|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Social Gospel
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.
In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.
(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?
No, and there are sound economic reasons for the difference. Lower-income people will spend their additional money locally on goods and services, boosting the economy. Higher-income people spend their additional money on different things. So, for example, a cruise to the Bahamas or a weekend in New York doesn't stimulate the local economy in the same way.
More importantly, they're less likely to spend it at all.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It does now. Two http//s reduced to one.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Yes, I know - but the higher you raise the tax rate, the more that incentive tends towards zero. I'm thinking of a time within my lifetime when the top rate was 83%.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well, it isn't 83% now, is it? It's effectively 100% of some lower income people now. I think I know where my priorities lie.
Furthermore as I said already, this is only relevant if people are talking about massively raising existing income taxes for higher rate taxpayers (which they were not in this thread).
[ 16. April 2014, 14:50: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, I know. And my priorities lie likewise at the lower end. I just floated the concept as a point of principle as being mildly (perhaps very mildly) germane to the debate about whether to raise the top rate of tax again and, indeed, where to raise it.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, I know. And my priorities lie likewise at the lower end. I just floated the concept as a point of principle as being mildly (perhaps very mildly) germane to the debate about whether to raise the top rate of tax again and, indeed, where to raise it.
Well studies seem to point to the tipping point being around 70% so on that basis there is a rather a lot of room at the top. In any event barring unforeen circumstances raising the top rate of income tax is not on the cards, whereas punitive action against the poor is (and that's very germane to the topic under discussion anyway).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
OK. Pax vobiscum and all that.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist.
Your wish is my command.
Yay ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
By that very vague definition even I can be a Socialist because I'm partial to Distributism, Communitarianism, and even Anarchism. I guess I'm a Christian after all.
As I see it, spreading the means of production among the masses puts faith in people to live their own lives without being oppressed by either government or corporations. Social democracy places all it's faith in the government. Deep down, Social Democrats believe Capitalist criticisms of the poor. They just advocate a more compassionate/paternalistic response.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I see it, spreading the means of production among the masses...
Just what the hell is this mythical "means of production"?
I mean, I write documents for a living on a PC. That's my means of production, and to be frank it's cheap enough that anybody can produce those documents. There is no "means" to produce what I do beyond a cheap PC, linux and OpenOffice.
Of course the skill and experience to produce them is another thing, and that is why I'm being paid what I'm being paid. Not because I can switch a laptop on and fire up Office.
There is no such thing as "the means of production" to distribute amongst the workers anymore! We have progressed way beyond that nonesense and socialist dogma really needs to get into the 21st Century.
Or do socialists only see work in terms of steam hammers and tractor production quotas?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As I see it, spreading the means of production among the masses...
Just what the hell is this mythical "means of production"?
I mean, I write documents for a living on a PC. That's my means of production, and to be frank it's cheap enough that anybody can produce those documents. There is no "means" to produce what I do beyond a cheap PC, linux and OpenOffice.
Of course the skill and experience to produce them is another thing, and that is why I'm being paid what I'm being paid. Not because I can switch a laptop on and fire up Office.
There is no such thing as "the means of production" to distribute amongst the workers anymore! We have progressed way beyond that nonesense and socialist dogma really needs to get into the 21st Century.
Or do socialists only see work in terms of steam hammers and tractor production quotas?
It has become a bit more complicated, which makes it hard to sort out. The computer I'm typing this on was made by a company which sources it's components in China. My shoes were made in Indonesia. My shirt in Pakistan. My pants, socks and gotch (that's western Cdn for underwear) all China. So the production quota is not local, it's overseas somewhere, and we have a disconnection from the social and economic conditions there. But they're not good. When a factory in Pakistan collapsed, we learned that t-shirts sold in a Cdn chain store were selling variously for $20 and more, with the workers getting less than 15¢ for them a piece. They also showed how it was impossible to eat let alone pay other expenses for the wages paid. This is also why some of us see the connection between social and economic conditions and the drug and sex businesses.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post.
The situation internationally also has thinking of the social gospel. It's why organizations that work for social justice in the third world get my donations, and why we wondered about the support for really bad governments during the cold war, mostly dictatorships, and the censoring of the liberation theology approaches. We saw the dictatorships as particularly good for investment and business, but murder on the populace, and the liberation theology as potentially extreme on the other end of things, and I say potentially because it never got to express it as fully as the corporatist rightists. say, like Pinochet in Chile, and CIA-fruit company maniacs in Guatemala.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The means of production is wealth. It ALL came from the poor.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
A very right on sounding statement that is completely meaningless
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again, you so RIGHT, oh Teacher of Israel:
St. Ambrose “You are not making a gift of your possessions to poor persons. You are handing over to them what is theirs. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.”
“It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
St. John Chrysostom “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.”
St. Gregory the Great “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”
“It is no less a crime to take from him that has, than to refuse to succor the needy when you can and are well off.”
“For if everyone receiving what is sufficient for his own necessity would leave what remains to the needy, there would be no rich or poor.”
Gregory of Nazianzus
“We must, then, open the doors to all the poor and all those who are victims of disasters, whatever the causes may be, since we have been told to rejoice with those who rejoice and to weep with those who weep. And since we are human beings, we must pay our debt of goodness to our fellow human beings, whatever the cause of their plight: orphanhood, exile, cruelty of the master, rashness of those who govern, inhumanity of tax-collectors, brutality of blood-thirsty bandits, greediness of thieves, confiscation or shipwreck”
“May God preserve me from being rich while they are indigent, from enjoying robust health if I do not try to cure their diseases, from eating good food, clothing myself well and resting in my home if I do not share with them a piece of my bread and give them, in the measure of my abilities, part of my clothes and if I do not welcome them into my home”
“Freedom and wealth were the only law; true poverty and slavery are its transgressions”
“You, however, look at the primitive equality, not at the later distinction, not at the law of the powerful, but at the law of the Creator. Help, as much as you can, nature; honor the primitive freedom; respect yourself; cover the dishonor of your family; assist those who are sick and aid those who are needy”
Gregory of Nyssa
“The flow from one river-source brings richness to many a spreading plain; so the wealth of one household is enough to preserve multitudes of the poor, if only a grudging uncharitable heart does not fall like a stone to block the passage and thwart the stream”
“All things belong to God, the Father of us and them. We are all of the same stock, all brothers. And when men are brothers, the best and most equitable thing is that they should inherit equal portions. The second best is that even if one or two take the greater part, the others should have at least their own share”
St. Basil: “Are not thou then a robber, for counting as thine own what thou hast receivest to distribute? It is the bread of the famished which thou receivest, the garment of the naked which thou hoardest in they chest, the shoe of the barefooted which rots in they possessions, the money of the pennyless which thou hast buried in the earth. Wherefore then dost thou injure so many to whom thou mightiest be a benefactor.”
St. Bede: “He then who wishes to be rich toward God, will not lay up treasures for himself, but distribute his possessions to the poor.”
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth. It ALL came from the poor.
Not so, some of it is stolen from the formerly rich. 1066 and all that?
Which ties up with the "Property is theft" model.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The Sais nobility were poor before 1066?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The Sais nobility were poor before 1066?
No. They were wealthy but The Bastard took their wealth and passed it on to his cronies.
(oddly, my ancestors were Friends of The Bastard!)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
They shouldn't have had any wealth. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think it was clergy who headed up the effort to eliminate child labour. Rather evil of them.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A thousand years before that Saxon feudal pyramid a bunch of Jews managed to hold all things in common.
The leaders of the church for the first half of that millennium agreed that wealth is theft.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.
So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.
So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.
Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Just what the hell is this mythical "means of production"?
I mean, I write documents for a living on a PC. That's my means of production, and to be frank it's cheap enough that anybody can produce those documents. There is no "means" to produce what I do beyond a cheap PC, linux and OpenOffice.
Of course the skill and experience to produce them is another thing, and that is why I'm being paid what I'm being paid. Not because I can switch a laptop on and fire up
So you have your laptop on a desert island with no contact with the outside world. What good do those documents do you?
That's an easy question. Slightly less easy is what do you need to add to that mix to get the docs to someone who will pay for them? That is the system of production you are involved in, the infrastructure needed for your means of production if we can mix the 19th and 20th century terms. And who else takes a cut from what you get paid, and why and how? And why do those people pay for them? For their artistic merit? Where do they get the money to pay for them? Probably another hugely complex set of systems (which is good because complex systems are more stable) Who made your laptop? What did they get paid for it? Who got most of the money you paid for it
And there is a lot of it. There are a lot of these systems and chains of work or trade. Some of it is special to what you do, other parts are infrastructure common to our whole civilisation - its all interconnected.
Try listing everyone and everything that is needed to get your job done and get you paid for it. Its a worthwhile excercise. There will be more than you expected. Even if you leave out the massive common property and public services that keep the city going.
And we built it all ourselves. Human beings. Some of us built it with software and word processors, some of it with steam hammers. Why were you knocking old-fashioned industrial and construction work? Can you function without sewers and power-stations and roads and fresh water?
Who builds and manages it all?
Who supposedly owns it and makes profit out of it
They aren't the same people are they?
Why not?
BTW those are not rhetorical questions. They are more like homework. If you can't answer them, or don't see why they are relevant, then you have no basis for your flipping off those old economists who talked about things like "means of production" and "share of capital" because you don't really know what they meant by it.
Anyway, all that is the reason the very wonderful real Clause Four wants to "return to the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry..." Which is as good a potted definition of socialist hopes as any.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.
So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.
Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And we built it all ourselves. Human beings. Some of us built it with software and word processors, some of it with steam hammers. Why were you knocking old-fashioned industrial and construction work? Can you function without sewers and power-stations and roads and fresh water?
Just because lots of people contributed to it doesn't mean they all contributed equally to it. Building a house? Remove one bricklayer and the project won't be massively affected, but remove the architect and the whole thing collapses (possibly literally). Closer to home for me, the person who builds and maintains a database is more important than any of the ones who just enter data into boxes on one of its forms.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.
So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.
Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.
Do you? If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.
So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.
Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.
Do you? If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?
Consider this: If the resources necessary to build and equip the factory/mill/office etc, is put in by those who will work in it, rather than by disinterested parties only interested in a financial return, there will be no disconnection between the owners and workers.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?
The government, of course. Silly Marvin. Because governments clearly have a far superior record to the private sector when it comes to planning and carrying out business / industry development...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the resources necessary to build and equip the factory/mill/office etc, is put in by those who will work in it, rather than by disinterested parties only interested in a financial return, there will be no disconnection between the owners and workers.
Where will the potential workers get the resources to put into building and equipping the factory/mill/office, etc.?
Also, what if someone who has put his resources into an enterprise decides he'd rather work somewhere else?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the resources necessary to build and equip the factory/mill/office etc, is put in by those who will work in it, rather than by disinterested parties only interested in a financial return, there will be no disconnection between the owners and workers.
Where will the potential workers get the resources to put into building and equipping the factory/mill/office, etc.?
Also, what if someone who has put his resources into an enterprise decides he'd rather work somewhere else?
Moo
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.
It's not as if socialists are strangers to capital. They're not. They just don't want to see it concentrated in the hands of the few to the detriment of the many.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.
But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.
But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?
This is rather precious. If you trace the history of factories, you will find that not until forced, factory owners routinely employed men, women and children as you as 5 years old for 10 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is extensive information about how factory owners used police, government, laws, courts, killing etc to enforce their sacred rights to profit. The factory owners, mineral and resource extractors weren't and aren't benevolent. Usually they operate in a limited liability manner so that the assets are protected, shareholders are liable, and when the clean-up, say of the mine site is required, taxpayers pay for it.
The most information is online about the USA, which shows that child labour initiatives were initiated by clergy. Of course you could also read Dickens.
We see the same things about minimum wages for workers, workers' compensation schemes, work week length, days of rest.
Clearly labour initiatives have secularized, particular as religion has re-allied itself more clearly with established authority.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.
But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?
Let's put it another way.
Did Page and Brin decide they were going to start a billion-dollar business employing tens of thousands of people, wonder where all the capital was going to come from to build a office block big enough to house all those people, decide it was too difficult and go to work for IBM instead?
No. They started in a garage. So, to summarise: yes, workers will "just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years." Any problems with that?
How come I (the pie-in-the-sky socialist) know more about how capitalism works than you do?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.
But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?
Most of us who are buying homes do not have the wealth to do so (typical price of a home in the UK now: £253,000). We cobble together a deposit, often with a few thousand here and there from parents and other relations, then go to the bank to borrow the rest. The house is used a collateral for the loan and the loan is repaid out of income.
My suggestion is the same, only on an industrial, or more likely, a post-industrial scale. Once there are enough of these enterprises they can use their profits to support other similar schemes. Let's hope they don't demutualise like most building societies did back in the "dash for cash" of the 1980's.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If nobody is wealthy, then who is going to put forward the money to build the factory/mill/office/etc. in the first place?
The government, of course. Silly Marvin. Because governments clearly have a far superior record to the private sector when it comes to planning and carrying out business / industry development...
There are numerous problems with the above, in reality it is rarely the case that one wealthy individual puts up all the money out of their own pocket. They will usually still borrow the money - if only to benefit from leverage - though usually so the debt itself is on the books of the company itself.
So where does that come from? In ken's alternate world probably from something like an old style mutualised friendly society. In our world from a bank - who is able to borrow at below risk adjusted rates because of massive hidden subsidies from .. the government.
and actually, centrally planned investment of any kind has always failed, be it by the government or inside large enterprises. Most new businesses fail, you know, the problem with measuring failure in government owned enterprises is that this is both not allowed for, and for political reasons the government often supports them past the point they are viable (but then so does Boeing, or GE or Ford or IBM or Apple).
There are additionally a large number of private enterprises that are natural monopolies and so may benefit from state ownership. Power generation is probably one example. Look at what happened via de-regulation in that sector. The largest companies are now all owned by state owned enterprises from the continental EU. The 'private' bidders for the new nuclear power station contracts both benefit from massive government subsidies in their own home countries - without which most of their basic research would never have happened.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Did Page and Brin decide they were going to start a billion-dollar business employing tens of thousands of people, wonder where all the capital was going to come from to build a office block big enough to house all those people, decide it was too difficult and go to work for IBM instead?
No. They started in a garage. So, to summarise: yes, workers will "just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years." Any problems with that?
How come I (the pie-in-the-sky socialist) know more about how capitalism works than you do?
Well yes, that model is possible under capitalism. I'm arguing that it's not possible under socialism.
The form of socialism being advocated on this thread appears to be saying that, if Page and Brin have success and profit working out of their garage then an equal share of that profit needs to go to the people who built the garage in the first place. And of course, all the people who build the roads and utilities and computers and phone lines and so on need an equal share, because P&B couldn't have done it without them either. And if, even with all those equal shares going out, P&B manage to keep enough for themselves that they can actually afford to spend some of it on a new office and employees (which is pretty darn unlikely when you think about it), well all those employees and everyone who built that office need an equal share as well.
The Page and Brin model works precisely because the people who actually have the vision to come up with the idea have the right to keep a decent wedge of the profits for themselves. Force them to share it out between everyone else and they'll never make enough profit to reinvest in becoming a major employer in the first place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of us who are buying homes do not have the wealth to do so (typical price of a home in the UK now: £253,000). We cobble together a deposit, often with a few thousand here and there from parents and other relations, then go to the bank to borrow the rest. The house is used a collateral for the loan and the loan is repaid out of income.
I was assuming that "the banks have all the money and loan it to others" wasn't a popular solution within socialism.
quote:
My suggestion is the same, only on an industrial, or more likely, a post-industrial scale. Once there are enough of these enterprises they can use their profits to support other similar schemes. Let's hope they don't demutualise like most building societies did back in the "dash for cash" of the 1980's.
So once businesses become successful, they should use their profits to support their competitors?
I can just imagine that. "Hey Google, I've got a great idea for a new search engine that could take loads of your customers away from you. Will you give me a few million to get it up and running please?"
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The means of production is wealth.
So if we abolish wealth, we remove the means of production. Great idea.
Think there's an error in your parsing of that sentence, Marvin.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The form of socialism being advocated on this thread appears to be saying that, if Page and Brin have success and profit working out of their garage then an equal share of that profit needs to go to the people who built the garage in the first place. And of course, all the people who build the roads and utilities and computers and phone lines and so on need an equal share, because P&B couldn't have done it without them either. And if, even with all those equal shares going out, P&B manage to keep enough for themselves that they can actually afford to spend some of it on a new office and employees (which is pretty darn unlikely when you think about it), well all those employees and everyone who built that office need an equal share as well.
The Page and Brin model works precisely because the people who actually have the vision to come up with the idea have the right to keep a decent wedge of the profits for themselves. Force them to share it out between everyone else and they'll never make enough profit to reinvest in becoming a major employer in the first place.
What?
The Page and Brin model works precisely because they weren't shafted by bankers and rentiers in the first place. They retained control of their means of production, and far from being forced to share their capital with their employees, they did it willingly. Fortunes were made.
Sorry, but you have no idea what socialism looks like.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It does now. Two http//s reduced to one.
B62, Purg Host
Thank you.
It is interesting that the article consigns the biblical view of what we would now call 'socialism' to 'the old law. No mention of Acts and its communalism.
It would seem that right wingers like the OT to back up their views on sexual morality and punishment for criminals but not its vision of social justice.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Page and Brin model works precisely because they weren't shafted by bankers and rentiers in the first place. They retained control of their means of production, and far from being forced to share their capital with their employees, they did it willingly. Fortunes were made.
So what, are you saying it's OK for the people who actually create a company to profit from it and become fantastically rich, including through the work of others who get paid considerably less than them, just so long as they're not bankers or rentiers (a word I had to look up - that's my new learning for today!)?
See, when I'm talking about it being good and proper that business owners should get the majority of the profits I'm thinking of people like Cadbury, Austin, Ford and Gates - people who have poured their own resources and abilities into the initial setup and are now reaping the benefits. And I don't see why some low-ranking factory drone or data entry clerk at those companies should be considered just as (if not more) important to the company as they are, as some people on this thread have been asserting.
I mean, come on - it's not like everyone at Google is on exactly the same salary, is it? P&B earn plenty more than their workers, so why aren't you calling for those workers to overthrow their corporate masters and seize control of their means of production?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm thinking of people like Cadbury, Austin, Ford and Gates - people who have poured their own resources and abilities into the initial setup and are now reaping the benefits.
That should probably read "and subsequently reaped the benefits", given that three of them are dead now...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what, are you saying it's OK for the people who actually create a company to profit from it and become fantastically rich, including through the work of others who get paid considerably less than them, just so long as they're not bankers or rentiers (a word I had to look up - that's my new learning for today!)?
Google was, initially, a company that was owned entirely by the people who worked for it.
What it became subsequently is immaterial to the argument whether workers can join together for mutual benefit, totally own the means of production, and redistribute the profits amongst themselves. They can, and do, and sometimes do very well indeed.
Will you concede that point?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most of us who are buying homes do not have the wealth to do so (typical price of a home in the UK now: £253,000). We cobble together a deposit, often with a few thousand here and there from parents and other relations, then go to the bank to borrow the rest. The house is used a collateral for the loan and the loan is repaid out of income.
I was assuming that "the banks have all the money and loan it to others" wasn't a popular solution within socialism.
quote:
My suggestion is the same, only on an industrial, or more likely, a post-industrial scale. Once there are enough of these enterprises they can use their profits to support other similar schemes. Let's hope they don't demutualise like most building societies did back in the "dash for cash" of the 1980's.
So once businesses become successful, they should use their profits to support their competitors?
Oh for goodness sake, don't twist so!
Businesses don't all compete with one another and I wasn't suggesting that the businesses would lend directly anyway: instead they would put profits on deposit with this "bank" so that other worker-owned and run businesses could borrow from it so as to develop and, amongst other things, create jobs of sufficient value that current government policies appear unable to do.
I hope that's clear.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Martin pc Not and Ship's Biohazard:
Again, you so RIGHT, oh Teacher of Israel:
Glad you recognize that.
Now, I seem to remember somewhere you made a big deal about Jesus not requiring everybody to part with their belongings only the rich young ruler. Arguing that on one thread and then saying that a collection of out of context quotes from a few church fathers about individual giving justifies state distribution of wealth defies any definition of consistency. If you want to take Jesus, the early church, and the fathers seriously, you, Martin, should find a community that has all in common and then add your assets to the mix. Of course, it is easier to post rants on the internet about following Jesus by calling for the government to take other people's assets and redistribute them.
Some of us have taken up very easy crosses to bear on this Good Friday.
[ 18. April 2014, 16:12: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
BA, you seem to have a very busy time of it. What with being Father Confessor to, first, Jade Constable, and now to Martin. What's that? You're not? Then perhaps it might be prudent to refrain from passing comment about their personal paths of discipleship.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Why?
They seem to have plenty to say about the spiritual practices of the wealthy.
Somebody said something about judging not lest you be judged. The next part of that goes for by that same measure you will be judged. I assume that if they judge others they'll have no problem being judged for the same thing.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where do you think they'll get the resources? From the same place that everyone else gets their resources, except that they'll be the ones making the decisions about where and how much of those resources they need.
But if no-one has sufficient wealth to put into building a factory, how is that factory going to be built? Are people going to just spontaneously decide they want to work together and then pool their resources in order to build a factory that might provide them with employment in a few years? Or maybe all the builders will put their resources into the process so that they can pay themselves to build it and then donate it to the factory workers?
well yeah Marvin, it's called cooperation. Their's a clue in the name co-op's.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Marvin the Martian. Hmmm. Usually you're quite logical. Why did it go out of the window there?
Beeswax Altar. In the utter absence of any such community, I start at home mate. Miserlyly admittedly. As for the government's duty to fill the gap the Church pretends doesn't exist, I'm more than happy to vote for and pay higher taxation.
There again, enlightened European thinking means from from, not freedom to.
Generosity is a funny thing isn't it? What's in it for me eh? I mean what's God doing to do for me IF I'm generous ... ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
