Jump to content
lukin?

Economics - The Thread

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, eeeezypeezy said:

I'm for every sort of policy change or tweak that will make life better for people. Automatic voter registration, ranked choice voting, universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, offering basic consumer banking services through the post office. I just don't think that that is ultimately enough to end capitalism. You put "the system" in quotes as though global capitalism isn't actually a quantifiable system run by a certain class of people and according to definable internal logic.

 

As far as policies that could, in theory, be implemented within the existing system, and that could theoretically bring it closer to its end? Nationalize investment banking, and give priority to affordable loans for startup worker cooperatives, encouraging a socialist form of entrepreneurship that could employ people in areas blighted by capital flight. Require companies that intend to outsource or be acquired to give their employees right of first refusal, backed by cheap loans, to convert otherwise-abandoned factories and etc into cooperatives.

 

The big point of contention, for me, is that I think it's important to stress that being nice and respecting "the discourse" as defined by elite media outlets and so on is not going to further any of this stuff.

 

All of those are by and large good things that I can get behind. Why lose my support by drawing lines between our positions?

 

I get that you don't like being nice and respecting the discourse. That is obvious from the last two years of talking to you about this.

 

I put "the system" in quotes because that's all you said. How was I supposed to know that you were talking about the whole of global capitalism — which is in reality a complex patchwork trade deals, government policy, and a skewed market economy — when that particular discussion was specifically about the merits about participating in the democratic process?

 

You don't even have to advocate for policies "within the system". You know I already big in that. How do you propose dismantling the system? I'm not necessarily as opposed to that as I was a year ago.

 

You may not think it is worthwhile to be civil and bring people on board. But I do. Anything you want to do, whether it is mass protest movements, getting people to vote, or even a violent overthrow of the government is going to need people. And here I am, trying to find common ground with you again and again and being met with barriers.

 

Why? Because I think voting is important even if the electoral system in the USA is pretty fucked up? Because I think economic justice can be achieved without being a dick or a violent revolution? Because I think it is perfectly coherent — and preferable! — to talk about economics in the same language used by classical liberals?

 

These are all fine things to disagree about. I don't understand the radical purity that won't even grant someone like me a civil conversation, let alone a chance to be a body at one of your rallies.

 

I'm on your side whether you like it or not. You can keep drawing the lines and putting up the walls. I've been wrong about plenty of things in the past and probably again in the future. But the left needs people like me. My desire for small steps within the system to avoid the giant step backwards shouldn't come between us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think reaching out and being civil is important, but only to the point that you aren't betraying your initial cause. Making counterpoints isn't throwing up barriers. You and I always go round and round about this shit. Read the rest of this thread for many examples of civil discussion. 

 

This started cuz I took minor umbrage with you referring to yourself as a leftist. Because yes, I think revolution is going to be necessary, violent or otherwise, but only after a critical mass of people agree. And because yes, the language of classical liberalism is limiting and it's their assumptions about economics and human nature that are being challenged. I'm happy to discuss all of this further. But you gotta stop getting bent out of shape when I classify your politics as liberal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not bent out of shape. I don't care about being called a liberal. I've used the term plenty to talk about myself. I honestly trying to understand why your ideology is so important to you that you can't be civil.

 

It's all good. You don't think I can be a leftist. That's fine.

 

I really don't care about ideology. It's why I'll say social democrat instead of democratic socialist or whatever. That being a liberal is something awful and an insult coming from the left was something that surprised me over the past couple of years, I'll admit that. And knowing what you think of liberals, sure, I've bristled a bit. I'm sensitive guy, what can I say? But I really don't care. I don't think of myself as a centrist beyond a basic pragmatism that recognizes small steps. I feel drawn to a lot of leftist causes. I don't think it was wrong to say, in general binary terms, that I'm on the left. That's all I was trying to say. I'm sorry.

 

These names and labels are immaterial to me. I don't care about ideological purity or consistency. The only thing I care about is what is best for everyone, which is — generally speaking — the same ends you want.

 

Call me whatever you want. Just good luck trying to get a critical mass of people to join your revolution when you are too good for their support because they don't meet your strict ideological tests.

Salem likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm being civil near as I can tell, and I just think it's important to be specific about ideological differences because differences are worthy of being brought out into the light and discussed. I'm not saying I won't be happy to march with you or whatever else where our views align :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would have given them even less worry.

Long-term (like, in the decades range) bonds issued by Greece, which would be used to stimulate the economy (preferably via parachute money) so that the economy stabilises and growth returns.

It would also be less, you know, disgustingly immoral.

 

There is no logical reason for the bullshit austerity foisted upon Greece other than, presumably, the desire to get quicker returns on money already invested. Nobody looks at a 25% unemployment rate and thinks, "Oh yeah, this is going really well, the future looks bright for this country".

 

Cunts.

eeeezypeezy and Peach like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tonks said:

You know what would have given them even less worry.

Long-term (like, in the decades range) bonds issued by Greece, which would be used to stimulate the economy (preferably via parachute money) so that the economy stabilises and growth returns.

It would also be less, you know, disgustingly immoral.

 

There is no logical reason for the bullshit austerity foisted upon Greece other than, presumably, the desire to get quicker returns on money already invested. Nobody looks at a 25% unemployment rate and thinks, "Oh yeah, this is going really well, the future looks bright for this country".

 

Cunts.

 

KEEP 👏 GETTING 👏 POORER 👏 UNTIL 👏 SWEATSHOPS 👏 MOVE 👏 IN 👏

Salem and sugarface like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×