than an alternative means that's being used by the left to achieve the same result. I'll give you credit, you don't mince words and you're more honorable and a bit smarter than the typical Democratic minded Progressive these days. So, what are you going to be doing during the cultural war that's coming soon. Are you going to be living like a renegade Indian while we're settling our obvious differences with the Democratic party? You're right, the only thing the Democrats and us have in common is that we are both directly related to capitalism, currently related to the same country and we are humans. The Democrats think they're God like but in reality, they're just humans among humans.
There's th Left-Wing Of Capital, i.e. Democrats (even very liberal ones like Sanders etc.), and the Revolutionary Left. And the two want entirely different things, even if a lot of the rhetoric sounds superficially similar.
I don't want a minimum wage hike, not necessarily because I am concerned with prices (there is very little evidence that controlled minimum wage increases correlate to price inflation) but because it reinforces wage labor, which is a social relationship with a definite history (e.g. most Egyptians, Roman's etc. did not work for wages as we understand them except when they worked for the State in various capacities) and therefore a definite end.
Money, again, is illusory. This is why e.g. I can go to a place like Laos or Vietnam, rent a very modest (<100k) American house out here while I'm gone, and live an upper middle class life - why will $700 a month get me a hovel in the U.S. and a normal middle class life (except for some high end consumer electronics or cars, neither of which I care about) in Hanoi? I can literally pay for all my needs and a good few wants from one low end rental property here, whereas I'd need to own dozens in Vietnam or Indinwsia to finance a life here. Why is money valued differently in different places if it expresses timeless universals? Is being in Vietnam really that much worse than being in America? No, almost certainly not, unless you are bourgeois and have business interests here.
Because money is not real. It is a social abstraction. You'd probably agree to the extent that fiat money is a thing - to which I would remind you that money was backed by all kinds of shit before the implementation of the gold standard in the nineteenth century.
The Democrats etc. are not about to abolish it. They just want the illusion of money to appear a little more pleasant.
I don't really care if the Democrats continue slitting there own throats and continue increasing poverty levels and creating more issues for themselves. I've already written them off along with a group of Republicans. Fuck them. I think America should break with DC, establish a new American capitol and basically leave them behind to deal with all the shit that they don't want to do anything about that might upset someone with money they need for a campaign or some ditz living in Hollywood. I'm sure Vietnam would be fine for someone like you. You're already a communist believer and you'd prefer to live in a communist country. It wouldn't hurt to give it a shot if the Vietnam government approves of you and allows you to enter their country.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
04-14-2021, 02:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2021, 02:39 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(04-14-2021, 12:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (04-13-2021, 09:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (04-13-2021, 08:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK. Ed owns a restaurant, and Jack is a barber. The exchange-value of a steak dinner at Ed's restaurant is about the same as the value of a haircut by Jack. Exchanging a steak dinner for a haircut might not be practical at the moment. Money is simply a surrogate. Jack may not be hungry when Ed wants a haircut, and Ed might not want to serve Jack a steak dinner in a barbershop.
Also Jack may get hungry more often than Ed needs a haircut? Having something that represents the exchange value is convenient. Among other things, it allows specialization.
The most obvious. People generally prefer cash to in-kind payments. Also -- Jack could be a vegetarian, or he might prefer an add-on to his meal such as a beer or a pie. Ed might be bald due to his chemotherapy.
Money is easy to standardize for rational exchanges in a free market. This has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism.
There's also a chance that Jack could be a Trump supporter and Ed could be a Biden supporter and the two of them could refuse to do work for each other these days as well. Don't laugh, the Biden administration already has the country moving in that direction. I've spent the last few days watching Democrats scaring Democrats and listening to racist Democrats appealing to racist Democrats on CNN. If you ain't a racist nigger or spick or white trash by now, you better learn how to be like one because that's who you are going to be directly competing with for Democratic tax dollars down the road. Oh, how many years did we coexist with the iron curtain and continue to go about our business as Americans while all kinds of nasty shit was going on behind the iron curtain.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-13-2021, 04:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: In theory, it should only take an hour to punch a hole through the rim of a house in St Paul. An old boss told me that one time. Evidently, the boss's theory didn't take into account the overall thickness or the density of the concrete that ruined his theory. He didn't want to hear that from me anymore than you want to hear what I have to say to you and your beliefs these days. I assume that you aren't fortunate enough to be a multi millionaire like Obama, Biden and Pelosi or a multi billionaire like the Facebook dude or Google dude or Bill Gates or even Trump for that matter. I assume that you are as susceptible to rising costs and shortages like everyone else living below them.
Somewhere in there is a point. Yes, I'm susceptible to rising prices as we all are. That's also true of the rich, though their idea on what's important is obviously different from yours or mine.
C-Xer Wrote:I never thought that I'd be around long enough see you and every other partisan left wing hack in the position that you are all in these days. Here you are pretty much being set up to find yourselves discarded and finding ways to live off whatever revenues associated with American entertainment and the drama associated with Left Wing propaganda for the most part. So, what's an Oscar worth to most Americans these days? Is it worth nearly as much as it did to America before it was taken over and politicized by today's Left? Does education cost more than its worth as well? Guess who took that over and turned it to shit? It's the same group. I hope you don't have to guess? So, how long is it going to take for the Left to adjust to presence of people who aren't as dumb or a gullible as them? Can they adjust or are they pretty much stuck?
If the Progressive program succeeds, and that's still open to question, then we'll all be less exposed to the vagaries of life. The rich will not continue accumulating at the rate they have and the rest of us will have more -- especially those not in the top 5%. If you're under that threshold, and I certainly am, then you should gain too.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-13-2021, 07:39 PM)Einzige Wrote: Money cannot represent value, at least not directly. It can at bet represent the exchange-value of a commodity. But it certainly cannot represent all aspects of value, use and exchange, directly.
I agree. Money is primarily a lubricant to allow barbers to use haircuts to buy bread, among the myriad examples of exchange in which we all engage.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(04-14-2021, 01:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-13-2021, 05:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-13-2021, 02:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-12-2021, 11:35 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-12-2021, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I think you should go big and impose 60$. You won't have much of an economy left but whatever, that's beside the point.
The fact of the matter is that wage labor and money are almost entirely arbitrary. Why do cooks make ten an hour? Why not fifty, or fifteen, or five hundred? If adjusted radically upwards l, would not everything else adjust itself according to the "natural laws of the market" given time?
But this isn't an argument for increasing the minimum wage. It's an argument for the abolition of wage labor.
True, it's nothing more than an alternative means that's being used by the left to achieve the same result. I'll give you credit, you don't mince words and you're more honorable and a bit smarter than the typical Democratic minded Progressive these days. So, what are you going to be doing during the cultural war that's coming soon. Are you going to be living like a renegade Indian while we're settling our obvious differences with the Democratic party? You're right, the only thing the Democrats and us have in common is that we are both directly related to capitalism, currently related to the same country and we are humans. The Democrats think they're God like but in reality, they're just humans among humans.
There's th Left-Wing Of Capital, i.e. Democrats (even very liberal ones like Sanders etc.), and the Revolutionary Left. And the two want entirely different things, even if a lot of the rhetoric sounds superficially similar.
I don't want a minimum wage hike, not necessarily because I am concerned with prices (there is very little evidence that controlled minimum wage increases correlate to price inflation) but because it reinforces wage labor, which is a social relationship with a definite history (e.g. most Egyptians, Roman's etc. did not work for wages as we understand them except when they worked for the State in various capacities) and therefore a definite end.
Money, again, is illusory. This is why e.g. I can go to a place like Laos or Vietnam, rent a very modest (<100k) American house out here while I'm gone, and live an upper middle class life - why will $700 a month get me a hovel in the U.S. and a normal middle class life (except for some high end consumer electronics or cars, neither of which I care about) in Hanoi? I can literally pay for all my needs and a good few wants from one low end rental property here, whereas I'd need to own dozens in Vietnam or Indinwsia to finance a life here. Why is money valued differently in different places if it expresses timeless universals? Is being in Vietnam really that much worse than being in America? No, almost certainly not, unless you are bourgeois and have business interests here.
Because money is not real. It is a social abstraction. You'd probably agree to the extent that fiat money is a thing - to which I would remind you that money was backed by all kinds of shit before the implementation of the gold standard in the nineteenth century.
The Democrats etc. are not about to abolish it. They just want the illusion of money to appear a little more pleasant.
I don't really care if the Democrats continue (ugly metaphor redacted) and continue increasing poverty levels and creating more issues for themselves. I've already written them off along with a group of Republicans. (expletive deleted) them. I think America should break with DC, establish a new American capitol and basically leave them behind to deal with all the (nonsense) that they don't want to do anything about that might upset someone with money they need for a campaign or some ditz living in Hollywood. I'm sure Vietnam would be fine for someone like you. You're already a communist believer and you'd prefer to live in a communist country. It wouldn't hurt to give it a shot if the Vietnam government approves of you and allows you to enter their country.
1. Conservatives used to be firm believers in minimal government until they discovered how well Big Government could serve them with sweetheart deals and the enforcement of monopolistic pricing. The political choice has become between a welfare state and crony capitalism.
2. Moving the seat of government elsewhere -- St. Louis, Missouri would be a suitably centralized location -- would simply move what you see as the pathologies of Big Government to another city. The political culture must change to achieve your vision of a "Real America". It is not changing rapidly as you want it to change.
3. Political campaigns aren't cheap these days. Would you prefer public financing of campaigns? I'd like to see some of the most expensive and least informative means of campaigning (smear ads in 30-second spots) to vanish. If pols could get votes by debasing the music that their opponents listen to, then they would make those ads.
4. Yes, yes... I know that Einzige can be naïve about money. People do not work or start business for money; they work for what they can get with it. Money makes exchange easier/
5. It is easy to despise economic elites who believe that the only legitimate reason for the existence of any person not already filthy rich is to make themselves even more filthy rich while barely surviving. Such creates maximal profits and elite gain. Donald Trump exemplifies that personality and agenda.
6. Much about what people complain about is a cover for something else. Much that people dislike about their lot is the rat race. The hour-long commute, crowded parking lots, telemarketing pitches, work that has no relation to personal character, and being heavily and hopelessly in debt can all be miserable. If one still has these but the system becomes 'socialist', would Einzige be happy?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(04-14-2021, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: If the Progressive program succeeds, and that's still open to question, then we'll all be less exposed to the vagaries of life. The rich will not continue accumulating at the rate they have and the rest of us will have more -- especially those not in the top 5%. If you're under that threshold, and I certainly am, then you should gain too.
The point was theories don't always work out or turn out as planned. The Democrats are free to spend as much as they want and free to tax as much as they want too. The government is already bankrupt and unable to fulfill it's current obligations, so what the hell, they might as well bankrupt it some more at this point. It's hard to listen as your busy talking. The Democrats aren't paid to listen. The Democrats are paid to talk and sell their foolish and short sighted ideas to the general public/public sector which we know is largely Democratic these days. So, how are the blueish cream puffs doing these days? Are the cream puffs still clinging to Biden?
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(04-14-2021, 07:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-14-2021, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: If the Progressive program succeeds, and that's still open to question, then we'll all be less exposed to the vagaries of life. The rich will not continue accumulating at the rate they have and the rest of us will have more -- especially those not in the top 5%. If you're under that threshold, and I certainly am, then you should gain too.
The point was theories don't always work out or turn out as planned. The Democrats are free to spend as much as they want and free to tax as much as they want too. The government is already bankrupt and unable to fulfill it's current obligations, so what the hell, they might as well bankrupt it some more at this point. It's hard to listen as your busy talking. The Democrats aren't paid to listen. The Democrats are paid to talk and sell their foolish and short sighted ideas to the general public/public sector which we know is largely Democratic these days. So, how are the blueish cream puffs doing these days? Are the cream puffs still clinging to Biden?
Tax-funded spending moves funds around, creating opportunities for people who get government funds as contracts and employment.
Our politicians heed voters lest they be certain to lose in the next election. Republicans are no less inflexible than Democrats on core principles. .
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(04-14-2021, 01:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (04-14-2021, 01:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-13-2021, 05:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: (04-13-2021, 02:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-12-2021, 11:35 PM)Einzige Wrote: The fact of the matter is that wage labor and money are almost entirely arbitrary. Why do cooks make ten an hour? Why not fifty, or fifteen, or five hundred? If adjusted radically upwards l, would not everything else adjust itself according to the "natural laws of the market" given time?
But this isn't an argument for increasing the minimum wage. It's an argument for the abolition of wage labor.
True, it's nothing more than an alternative means that's being used by the left to achieve the same result. I'll give you credit, you don't mince words and you're more honorable and a bit smarter than the typical Democratic minded Progressive these days. So, what are you going to be doing during the cultural war that's coming soon. Are you going to be living like a renegade Indian while we're settling our obvious differences with the Democratic party? You're right, the only thing the Democrats and us have in common is that we are both directly related to capitalism, currently related to the same country and we are humans. The Democrats think they're God like but in reality, they're just humans among humans.
There's th Left-Wing Of Capital, i.e. Democrats (even very liberal ones like Sanders etc.), and the Revolutionary Left. And the two want entirely different things, even if a lot of the rhetoric sounds superficially similar.
I don't want a minimum wage hike, not necessarily because I am concerned with prices (there is very little evidence that controlled minimum wage increases correlate to price inflation) but because it reinforces wage labor, which is a social relationship with a definite history (e.g. most Egyptians, Roman's etc. did not work for wages as we understand them except when they worked for the State in various capacities) and therefore a definite end.
Money, again, is illusory. This is why e.g. I can go to a place like Laos or Vietnam, rent a very modest (<100k) American house out here while I'm gone, and live an upper middle class life - why will $700 a month get me a hovel in the U.S. and a normal middle class life (except for some high end consumer electronics or cars, neither of which I care about) in Hanoi? I can literally pay for all my needs and a good few wants from one low end rental property here, whereas I'd need to own dozens in Vietnam or Indinwsia to finance a life here. Why is money valued differently in different places if it expresses timeless universals? Is being in Vietnam really that much worse than being in America? No, almost certainly not, unless you are bourgeois and have business interests here.
Because money is not real. It is a social abstraction. You'd probably agree to the extent that fiat money is a thing - to which I would remind you that money was backed by all kinds of shit before the implementation of the gold standard in the nineteenth century.
The Democrats etc. are not about to abolish it. They just want the illusion of money to appear a little more pleasant.
I don't really care if the Democrats continue (ugly metaphor redacted) and continue increasing poverty levels and creating more issues for themselves. I've already written them off along with a group of Republicans. (expletive deleted) them. I think America should break with DC, establish a new American capitol and basically leave them behind to deal with all the (nonsense) that they don't want to do anything about that might upset someone with money they need for a campaign or some ditz living in Hollywood. I'm sure Vietnam would be fine for someone like you. You're already a communist believer and you'd prefer to live in a communist country. It wouldn't hurt to give it a shot if the Vietnam government approves of you and allows you to enter their country.
1. Conservatives used to be firm believers in minimal government until they discovered how well Big Government could serve them with sweetheart deals and the enforcement of monopolistic pricing. The political choice has become between a welfare state and crony capitalism.
2. Moving the seat of government elsewhere -- St. Louis, Missouri would be a suitably centralized location -- would simply move what you see as the pathologies of Big Government to another city. The political culture must change to achieve your vision of a "Real America". It is not changing rapidly as you want it to change.
3. Political campaigns aren't cheap these days. Would you prefer public financing of campaigns? I'd like to see some of the most expensive and least informative means of campaigning (smear ads in 30-second spots) to vanish. If pols could get votes by debasing the music that their opponents listen to, then they would make those ads.
4. Yes, yes... I know that Einzige can be naïve about money. People do not work or start business for money; they work for what they can get with it. Money makes exchange easier/
5. It is easy to despise economic elites who believe that the only legitimate reason for the existence of any person not already filthy rich is to make themselves even more filthy rich while barely surviving. Such creates maximal profits and elite gain. Donald Trump exemplifies that personality and agenda.
6. Much about what people complain about is a cover for something else. Much that people dislike about their lot is the rat race. The hour-long commute, crowded parking lots, telemarketing pitches, work that has no relation to personal character, and being heavily and hopelessly in debt can all be miserable. If one still has these but the system becomes 'socialist', would Einzige be happy?
We work for money and whatever we can purchase with it. Why would big government move from DC when it pretty much owns DC? A move would send the wrong signal? No, I think big government would have to stay where it is in order to remain in power. Right now, DC is the power center of the country as it exists today. PB, you spend more time preaching and lecturing then you spend listening and pay attention to the corporations and powers that the Democratic party has already given them. You can write pretty good but you're aloof and pretty much blind when it comes to reading the signs. So, do you think those poor children packed in like sardines living in cages are learning what Democratic life for them is going to like? Have you seen any pictures yet or aren't you fortunate enough to see any of them yet? How about the mayor of Brooklyn Center, have you seen that bumbling black idiot yet? He ain't much different than the bumbling white mayor of Minneapolis? They both have the same knee jerk problem, they open their mouths and play to their base before they think which results in a lot of damage. Dude, it isn't a choice between welfare and crony capitalism, the Democrats represent both of them these days.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(04-14-2021, 07:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (04-14-2021, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: If the Progressive program succeeds, and that's still open to question, then we'll all be less exposed to the vagaries of life. The rich will not continue accumulating at the rate they have and the rest of us will have more -- especially those not in the top 5%. If you're under that threshold, and I certainly am, then you should gain too.
The point was theories don't always work out or turn out as planned. The Democrats are free to spend as much as they want and free to tax as much as they want too. The government is already bankrupt and unable to fulfill it's current obligations, so what the hell, they might as well bankrupt it some more at this point. It's hard to listen as your busy talking. The Democrats aren't paid to listen. The Democrats are paid to talk and sell their foolish and short sighted ideas to the general public/public sector which we know is largely Democratic these days. So, how are the blueish cream puffs doing these days? Are the cream puffs still clinging to Biden?
I agree that theory doesn't necessarily align with reality, but that's always true. Case in point: we've had 50 years of lowering taxes and regulation on business and the rich. Has any of that proved more beneficial than the era that proceeded it? The data say no. In fact, the opposite is true. So much for that theory.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 509
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2016
04-15-2021, 04:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2021, 06:57 PM by Einzige.)
(04-14-2021, 10:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: (04-13-2021, 04:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: In theory, it should only take an hour to punch a hole through the rim of a house in St Paul. An old boss told me that one time. Evidently, the boss's theory didn't take into account the overall thickness or the density of the concrete that ruined his theory. He didn't want to hear that from me anymore than you want to hear what I have to say to you and your beliefs these days. I assume that you aren't fortunate enough to be a multi millionaire like Obama, Biden and Pelosi or a multi billionaire like the Facebook dude or Google dude or Bill Gates or even Trump for that matter. I assume that you are as susceptible to rising costs and shortages like everyone else living below them.
Somewhere in there is a point. Yes, I'm susceptible to rising prices as we all are. That's also true of the rich, though their idea on what's important is obviously different from yours or mine.
C-Xer Wrote:I never thought that I'd be around long enough see you and every other partisan left wing hack in the position that you are all in these days. Here you are pretty much being set up to find yourselves discarded and finding ways to live off whatever revenues associated with American entertainment and the drama associated with Left Wing propaganda for the most part. So, what's an Oscar worth to most Americans these days? Is it worth nearly as much as it did to America before it was taken over and politicized by today's Left? Does education cost more than its worth as well? Guess who took that over and turned it to shit? It's the same group. I hope you don't have to guess? So, how long is it going to take for the Left to adjust to presence of people who aren't as dumb or a gullible as them? Can they adjust or are they pretty much stuck?
If the Progressive program succeeds, and that's still open to question, then we'll all be less exposed to the vagaries of life. The rich will not continue accumulating at the rate they have and the rest of us will have more -- especially those not in the top 5%. If you're under that threshold, and I certainly am, then you should gain too.
Unlikely.
The ( bourgeois) Progressive programmes succeeded for 50 years, from the age of Theodore Roosevelt to the era of Richard Nixon. Its proponents certainly yelled a lot rhetorically about challenging incumbent power etc., but by the 1950s most sectors of industry found themselves in a happy compromise with the institutions built up by the Progressives and the New Dealers. While of course things such as the Powell Memorandum demonstrate that many sections of Capital were unhappy with the postwar consensus of high (theoretical) taxes and some social services to preserve the Cold War domestic front, many were- the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, etc. and their donations to Progressive causes demonstrate as such. Indeed, such is the essentially conservative nature of bourgeois Progressivism that Richard Nixon was able to govern as a domestic Keynesian while building up the conservative movement without destroying his political base through the obvious contradictions.
What all this proves is that bourgeois Progressivism is just a phase which Capital sometimes passes through, adjusting for inclement conditions as necessary. This is all. It creates new channels for the exercise of the power of Capital, from regulatory capture to the exercise of biopower on the proletariat in the name of Progress (laws passed regulating slums, dietary standards, sex offenders and other criminals, etc.).
Recommended reading: The Rise And Fall Of Progressivis. by the Communist author George Novack, from 1957.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/...57/x01.htm
Quote:If it was realistic to transform the Democratic party into an agency for working-class politics or to organize a “people’s anti-monopolist coalition” in some other way, then what was the point of building a Socialist or Communist party on a working-class program? Why did Eugene Debs have to reject Populism and Bryanism and help launch the Socialist party at the beginning of this century? Why did the Left-Wing forces have to form a Communist party on an independent Marxist basis 20 years later? (We are not speaking of educational and propaganda groups spreading socialist ideas but of Marxist parties set up to challenge capitalist and reformist parties in elections, etc.)
This was written in 1957. The experience of 64 years have absolutely borne it out: the reformist George McGovern was crushed, Jimmy Carter institutionalized neoliberalism in the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton and Obama reinforced it, the reformist Bernie Sanders was crushed, etc.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(04-13-2021, 07:39 PM)Einzige Wrote: Money cannot represent value, at least not directly. It can at bet represent the exchange-value of a commodity. But it certainly cannot represent all aspects of value, use and exchange, directly.
Money represents value and will always represent value. I don't see that changing as long as mankind and civilization exists. However, money itself is not personal and doesn't have a mind of its own or the ability to decide who it prefers to be with either. Money is money. We all know what it is and its purpose. So, if a hundred bill was laying on the street, would you pick it up or leave it for the next person to pick it up? Me, I'd pick it up if no one else was around at the time. I wouldn't fight for it or argue over it because I don't need another one that bad.
|
