NationStates Jolt Archive

I stumbled across this concept as I was writing a paper on distributive justice. As I am still writing this paper I will not be able to respond, but I can put this out there.

During the 1950's cars were handpainted by people who were trained to do so. But, by the late 1970's highly efficient robots had replaced these car painters, decreasing the demand for their skill while also decreasing their average income. The car painters suffered.

But, as a result of this change a whole new group of specialists benefitted greatly, these being the electricians, the computer programmers and any other people in robotics related fields. They now had a job, and increased pay over previously.

I contend that this arrangement, is evidence not of a social class structure by income (a myth perpetuated by many) but that social economic organization is based around skill specializations. The more unique the skill, the greater the maket demand for that skill is. Have you ever seen an article in a newspaper requesting the aid of a "middle class person" or "working class" person. No, we see requests for managers, or electricians.

And even among those of what is often considered an underclass we really just see a class with minimal specialization. A group of generalists. A group that is far more wide ranging than one would initially assume, for not only can a generalist be someone who works at WalMart or McDonalds, but a generalist can have jobs of varying pay, such as a mail clerk, a basic electrician, a courier, or a million and one relatively easy to learn jobs.

As we can see with the automobile painters scenario, one group benefitted at the expense of another, but it wasn't, as is so commonly charged, a groups of ultra-wealthy capitalists.

Or, on the other hand we can also see the wide range of lifestyles of stockbrokers, some are super-wealthy, some are barely scraping by.

No, economic classes in the traditional sense do not exist. Just specializations.

There, I'll be willing to respond after I finish this paper...hopefully by Sunday.

I see what you're saying, but economic classes do exist. An economic class is a group of people with a similar economic situation. What you describe is a completely differen't classification, based on one's job and the changing job market. Just because you classify something differently, doesn't mean the previous classification doesn't exist. In the end, the class system is only an idea, a way of looking at the world to make more sense of it. As long as people still think about and refer to the economic classes, then they exist.

Just because people don't put out ads for people of a certain class doesn't mean they don't exist.

the main problem with your argument is that it takes money to learn skills. people without the means to learn marketable skills are the lower classes. basically your argument boils down to there are no such thing as classes, only jobs, which of course is totally wrong.

Just because people don't put out ads for people of a certain class doesn't mean they don't exist.
The fallacy of grouping by income is that people constantly shift around between classes. There may be a large middle class, or even a large poor class, but they aren't the same people from year to year. It's just a handy way to demagogue an issue--more jobs for the poor, more taxes on the rich...on and on.

There are a lot of different classifications of economic class, many of which were accepted by society for ages, and still, generally, are.

The proletariat is labor. It's paid wages. It serves others.

The bourgeois owns the means of production that the proletariat works/uses. They pay the proletariat. Because of this, the bourgeois, in a way, own the proletariat, though not in the same way.

This sort of slave-master relationship [certainly nothing quite so extreme, but you can see how it has some similarities, right?] creates a definite division between the two.

So class doesn't need to be based around income or skills; sometimes it's just about who owns what, and who needs who, and why. In this example, the average prole makes less than the average bourgeois, so it seems reasonable to class these two groups as being not only divided by ownership and freedom, but also by income [since their incomes ARE disparatively different].

The fallacy of grouping by income is that people constantly shift around between classes. There may be a large middle class, or even a large poor class, but they aren't the same people from year to year. It's just a handy way to demagogue an issue--more jobs for the poor, more taxes on the rich...on and on.
I still don't see the point in saying economic classes don't exist. The argument for saying they don't exist seems to be going down hill.

First it was becaose people don't ask to hire them
Now it's because people change classes.

next it will be because Santa Claus doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

Actually, social classes in the sense that socialists talk about them obviously exist. There are definitely people who have millions of dollars and others who have little money at all. There are definitely order givers and order takers. This is a thinly disguised attempt to justify capitalism.

Economic classes do exist. I took one in high school. :p

(Okay, terrible joke, sorry :()

The fallacy of grouping by income is that people constantly shift around between classes. There may be a large middle class, or even a large poor class, but they aren't the same people from year to year. It's just a handy way to demagogue an issue--more jobs for the poor, more taxes on the rich...on and on.

This revelation only really exists in America. Other countries like the UK have mroe ingrained caste systems or classes....

Im sorry but Socio-economic classes do exist.. As someone pointed out its primarly determined by access to education. Those in lower socio-economic classes (these are the people who will generally remain in their class) are people without access to funds, and thus have little access to education.. In effect they are unable to make themselves more marketable and cannot advance. While those with having absorbiant amounts of funds have access to opprotunities those in lower classes do not.. thus they are given advantages helping them remain in their class. It is ture atleast in america people are able to move from class to class.. but because you are able to move from one to another does not disprove the reality of the classes.. the fact that division exist is what defines the classes...

Those without money, have few skills, and thus are not marketable..

Those with money have more skills and access those without do not.. so they are more marketable.

These differences are what define the classifcations.. Your argument needs much more anylsis of the market and socio-economic realities then what you have already devoted.

Actually, social classes in the sense that socialists talk about them obviously exist. There are definitely people who have millions of dollars and others who have little money at all. There are definitely order givers and order takers. This is a thinly disguised attempt to justify capitalism.
I'm not saying that capitalism or communism is good or bad here, but have you ever given notion that inequalities (economically or socially) just seem to arise naturally between humans?

I contend that this arrangement, is evidence not of a social class structure by income (a myth perpetuated by many) but that social economic organization is based around skill specializations. The more unique the skill, the greater the maket demand for that skill is. Have you ever seen an article in a newspaper requesting the aid of a "middle class person" or "working class" person. No, we see requests for managers, or electricians.

Is that true... dont' they ask for middle class or working people ? Obviously not in those words.. but look at some job descriptions..

They follow similar lines:
good multitasker
interpersonal skills
communicaiton skills
writing skills
attention to detail
Energy and motivation...

most job descriptions are quite borad so that the employer can be sure to get a large segment of canidates from which to choose from. In this day and age.. this type of job qualification is essentially asking for the working man, middle class person

This revelation only really exists in America. Other countries like the UK have mroe ingrained caste systems or classes....

Im sorry but Socio-economic classes do exist.. As someone pointed out its primarly determined by access to education. Those in lower socio-economic classes (these are the people who will generally remain in their class) are people without access to funds, and thus have little access to education.. In effect they are unable to make themselves more marketable and cannot advance. While those with having absorbiant amounts of funds have access to opprotunities those in lower classes do not.. thus they are given advantages helping them remain in their class. It is ture atleast in america people are able to move from class to class.. but because you are able to move from one to another does not disprove the reality of the classes.. the fact that division exist is what defines the classes...

Those without money, have few skills, and thus are not marketable..

Those with money have more skills and access those without do not.. so they are more marketable.

These differences are what define the classifcations.. Your argument needs much more anylsis of the market and socio-economic realities then what you have already devoted.
Wrong. Money or lack of it doesn't keep someone from being successful in a monentary sense. Okay, if success is defined by graduating from MIT, then the poor aren't going to be successful. But if success is measured by self-improvement, then the poor have just as good a chance to succeed as anyone else.

If I didn't do well in school, don't want to go to college, and really hate the idea of joining the Army, I can still learn a skilled trade. That's what apprenticeships are all about. So I apprentice to a plumber, maybe in ten or fifteen years, I start my own plumbing business. Pretty soon, I'm giving those apprenticeships to kids that can apply themselves.

Now I move to a better neighborhood, have kids, send them to better schools. They aren't disposed toward plumbing. They want to learn physics instead. Now I can send them to MIT.

Put those arguments about how bad the poor have it in the can. There is always a way to improve, no matter how much or how little money you have. It's ambition that matters.

The more specialized the job, the more expensive the education. So in that sense, the economic class spread is growing. You also didn't even refer to the actual upper class at all. You distinguished between the lower class and middle class and showed that there is a division between them.

Think of the world as a "global village" and the concept of an underclass shall be revealed to you.

Think of the world as a "global village" and the concept of an underclass shall be revealed to you.
So then who is the "Global Village Idiot?"

Wrong. Money or lack of it doesn't keep someone from being successful in a monentary sense. Okay, if success is defined by graduating from MIT, then the poor aren't going to be successful. But if success is measured by self-improvement, then the poor have just as good a chance to succeed as anyone else.

If I didn't do well in school, don't want to go to college, and really hate the idea of joining the Army, I can still learn a skilled trade. That's what apprenticeships are all about. So I apprentice to a plumber, maybe in ten or fifteen years, I start my own plumbing business. Pretty soon, I'm giving those apprenticeships to kids that can apply themselves.

Now I move to a better neighborhood, have kids, send them to better schools. They aren't disposed toward plumbing. They want to learn physics instead. Now I can send them to MIT.

Put those arguments about how bad the poor have it in the can. There is always a way to improve, no matter how much or how little money you have. It's ambition that matters.

Agreed. America, land of opportunity eh? :) The cool part about capitalism. But not many actually do make it.

Agreed. America, land of opportunity eh? :) The cool part about capitalism. But not many actually do make it.
That's because they make bad choices, not because they don't have the opportunity to succeed. Drugs, crime, even having kids to young, all those can work against you.

Too many of the folks on NS equate success with being a doctor, lawyer, or other professional-type. The guy that just got off the boat from Calcutta a year ago and now owns five mini-marts is pretty successful, too. I guess if you're a European, then just being a good carpenter isn't enough.

I think my mechanic is pretty damn successful. At eighty bucks an hour, he isn't doing too badly. He sure didn't graduate from Georgia Tech, but he can sure outdo us old engineers when it comes to fixing an airconditioner.

have you ever given notion that inequalities (economically or socially) just seem to arise naturally between humans?

yes. considered, and dismissed as contrary to the evidence.

yes. considered, and dismissed as contrary to the evidence.
What evidence are you speaking of?

That's because they make bad choices, not because they don't have the opportunity to succeed.

it is completely impossible for everyone to 'succeed' under capitalism. it cannot happen. there will always be people unemployed under capitalism, and there will always be wage laborers who are essentially a paycheck or two away from poverty. these are structural features of the system. 'making bad choices' is a empty phrase that attempts to duck the unavoidable nature of these structural issues.

What evidence are you speaking of?

the existence of societies with vastly different distributions of social prestige and economic resources, including numerous egalitarian ones.

there ain't nothing natural about this:


http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/wealth97pie.gif

That's because they make bad choices, not because they don't have the opportunity to succeed. Drugs, crime, even having kids to young, all those can work against you.

Too many of the folks on NS equate success with being a doctor, lawyer, or other professional-type. The guy that just got off the boat from Calcutta a year ago and now owns five mini-marts is pretty successful, too. I guess if you're a European, then just being a good carpenter isn't enough.

I think my mechanic is pretty damn successful. At eighty bucks an hour, he isn't doing too badly. He sure didn't graduate from Georgia Tech, but he can sure outdo us old engineers when it comes to fixing an airconditioner.

... I could easily argue this.. however, i am to the belif like you that america is the land of opproutnity and that if we stoped spending so much effort telling the impoverished how bad they have it, and instead started telling them of the opprotutnities which are out there for them.. things would all be equal..

Since i am to the same belife as you are.. and i know there are TONS of crazy liberals out there.. i will leave them to argue u...

i will however make this point... Trade skills.. are not always the most lucrative skills. and there are MANY people who depend on these trade skills you suggest, and stil BEARLY make it by. I will leave it there though, I wont bother to play devils advocate on this issue

All these people who say that everyone has a good chance to become economically successful are ignoring some important facts. There aren't enough of the higher paying jobs available. There will always be more jobs in the service industries than in tech or management. Who do you think will check out your groceries or sell you shoes otherwise? There is limited room at the top. Even if you do everything right, you may never get there. And who does everything right? There will always be people at the bottom. It's up to those on top to keep them from being trampled on. Anyone familiar with noblesse oblige?

Main Entry: no·blesse oblige
Pronunciation: nO-'bles-&-'blEzh
Function: noun
Etymology: French, literally, nobility obligates
: the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth

Something I firmly believe in. Those who have the ability to right a wrong have the responsibility to do so.

it is completely impossible for everyone to 'succeed' under capitalism. it cannot happen. there will always be people unemployed under capitalism, and there will always be wage laborers who are essentially a paycheck or two away from poverty. these are structural features of the system. 'making bad choices' is a empty phrase that attempts to duck the unavoidable nature of these structural issues.
So there is always a lowest 25 percent? Wow, what a revelation!! I don't agree that the lowest 25 percent are stuck there, though. They sure have a better chance to move up from the bottom in a capitalist society that they do in a communist society. Why? Because there aren't any communist societies!

Making bad choices is a real problem. Tell me that choosing to use drugs or drop out of school has no effect on your ability to succeed. You can't. Empirical evidence in capitalist countries proves that capitalism does provide opportunity to those with ambition. For those without, there are always those minimum work jobs that don't lead anywhere.

it is completely impossible for everyone to 'succeed' under capitalism. it cannot happen. there will always be people unemployed under capitalism, and there will always be wage laborers who are essentially a paycheck or two away from poverty. these are structural features of the system. 'making bad choices' is a empty phrase that attempts to duck the unavoidable nature of these structural issues.

Vice versa, It's impossible for anyone to succeed under communism. Because you'll all be the same.

Then comes the question of whether we have enough resources on the planet to give every single human being a decent living. So it's either all live in poverty, or all live fulfilled.

Bla bla bla.. You know the rest of the story right. :p I've been into too many communism vs capitalism threads. :)

Wrong. Money or lack of it doesn't keep someone from being successful in a monentary sense. Okay, if success is defined by graduating from MIT, then the poor aren't going to be successful. But if success is measured by self-improvement, then the poor have just as good a chance to succeed as anyone else.

I thought you just said you were defining success in a monetary sense, not by self-improvement. Even if a poor person improves by some huge amount he may be less monetarily successful than a rich guy who hardly improves at all.

But I could have completely misunderstood you. If you're not defining "success in a monetary sense" as "success based on how much money you earn," how are you defining it?

All these people who say that everyone has a good chance to become economically successful are ignoring some important facts. There aren't enough of the higher paying jobs available. There will always be more jobs in the service industries than in tech or management. Who do you think will check out your groceries or sell you shoes otherwise? There is limited room at the top. Even if you do everything right, you may never get there. And who does everything right? There will always be people at the bottom. It's up to those on top to keep them from being trampled on. Anyone familiar with noblesse oblige?

Main Entry: no·blesse oblige
Pronunciation: nO-'bles-&-'blEzh
Function: noun
Etymology: French, literally, nobility obligates
: the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth

Something I firmly believe in. Those who have the ability to right a wrong have the responsibility to do so.
Look, not everyone is going to run General Motors. That's what I've been trying to make clear. Success is relative. Success doesn't come for free. You need ambition to succeed. The guy selling shoes has to want something more than that, or he is going to stay right there until he dies. Now if he has a little ambition, he can take classes at night. Hell, he can become a lawyer. Then he can quit his day job and a new guy can take his place.

Why do we persist in thinking that the only way to be successful is to go directly go college and then to a profession?

I thought you just said you were defining success in a monetary sense, not by self-improvement. Even if a poor person improves by some huge amount he may be less monetarily successful than a rich guy who hardly improves at all.

But I could have completely misunderstood you. If you're not defining "success in a monetary sense" as "success based on how much money you earn," how are you defining it?
Maybe that was a really ugly paragraph. Give me an F for composition. I guess the point I wanted to make was that success is relative. If you define success as a Harvard education and a big law practice, there aren't many people that will ever be successful. And this seems to be the yardstick on NS.

On the other hand, if a guy pulls himself up out of the ghetto and becomes a really good diesel mechanic, he's probably successful, no matter how much money he makes. Why? Because he's not going back to the ghetto and neither are his kids.

there ain't nothing natural about this:

for those of you with a mathy bent, please note that a more even distribution of wealth winds up benefiting about 80% of the population - even if we had half as much wealth as we do now.

All these people who say that everyone has a good chance to become economically successful are ignoring some important facts. There aren't enough of the higher paying jobs available. There will always be more jobs in the service industries than in tech or management. Who do you think will check out your groceries or sell you shoes otherwise? There is limited room at the top. Even if you do everything right, you may never get there. And who does everything right? There will always be people at the bottom. It's up to those on top to keep them from being trampled on. Anyone familiar with noblesse oblige?

Main Entry: no·blesse oblige
Pronunciation: nO-'bles-&-'blEzh
Function: noun
Etymology: French, literally, nobility obligates
: the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth

Something I firmly believe in. Those who have the ability to right a wrong have the responsibility to do so.

Only, however if the product of the labour of the person wronged in someway benifits you; according to noblesse obligé that is. To treat the peon or peasant of another feudal lord in such a way would have been tantamount to poaching.

Seriously, noblesse obligé was one of the factors that held the feudal society together. What do we have left from the feudal days, almost nothing except the concept of class. This really is much more complicated than anyone here has portrayed it as being. It does not depend soley upon financial or professional factors, although these are important. It includes factors such as "upbringing". This is not directly education, in terms of certificates and classes and such. Nor is it just the family environment. It has to do with the instillation of value sets. One of these values that is instilled into truly upper class (not nouveau riche) people is the concept that they bear a duty toward the less fortunate members of society. Hence you will find true aristocrats at charity events where there is no press coverage. The nouveau riche either do not give to charity (except for tax reasons), or only do so when it will generate favourable publicity.

The concept of a classless capitalist society is only realistic if you do not define class in economic terms. Capitalism depends upon the unequal distribution of wealth for there to be capital to work with.

Then comes the question of whether we have enough resources on the planet to give every single human being a decent living. So it's either all live in poverty, or all live fulfilled.

if there ain't enough to provide everyone with a decent living, i would rather we all go partially without than have 50-80% of the population go completely without in order to allow 10% to live in unimaginable luxury.

starvation is not relative.

All these people who say that everyone has a good chance to become economically successful are ignoring some important facts. There aren't enough of the higher paying jobs available..

Hence there will be Gods and there are Clods. :D In all societies.

Okok, well, you don't necessarily need a high paying job to be rich. You do need to start your own business and find a niche in the market where you are better than everybody else.

Like the greatest example for me is the 'Chap-fan' (Mixed rice) man that sells mixed rice in the coffee shop near my house. My God, although he looks like a smelly hawker, fat and ugly with an uglier troll of a wife, but his food taste damn awesome and very cheap. And you know what? He drives a damn big Mercedes-S series and both his kids are in Melbourne University studying medicine and engineering.

Very unique thing that only capitalism can provide. Hence the creative, innovative and unique find a place in this world truly like no other. :)

My point is that those on the top owe society something because there is not enough room at the top for everyone. We will always need people in the service industries, and are obligated to treat them well. They make our lives easier in so many ways. I could live easier with a few less outrageouesly paid CEO's than I could without my grocery store or 7-11.

The proletariat is labor. It's paid wages. It serves others.

The bourgeois owns the means of production that the proletariat works/uses. They pay the proletariat. Because of this, the bourgeois, in a way, own the proletariat, though not in the same way.

OK so what if you are paid wages and serve others, but own means to production? You know, like stock in the company. Because not everyone is "wage slave" or "nonworking capitalist pig-dog."

I refuse to accept the notion that someone "owns" me because they pay me for my time and work. I do not accept that someone else owning means of industrial production makes me inferior or a slave in any way.

In fact, I pretty much don't accept arbitrarily defining everybody to be either "proletariat" or "bourgeoise."

it is completely impossible for everyone to 'succeed' under capitalism. it cannot happen.

Indeed.

It's also completely impossible for everyone to succeed in any society. It's impossible for every oyster to produce a pearl. It's impossible for every stone to be facing west. Are you implying that, if only we abandoned capitalism, everyone could succeed? I'll wager you're not defining success in the same way everyone else does.

'making bad choices' is a empty phrase that attempts to duck the unavoidable nature of these structural issues.

What's empty about it? Sounds chock-full of truth to me. People make bad choices. People are self-responsible. It sounds like you would rather suggest no one fails OR succeeds on their own account, and it's all the blame/blessing of society or government? Blaming the system is a great thing to do, I know personally, whenever I am not succeeding in that system.

In a modern capitalist state the three feudal classes have changed forms but are still there:

Lower Class: Unskilled/low-skilled labor. People whose jobs require little to no specific education, skills, or training. Agricultural labor, retail, food service, etc.

Middle Class: Skilled labor. People whose jobs require skill, education, and training. Doctors, lawyers, college professors, engineers, etc.

Upper Class: The boss. People who have enough money to live off of managing their assets. Corporate execs, Hollywood producers, Royalty, Paris Hilton, etc.

Honestly, I'm just glad there's a middle class. Society sucks without a middle class.

There will always be classes. It's a natural system of things. Effing apes have castes for crying out loud. Can you MOVE between castes? Sure. Happens all the time. But do most people manage a significant move? No. Most follow in the foot steps of their kin.

Heck, I -come- from a family that's moved upwards. My grandparent's generation was the whole 'ten kids, one room' set up. My parents generation was 'two kids, one room'. Me and my sister, we got a room all to ourselves.

Now, me, since I don't intend to have kids, I don't actually HAVE to be ambitious. I don't need that much money to be happy as heck. I do intend to pursue fame and fortune (Indeed, I want to change the fricking world with my writing), but if I don't, no biggee.

Basically, if I have the junk I want around the house, and a nice cozy, sound household, I'll be happy. Will I be a -success- if that's -all- I have? No. Because I'll not have lived up to my potential by a long shot. But I'm a lazy bastard, so that's fine with me.

Success is best measured as an improvement of your situation, not stagnation. Happiness is success on an individual level, but its not financial success.

My point is that those on the top owe society something because there is not enough room at the top for everyone. We will always need people in the service industries, and are obligated to treat them well. They make our lives easier in so many ways. I could live easier with a few less outrageouesly paid CEO's than I could without my grocery store or 7-11.
Those outrageously paid CEOs do a lot. Who makes sure there's a paycheck every week for the rank and file? Not middle management, that's for sure. They just fight fires. The folks at the top DO pay their way by continuing to do just what got them there. Even the few that just roll around in their billions probably have substantial amounts invested in public companies and that produces capital for those CEOs to work with. That provides more paychecks and so on.

As an aside, the best economic news I heard this week was from Greenspan. He promoted the new SSI reforms as a way that the poor and lower middle classes could finally accumulate some assets. Bravo GWB!

In my opinion the CEO is in the same economic class as the milker. They're both workers.
The people who roll around in their billions are the other class. The bourgeois. They don't work at all. They are useless and in fact they parasite our society at the expense of the workers (be them CEO or milker).

The guy selling shoes has to want something more than that, or he is going to stay right there until he dies. Now if he has a little ambition, he can take classes at night. Hell, he can become a lawyer. Then he can quit his day job and a new guy can take his place.
If there is indeed a demand for his skills when he gets out of college. Plenty of people go to college only to find there's no demand for their major, and therefore can't get a higher paying job. So they not only have a low paying job, but student loans to pay on top of it.

As we can see with the automobile painters scenario, one group benefitted at the expense of another, but it wasn't, as is so commonly charged, a groups of ultra-wealthy capitalists.
The ultra-wealty capitalists gained from this scenario as well as the electricians. If the robots weren't more profitable to employ than the hand painters, then quite simply the change wouldn't have happened.

A lot of people here say economic class do not exist because the poors can find a job. They don't get it at all. Working does not mean you are rich, it is the other way around.

In my opinion the CEO is in the same economic class as the milker. They're both workers.
The people who roll around in their billions are the other class. The bourgeois. They don't work at all. They are useless and in fact they parasite our society at the expense of the workers (be them CEO or milker).

What a very narrow and marxist view of class. However it would not be so bad if it were not completely wrong on its own terms.

The bougeois are those that profit from the labour of the proletariat, i.e. the shareholders in companies. This normally includes the directors of the company. The whole system of Marx tends to ignore completely those people who take no part whatsoever in economic activity. No mention of billionaires living off interest payments. Just a concern of the control of the means of production.

The CEO is not a worker in this sense, yes he has a job, but waht does he produce (sorry to all the feminists for using he). He and his kind are the parasites on the labour of the proletariat.

If there is indeed a demand for his skills when he gets out of college. Plenty of people go to college only to find there's no demand for their major, and therefore can't get a higher paying job. So they not only have a low paying job, but student loans to pay on top of it.
Probably the result of a bad choice. Not every college degree is as lucrative as that brand new Performance Art BA. They need to start acquiring a new skill. Maybe join one of the Armed Forces. Maybe teach at a lousy public school. My point is that there are choices and alternatives for those with ambition. We don't owe them any more than the opportunity.

Look, not everyone is going to run General Motors. That's what I've been trying to make clear. Success is relative. Success doesn't come for free. You need ambition to succeed. The guy selling shoes has to want something more than that, or he is going to stay right there until he dies. Now if he has a little ambition, he can take classes at night. Hell, he can become a lawyer. Then he can quit his day job and a new guy can take his place.

Why do we persist in thinking that the only way to be successful is to go directly go college and then to a profession?

"Success" is not just relative, it's entirely subjective. Why should "success" or "failure" be related to how much money you earn? All this crap about "ambition": climb the ladder, get more stuff. The guy selling shoes might not give a shit about his job or his economic prospects: maybe he just does it because it takes no mental effort and leaves him free to explore new realms of pure mathematics in his head, or because it pays the bills while he writes poetry that nobody ever reads but which gives him pleasure? Does anybody think that the purpose of existence is to amass more stuff than other people before they die? Read Alasdair Gray's short essay, "A Small Thistle", published in the collection Lean Tales.

There's a reason why economics is called "the dismal science". You're not dealing with real, hard, objective terms here. It's more like theology: a mass of subjective and ultimately personal interpretations suspended from nothing at all. Which is probably why people are prepared to fight to the death over it all.

The ultra-wealty capitalists gained from this scenario as well as the electricians. If the robots weren't more profitable to employ than the hand painters, then quite simply the change wouldn't have happened.
Of course not. The consumers gained, too. Do you think the hand painters minded paying less for a new car? Plus, the is still a market for that kind of work. Economies of scale make it possible to use robots. A shop like Earl Scheib or Maaco can't do that because they don't paint enough cars.

What a very narrow and marxist view of class. However it would not be so bad if it were not completely wrong on its own terms.

The bougeois are those that profit from the labour of the proletariat, i.e. the shareholders in companies. This normally includes the directors of the company. The whole system of Marx tends to ignore completely those people who take no part whatsoever in economic activity. No mention of billionaires living off interest payments. Just a concern of the control of the means of production.

The CEO is not a worker in this sense, yes he has a job, but waht does he produce (sorry to all the feminists for using he). He and his kind are the parasites on the labour of the proletariat.If the CEO is a shareholder as well, then he belongs to both classes. He can be fired at any time by the shareholders anyway and he is supposed to produce something : he organises everything so he produces an organisation.

The CEO is not a worker in this sense, yes he has a job, but waht does he produce (sorry to all the feminists for using he). He and his kind are the parasites on the labour of the proletariat.
Again, who makes sure the company has work? Who makes sure the company grows and continues to be profitable? The guy that sweeps the floor isn't going to do that. He wouldn't know where to start. That is why CEOs get paid well. They have a tremendous responsibility to workers and shareholders alike.

But then, maybe the work does just appear. Trucks magically bring raw materials and cart away finished goods. Maybe new contracts just show up in the mailbox...

Of course not. The consumers gained, too. Do you think the hand painters minded paying less for a new car? Plus, the is still a market for that kind of work. Economies of scale make it possible to use robots. A shop like Earl Scheib or Maaco can't do that because they don't paint enough cars.
Those who gained the most were the ultra capitalist bourgeois (short term). The consumers didn't gained much because they are more unemployed and can't afford that many cars anymore.

Probably the result of a bad choice. Not every college degree is as lucrative as that brand new Performance Art BA. They need to start acquiring a new skill. Maybe join one of the Armed Forces. Maybe teach at a lousy public school. My point is that there are choices and alternatives for those with ambition. We don't owe them any more than the opportunity.So then not only does a person need ambition to succeed, but either the ability to see the future, or a damn good amount of luck to not have chosen profession still be in demand when they get out of school. For highly charged political reasons, I will not consider the Armed Forces an option.

Again, who makes sure the company has work? Who makes sure the company grows and continues to be profitable? The guy that sweeps the floor isn't going to do that. He wouldn't know where to start. That is why CEOs get paid well. They have a tremendous responsibility to workers and shareholders alike.

But then, maybe the work does just appear. Trucks magically bring raw materials and cart away finished goods. Maybe new contracts just show up in the mailbox...
And what do the shareholders procude?
Nothing... but they consume a lot.

"Success" is not just relative, it's entirely subjective. Why should "success" or "failure" be related to how much money you earn? All this crap about "ambition": climb the ladder, get more stuff. The guy selling shoes might not give a shit about his job or his economic prospects: maybe he just does it because it takes no mental effort and leaves him free to explore new realms of pure mathematics in his head, or because it pays the bills while he writes poetry that nobody ever reads but which gives him pleasure? Does anybody think that the purpose of existence is to amass more stuff than other people before they die? Read Alasdair Gray's short essay, "A Small Thistle", published in the collection Lean Tales.

There's a reason why economics is called "the dismal science". You're not dealing with real, hard, objective terms here. It's more like theology: a mass of subjective and ultimately personal interpretations suspended from nothing at all. Which is probably why people are prepared to fight to the death over it all.
There is only one problem with people who remain where they are. When they become a burdern on society, rather than contributors to it, they need to be pushed in the right direction. Those are the able-bodied, permanent welfare recipients that we have indeed institutionalized into a bottom class. The problem with allowiing them to remain as they are is that it drains resources that could be used to produce more wealth for more of the population. The welfare poor are the ones that need a kick in the rear so they can become producers and not consumers.

Of course not. The consumers gained, too. Do you think the hand painters minded paying less for a new car?
You're assuming that the car manufactures decreased the price of their cars, or perhaps you know that it's true. However this is not the case in every similar situation.

There is only one problem with people who remain where they are. Those are the able-bodied, permanent welfare recipients that we have indeed institutionalized into a bottom class. The problem with allowiing them to remain as they are is that it drains resources that could be used to produce more wealth for more of the population. The welfare poor are the ones that need a kick in the rear so they can become producers and not consumers.
I think the shareholders are the ones you talk about. They consume 60% of the wealth and they produce 0%
The unemployed people you talk about anly consume something like 10% of the wealth available.

You're assuming that the car manufactures decreased the price of their cars, or perhaps you know that it's true. However this is not the case in every similar situation.
It has to be true. If one company cuts costs and doesn't lower prices, another will. Remember the marginal cost, marginal return curves? Companies always want to operate at the point where they max out the profit. That isn't always with the highest gross margin.

I think the shareholders are the ones you talk about. They consume 60% of the wealth and they produce 0%
The unemployed people you talk about anly consume something like 10% of the wealth available.
Baloney. How do you come up with that kind of conclusion? And the iidea that there are limits on available wealth is nonsense too. There isn't just a pile of wealth sitting around. Wealth is continually grown and accumulated. That's why GDPs can rise every year and why I can get a raise and a bonus if I do good work.

It has to be true. If one company cuts costs and doesn't lower prices, another will. Remember the marginal cost, marginal return curves? Companies always want to operate at the point where they max out the profit. That isn't always with the highest gross margin.
Perhaps this is true, however it isn't the best thing to happen in every case. The apparel industry, for example. Also, if lower costs happen in many different industries at once, this could lead to deflation.

Baloney. How do you come up with that kind of conclusion? And the iidea that there are limits on available wealth is nonsense too. There isn't just a pile of wealth sitting around. Wealth is continually grown and accumulated. That's why GDPs can rise every year and why I can get a raise and a bonus if I do good work.
You confuse GDP with economy. you don't talk about inflation and you're stuck in your financial logic. You trick yourself with flawed market logic and you don't see the problem.

Of course you can get a raise and a bonus and you can work 80 hours a week, night and day and you will have many dollars. This is good that people work 80 hours a day to produce many many things.

Then you talk about unemployed people who don't work and consume part of the wealth available. What is the problem if there is unlimited wealth available? Why don't we all stop working then?

Do you see the problem with the shareholders who are not working while consuming a lot now?
The problem is that wealth is not unlimited, because it has to be produced.

There is only one problem with people who remain where they are. When they become a burdern on society, rather than contributors to it, they need to be pushed in the right direction. Those are the able-bodied, permanent welfare recipients that we have indeed institutionalized into a bottom class. The problem with allowiing them to remain as they are is that it drains resources that could be used to produce more wealth for more of the population. The welfare poor are the ones that need a kick in the rear so they can become producers and not consumers.

You've missed my point entirely. My objection is to the use of terms like "success", "failure", and "ambition" being narrowly applied to mere financial worth. What on earth makes you think you can decide on the "right" direction for someone's life?

Don't get caught up in the religion of economics. Don't start confusing the glib simplicities of economic theories with the actual real world outside. You can't divide the planet into good, "producer" sheep and bad, "consumer" goats; you can't give one lot "a kick in the rear" and turn them into happy fun capitalist citizens. This is drivel. People are not economic units.

You've missed my point entirely. My objection is to the use of terms like "success", "failure", and "ambition" being narrowly applied to mere financial worth. What on earth makes you think you can decide on the "right" direction for someone's life?

Don't get caught up in the religion of economics. Don't start confusing the glib simplicities of economic theories with the actual real world outside. You can't divide the planet into good, "producer" sheep and bad, "consumer" goats; you can't give one lot "a kick in the rear" and turn them into happy fun capitalist citizens. This is drivel. People are not economic units.In other words, all economic output is not necessarily financial output.
I try to smile often to bring happiness around, but it does not translate into money everytime. Sometimes I cook for my friends too.

In other words, all economic output is not necessarily financial output.
I try to smile othen to bring happiness around, but it does not translate into money everytime.

Well, kind of -- but still too much focussed on the "economic output" side of things. Balls to economic output, I say. Who gives a monkey's? Life is short, and nonexistence is forever. If striving for financial success gives you fulfillment, go for it. If it doesn't, then do the bare minimum to keep body and soul together and fill your life with something else instead. Stuff is merely stuff, and obsessing about how much stuff you have in relation to everyone else is, in my opinion, the very definition of wasting your life. By some miracle chain of chance you, that which thinks and knows and remembers, actually exists here and now in this dazzling razor gap between two infinite and implacable gulfs of nothing: don't squander it by scrabbling around amongst the plastic trash like a demented raccoon.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off. I have not yet seized this day. Plus, it's dinner time!

Well, kind of -- but still too much focussed on the "economic output" side of things. Balls to economic output, I say. Who gives a monkey's? Life is short, and nonexistence is forever. If striving for financial success gives you fulfillment, go for it. If it doesn't, then do the bare minimum to keep body and soul together and fill your life with something else instead. Stuff is merely stuff, and obsessing about how much stuff you have in relation to everyone else is, in my opinion, the very definition of wasting your life. By some miracle chain of chance you, that which thinks and knows and remembers, actually exists here and now in this dazzling razor gap between two infinite and implacable gulfs of nothing: don't squander it by scrabbling around amongst the plastic trash like a demented raccoon.

agreed. i'm always amazed at the number of communists and socialists who are utterly obsessed with the accumulation of wealth; how much they have, how much they want, how much that guy over there has, how much of his money they should be given, et cetera. for people who so decry the materialist spirit of capitalism, they sure are fixated on money and material goods.

personally, i have no particular love or hate for money. i'd like being a millionaire (who wouldn't?) but i don't feel it's a worthwhile trade for me to give up doing what i like to make time for amassing a fortune.

You both confuse economy and finance.

Perhaps this is true, however it isn't the best thing to happen in every case. The apparel industry, for example. Also, if lower costs happen in many different industries at once, this could lead to deflation.
Talk about a glass half empty kind of attitude!

You've missed my point entirely. My objection is to the use of terms like "success", "failure", and "ambition" being narrowly applied to mere financial worth. What on earth makes you think you can decide on the "right" direction for someone's life?

Don't get caught up in the religion of economics. Don't start confusing the glib simplicities of economic theories with the actual real world outside. You can't divide the planet into good, "producer" sheep and bad, "consumer" goats; you can't give one lot "a kick in the rear" and turn them into happy fun capitalist citizens. This is drivel. People are not economic units.
I don't pretend to tell anyone what is "right". I do know it is "wrong" for the government to take money from me and give it to a non-producing slacker. That should stop. That will also motivate the slacker to start producing.

for those of you with a mathy bent, please note that a more even distribution of wealth winds up benefiting about 80% of the population - even if we had half as much wealth as we do now.

As I'm feeling grumpy and cynical I think I shall just observe that it seems to me as though people would prefer to benefit less personally provided they could point at some one and say that person is "not as good" as they are.

I don't pretend to tell anyone what is "right". I do know it is "wrong" for the government to take money from me and give it to a non-producing slacker. That should stop. That will also motivate the slacker to start producing.
But you think it is right for the government to print money, distribute it selectively and put in jail those who take it without government permission?

You both confuse economy and finance.

No, no, you're confusing economics with reality. Economic theories -- ALL economic theories -- have about as much basis in fact as astrological predictions. That's why two different economists can come up with drastically different conclusions from the same original data. That's why no economic theory has ever actually worked. If one of them worked, and the other one didn't, there would be no debate, would there? Economists are just a pack of bloody witch-doctors, waving charts and diagrams around and fooling themselves into believing they have a handle on a literally chaotic system.

But you think it is right for the government to print money, distribute it selectively and put in jail those who take it without government permission?
Absolutely. I've got to go now. I'll check back later and resume this, if you're still interested.

for those of you with a mathy bent, please note that a more even distribution of wealth winds up benefiting about 80% of the population - even if we had half as much wealth as we do now.
decreeing that all Christians will receive double pay for whatever work they do would also financially benefit about 80% of the American population, even if we had half as much wealth as we do now.

just because a majority of people profit materially from something does not mean it is just, responsible, or a good idea.

I don't pretend to tell anyone what is "right". I do know it is "wrong" for the government to take money from me and give it to a non-producing slacker. That should stop. That will also motivate the slacker to start producing.

You're the one who wanted to push people's lives in the "right" direction. Plus, you feel that the government shouldn't give money to people whose lifestyle you disapprove of, to motivate those people into adopting a mode of existence which you deem to be worthwhile. So many subjective value judgements...

So then who is the "Global Village Idiot?"

North Korea or Iran. :)

Again, who makes sure the company has work? Who makes sure the company grows and continues to be profitable? The guy that sweeps the floor isn't going to do that. He wouldn't know where to start. That is why CEOs get paid well. They have a tremendous responsibility to workers and shareholders alike.

But then, maybe the work does just appear. Trucks magically bring raw materials and cart away finished goods. Maybe new contracts just show up in the mailbox...

Note please that I was criticising Psylos form his/her own ground. I was not reflecting my own beliefs about capitalism or communism.

The arguments that you present are ones against his base ground, and as it happens, ones that I agree with. However, they are not going to be accepted by Psylos. For a communist of his nature the world is self organising, it needs no planning or responsibility. For him the guy that sweeps the floor is just as capable as the CEO. Not the case for me.

Note please that I was criticising Psylos form his/her own ground. I was not reflecting my own beliefs about capitalism or communism.

The arguments that you present are ones against his base ground, and as it happens, ones that I agree with. However, they are not going to be accepted by Psylos. For a communist of his nature the world is self organising, it needs no planning or responsibility. For him the guy that sweeps the floor is just as capable as the CEO. Not the case for me.
????
What are you talking about? I was saying CEO do bring value because they are organizing. I was actually arguing with someone who said they were paid too much. I think they are not paid enough. I'm not arguing against CEOs, but against shareholders. You must not understand what communism is about because you are used to your local propaganda.

????
What are you talking about? I was saying CEO do bring value because they are organizing. I was actually arguing with someone who sais they were paid too much. I think they are not paid enough. I'm not arguing against CEOs, but against shareholders. You must not understand what communism is about because you are used to your local propaganda.
to be fair, it sounds more like he is using Communist propaganda. whether or not his understanding of your vision of communism is correct, he is accurately reporting what the majority of modern communist propaganda states: CEOs, company presidents, and "capitalists" of all stripes are useless and produce nothing.

if you don't agree with that, you might want to sit down and have a chat with the communists and socialists who propagate such misinformation.

In my opinion the CEO is in the same economic class as the milker. They're both workers.
The people who roll around in their billions are the other class. The bourgeois. They don't work at all. They are useless and in fact they parasite our society at the expense of the workers (be them CEO or milker).

I commented that the CEO was nearly always a shareholder, and thereby not part of the proletariat like the milker.

What are you talking about? I was saying CEO do bring value because they are organizing. I was actually arguing with someone who said they were paid too much. I think they are not paid enough. I'm not arguing against CEOs, but against shareholders. You must not understand what communism is about because you are used to your local propaganda.

Now you say that you are not arguing against CEOs but against shareholders. This was exactly the point that I was arguing against on your own terms.
Why is it that you think that I an failing to understand communism because of this.

to be fair, it sounds more like he is using Communist propaganda. whether or not his understanding of your vision of communism is correct, he is accurately reporting what the majority of modern communist propaganda states: CEOs, company presidents, and "capitalists" of all stripes are useless and produce nothing.

if you don't agree with that, you might want to sit down and have a chat with the communists and socialists who propagate such misinformation.
Those are young anarchists. Socialists are endangered in the US, I could count them with one hand. The socialists in my country don't talk like this.

Those are young anarchists. Socialists are endangered in the US, I could count them with one hand. The socialists in my country don't talk like this.
i'm just telling you what the majority of the propaganda says. i made no claim about the BELIEFS of the majority of communists or socialists, i was pointing out that the propaganda that impacted Alien Born's post was probably the propaganda put out by communists and socialists. if you dislike people having these impressions of your belief system, you should try talking to the people who are actually perpetuating those impressions...they call themselves "socialists" and "communists," so you can't really blame people for concluding the beliefs they profess are "socialist" and "communist" beliefs.

as for socialists being endangered in the US, where the hell have you been? socialism is a HUGE force in America! most people you talk to will have many socialist beliefs, and will support many socialist policy moves. they may not call themselves socialist, and they may even be affronted if you try to tell them some of their beliefs are socialist in nature, but that doesn't change the fact that socialist ideals are very strongly a part of modern America.

I commented that the CEO was nearly always a shareholder, and thereby not part of the proletariat like the milker.

Now you say that you are not arguing against CEOs but against shareholders. This was exactly the point that I was arguing against on your own terms.
Why is it that you think that I an failing to understand communism because of this.
Sorry I misunderstood you.
I don't think CEO and milkers should have the same pay. Those who say that CEO and milkers should have the same pay are the lazy proletarian who want to be paid without working.
Those who accuse communists of wanting the CEO and the milker to have the same pay are lazy bourgeois who want to be paid without working.
I think we agree my friend.

i'm just telling you what the majority of the propaganda says. i made no claim about the BELIEFS of the majority of communists or socialists, i was pointing out that the propaganda that impacted Alien Born's post was probably the propaganda put out by communists and socialists. if you dislike people having these impressions of your belief system, you should try talking to the people who are actually perpetuating those impressions...they call themselves "socialists" and "communists," so you can't really blame people for concluding the beliefs they profess are "socialist" and "communist" beliefs.
That's more likely the McCarthy propaganda, but whatever.

The proletariat is labor. It's paid wages. It serves others.

The bourgeois owns the means of production that the proletariat works/uses. They pay the proletariat. Because of this, the bourgeois, in a way, own the proletariat, though not in the same way. [since their incomes ARE disparatively different].

A handy way to demagogue, but what happens when the proletariat, throught their tax deferred retirement savings accounts, own the means of production?

Sorry I misunderstood you.
I don't think CEO and milkers should have the same pay. Those who say that CEO and milkers should have the same pay are the lazy proletarian who want to be paid without working.
Those who accuse communists of wanting the CEO and the milker to have the same pay are lazy bourgeois who want to be paid without working.
I think we agree my friend.

I think we agree about the principles of communism, or socialism if you prefer to call it that. However our actual political opinions appear to be diametrically opposed as I am a libertarian at heart. (This does not stop me from trying to understand and see the good points in other positions though, unlike some of my ilk)
Good luck, I believe you will need it.

That's more likely the McCarthy propaganda, but whatever.
erm, i don't really think so. maybe you can expand on what you mean? i might just be misunderstanding what you are saying.

erm, i don't really think so. maybe you can expand on what you mean? i might just be misunderstanding what you are saying.Well I mean that McCarthy propagated a lot of myths about communists, like they were eating babies, or that they wanted to make us ants who are all equal and stuffs like that. He also banned genuine socialist information, like Karl Marx literature. Even nowadays there are still people who think socialists want to bring everyone down to the lowest level possible.

A handy way to demagogue, but what happens when the proletariat, throught their tax deferred retirement savings accounts, own the means of production?
Well they pass it to their children and they children stop working.

Well I mean that McCarthy propagated a lot of myths about communists, like they were eating babies, or that they wanted to make us ants who are all equal and stuffs like that. He also banned genuine socialist information, like Karl Marx literature. Even nowadays there are still people who think socialists want to bring everyone down to the lowest level possible.
yeah, that's what i thought you were saying...

the propaganda that i am referring to is the propaganda being passed out by people who self-identify as communists and socialists. as a rule, i define a given belief system by what the believers say it means, just like i generally call people by the name they tell me they use. the majority of communists and socialists who have provided me with material that could be called "propaganda" have given me material that lines up with Alien Born's vision of communists and socialists; if you think their propaganda is misleading then THEY are the people you should be speaking to.

Well they pass it to their children and they children stop working.
really? my cousins were born into a very rich family, and one is a medical doctor while the other is a member of a symphony orchestra. you sure that rich kids don't work?

really? my cousins were born into a very rich family, and one is a medical doctor while the other is a member of a symphony orchestra. you sure that rich kids don't work?
Your cousins are noble. Some of them indeed work. They have no incentive to work, but it doesn't necessarily stop them from working indeed.

yeah, that's what i thought you were saying...

the propaganda that i am referring to is the propaganda being passed out by people who self-identify as communists and socialists. as a rule, i define a given belief system by what the believers say it means, just like i generally call people by the name they tell me they use. the majority of communists and socialists who have provided me with material that could be called "propaganda" have given me material that lines up with Alien Born's vision of communists and socialists; if you think their propaganda is misleading then THEY are the people you should be speaking to.
I'll try. I don't meet them often unfortunately.
Those kind of utopian socialists exist since a long time though. Marx and Engels have put a whole topic about them in the communist manifesto.

A handy way to demagogue, but what happens when the proletariat, throught their tax deferred retirement savings accounts, own the means of production?

if that really happened, we would have something much like social ownership of the means of production, and some sort of socialist system. but that ain't what happens under the current rules of the game. playing by the rules of today, the proletariat as a whole cannot purchase more than a tiny percentage of the means of production.

however, if they wind up owning enough stock in the means of production that they are able to live off of the returns on it without having to do any work, they have become full on capitalists. this happens to approximately no one (well, it happens for a very tiny number, but it is pretty much equivalent to no one at all given the vast numbers of people we are talking about). but if you have it so that the vast majority of all stock is still held by about 5-10% of the population, then welcome to 'scrambling for the crumbs', where only the most well off of the working class - really the professional managerial class in this case - winds up owning most of the rest of the available stock, and the rest (still the vast majority of the population) either owns none or close enough to none as makes no difference.

just because a majority of people profit materially from something does not mean it is just, responsible, or a good idea.

nope, it doesn't. the justness in this case comes from privileging work over dubious claims to ownership and even more dubious claims of the 'right' to expropriate nearly all of the wealth created by people solely on the basis of that ownership.

I'm not saying that capitalism or communism is good or bad here, but have you ever given notion that inequalities (economically or socially) just seem to arise naturally between humans?

Of course. I wasn't always an anarchist and I believed unquestioningly that capitalism could do no wrong. Then I woke and realized just how inplausible that was and how obviously it was intended to keep certain people in power.

Economic classes absolutely exist. Just because we lack titled aristocracy or well-defined castes doesn't mean there aren't strong divides.

I see where the "specializations" line is coming from, but how people earn their money is a separate issue. I'm going to drag out my favorite hobbyhorse, economic mobility, and repeat that in the United States (moreso than in other industrialized nations) people are likely to live in the same income quartile as their parents. This means that, however people are making their money, it is the same families that *are* making money.

I'd further argue that this is because family income is directly related to the specialization level of offspring and that access to education and inheritance are key factors in maintaining economic class lines. I'm not just talking about whether kids go to college or what college they go to: I'm talking about parents living in neighborhoods that have highly rated public or private schools; I'm talking about parents having access to jobs that allow one parent to stay home and raise the kids or that allow sufficient time for reading and other involved educational activities; I'm talking about how the kids will be prepared for college, before the question of school finance enters the equation.

Evidence of this: Look up an author named Kahlenberg. He writes on equal access to higher education. He finds that the number one determinant of whether a student goes to college is economic. At Ivy Leagues, you're twelve times more likely to find a student from the top 5% income bracket than the bottom 20%.

Economic class predicts specialization level.

You're the one who wanted to push people's lives in the "right" direction. Plus, you feel that the government shouldn't give money to people whose lifestyle you disapprove of, to motivate those people into adopting a mode of existence which you deem to be worthwhile. So many subjective value judgements...
So much to catch up on. My only interest in the bottom feeders that live off welfare, when they could be doing honest work is that my property is taken from me to support them. I should never have to spend a minute's labor to help support a bum that can't be bothered to get up off the couch and look for work. Any kind of work. Two jobs if he needs them. If that's judgemental, fine, someone needs to judge frauds and cheats.

????
What are you talking about? I was saying CEO do bring value because they are organizing. I was actually arguing with someone who said they were paid too much. I think they are not paid enough. I'm not arguing against CEOs, but against shareholders. You must not understand what communism is about because you are used to your local propaganda.
Do you understand what shareholders are? They are providers of capital for a company to operate. Without investors risking their wealth on a company, there is no way that business could expand to serve the needs and wants of the population.

Note please that I was criticising Psylos form his/her own ground. I was not reflecting my own beliefs about capitalism or communism.

The arguments that you present are ones against his base ground, and as it happens, ones that I agree with. However, they are not going to be accepted by Psylos. For a communist of his nature the world is self organising, it needs no planning or responsibility. For him the guy that sweeps the floor is just as capable as the CEO. Not the case for me.
I understand. I have the unusual ability to read one post and reply to another. My apologies for the confusion.

No, no, you're confusing economics with reality. Economic theories -- ALL economic theories -- have about as much basis in fact as astrological predictions. That's why two different economists can come up with drastically different conclusions from the same original data. That's why no economic theory has ever actually worked. If one of them worked, and the other one didn't, there would be no debate, would there? Economists are just a pack of bloody witch-doctors, waving charts and diagrams around and fooling themselves into believing they have a handle on a literally chaotic system.
This is my main problem with the whole system, personaly.


Anyway to all those who say there is equality of oppertunity, I'm afraid that that simply is not true, because oppurtunity can not be equale without an equal starting point. In any other situation one party has a head start, so that even if both parties are equaley capabal and equaly ambitious, the one who started out in a better position will come out ahead. This means that equal work, equal motivation, and equal abilities don't produce equale results, if there was such a thing as equal oppurtunity these things would bring about equal results.

Alright then back to topic, economic classes are indicators of someones acsess to oppertunity.

Do you understand what shareholders are? They are providers of capital for a company to operate. Without investors risking their wealth on a company, there is no way that business could expand to serve the needs and wants of the population.
You are still stuck in your financial logic. Try to think beyond that. A lot of activities are expanded and serve the needs and wants of the population without shareholders. In my country, those are the train system, the national health care, the space research, the school system and many many other things.

You are still stuck in your financial logic. Try to think beyond that. A lot of activities are expanded and serve the needs and wants of the population without shareholders. In my country, those are the train system, the national health care, the space research, the school system and many many other things.
Unless your government is unusually capable, these services probably don't operate at a profit. I would be expansion requires a tax increase, or at least a budget alignment to allow more money to be spent on the expansion. Utilities ask for fee hikes to support expansion all the time. This is a different issue than the idea that shareholders do nothing.

My point was that shareholders are responsible for providing additional capital to a public company. They certainly assume risk and that is a good enough reason to pay them dividends. I don't think we can compare government funded activities and privately funded activities concerning the function of shareholders.

Unless your government is unusually capable, these services probably don't operate at a profit. I would be expansion requires a tax increase, or at least a budget alignment to allow more money to be spent on the expansion. Utilities ask for fee hikes to support expansion all the time. This is a different issue than the idea that shareholders do nothing.Actually the profits are huge. We have one of the best transport system in the world, affordable by everyone and fast and nobody dies for lack of medecine. Some strategic areas make a financial profit as well, like our electricity company which is the biggest in the world and which is a large net financial contributor in the national budget.

My point was that shareholders are responsible for providing additional capital to a public company. They certainly assume risk and that is a good enough reason to pay them dividends.They don't assume risk actually. They don't want risk. Those who assume the risk are the small shareholders (less than $150 million) who don't have a say in the way the companies are run (because they are minority holders and they don't know what they buy). The big ones know what they buy. They have different tools for that. When they buy The oil of Iraq, they know they will sell it and they know the soldiers are taking the risks for them. They also have warrants : they buy things in the future and they sell it before buying it, so they are sure they can buy it at a lower price because the fact that they sold it did make the price fall already. They also buy a company and its suppliers and then they force the company to buy more from the suppliers so the supplier's shares goes up. After that they sell the suppliers and they ask the company to stop buying and to use the stocks accumulated so the profits rise and then they can sell the company. Or they can split the company (it's called "rationalizing") and sell parts of it when they know they won't use it anymore soon. I won't get into how they speculate with currencies. Basically they manipulate the market the way they want. I work in a big financial institution and I can talk for hours about all the tools they have not to take any risk. When they are too small and stupid enough to screw up, they only thing they loose is their capital. The workers loose their source of revenue as well so the risks are shared anyway (except the workers are always in the front line because when the profits are threatened, they are fired first). I don't see why they should be paid dividends really.

I don't think we can compare government funded activities and privately funded activities concerning the function of shareholdersI don't get it.

So much to catch up on. My only interest in the bottom feeders that live off welfare, when they could be doing honest work is that my property is taken from me to support them. I should never have to spend a minute's labor to help support a bum that can't be bothered to get up off the couch and look for work. Any kind of work. Two jobs if he needs them. If that's judgemental, fine, someone needs to judge frauds and cheats.

See, I don't get this obsession with the tiny, tiny minority of people who will abuse any system -- trust me, it's tiny: anything else is political bullshit pumped out to generate some phoney indignation and enable politicians to sound tough and virile to the sort of voters who are still impressed by alpha-male posturing.

I honestly can't work up that much indignation over the fiddlingly small fraction of my taxes that get wasted on the wasters. If you want to see some REAL frauds and cheats, take a look at the magical world of corporate welfare and pork-barrel projects. Gasp in astonishment as sums of money you didn't think were possible are flushed away into the pockets of already stupendously wealthy people who happened to fund the political campaign of whichever no-good brain-dead bum happens to be parked in the top spot at present. Squeal in disbelief as moronic projects go over-budget by factors of 10, again and again and again, and fail to produce anything worthwhile (hint: check the military for this). Hear your eyes make a disturbing "fwang!" sound as you realise that your obsession with a handful of deadbeat social security cheats has been nothing more than a piece of political misdirection to try to hide the real criminals here.

I stumbled across this concept as I was writing a paper on distributive justice. As I am still writing this paper I will not be able to respond, but I can put this out there.

During the 1950's cars were handpainted by people who were trained to do so. But, by the late 1970's highly efficient robots had replaced these car painters, decreasing the demand for their skill while also decreasing their average income. The car painters suffered.

But, as a result of this change a whole new group of specialists benefitted greatly, these being the electricians, the computer programmers and any other people in robotics related fields. They now had a job, and increased pay over previously.

I contend that this arrangement, is evidence not of a social class structure by income (a myth perpetuated by many) but that social economic organization is based around skill specializations. The more unique the skill, the greater the maket demand for that skill is. Have you ever seen an article in a newspaper requesting the aid of a "middle class person" or "working class" person. No, we see requests for managers, or electricians.

And even among those of what is often considered an underclass we really just see a class with minimal specialization. A group of generalists. A group that is far more wide ranging than one would initially assume, for not only can a generalist be someone who works at WalMart or McDonalds, but a generalist can have jobs of varying pay, such as a mail clerk, a basic electrician, a courier, or a million and one relatively easy to learn jobs.

As we can see with the automobile painters scenario, one group benefitted at the expense of another, but it wasn't, as is so commonly charged, a groups of ultra-wealthy capitalists.

Or, on the other hand we can also see the wide range of lifestyles of stockbrokers, some are super-wealthy, some are barely scraping by.

No, economic classes in the traditional sense do not exist. Just specializations.

There, I'll be willing to respond after I finish this paper...hopefully by Sunday.

Uuummmmmmmmm, yeah. Specialization leads to greater production rates and efficiency, and a smaller supply pool of labor, which drives up the price of labor, which in turn creates more goods and services that the now more well paid populus can consume, which creates demand for the goods and services they produce.

I got an interesting analogy in my econ class a while back. Imagine Gilligan's island. Maryann is really good at finding and picking berries. Gilligan is really good at fishing. If Maryann picks berries AND fishes, she will pick 30 berries and catch 3 fish. If Gilligan picks berries AND fishes, he will pick 10 berries and catch 5 fish. However, if Maryann ONLY Picks berries, she will pick 60 berries. If Gilligan ONLY fishes, he will catch 10 fish. By specializing and trading, there will be 60 berries to trade with instead of 40, and 10 fish to trade instead of 8. By specializing, more wealth was created.

Interestingly enough, many latin American contries are having the problem of a lack of specilization right now. Everyone is trying to be a "generalized" worker, and work several jobs. With not only a lack of skills, and more hours worked, there is all around less productivity. This drives down labor wages, so they have to get more jobs to support themselves, which perpetuates this downward spiral.

See, I don't get this obsession with the tiny, tiny minority of people who will abuse any system -- trust me, it's tiny: anything else is political bullshit pumped out to generate some phoney indignation and enable politicians to sound tough and virile to the sort of voters who are still impressed by alpha-male posturing.

I honestly can't work up that much indignation over the fiddlingly small fraction of my taxes that get wasted on the wasters. If you want to see some REAL frauds and cheats, take a look at the magical world of corporate welfare and pork-barrel projects. Gasp in astonishment as sums of money you didn't think were possible are flushed away into the pockets of already stupendously wealthy people who happened to fund the political campaign of whichever no-good brain-dead bum happens to be parked in the top spot at present. Squeal in disbelief as moronic projects go over-budget by factors of 10, again and again and again, and fail to produce anything worthwhile (hint: check the military for this). Hear your eyes make a disturbing "fwang!" sound as you realise that your obsession with a handful of deadbeat social security cheats has been nothing more than a piece of political misdirection to try to hide the real criminals here.


Marvellous rhetoric, shame about the lack of content though.

I ask you where you live if you believe that the number of spongers on any welfare state is insignificant.

The following is the Housing benefit paid in the UK, in £ sterling
2004....February........2,015,400
..........May...............2,071,400
source (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/hb_ctb/ht_ctb_quarterly_may04.asp)


Multiply by the current excahange rate and then by 4.5 to reflect the population difference to get some idea of what it would be in he USA under the same system.

There are, of course, many other handouts made. You can check these for yourself on the site I linked to in the data.

I am not saying that the corporate welfare etc. should not be stopped. I am simply pointing out that the number of spongers is not going to be that small.

See, I don't get this obsession with the tiny, tiny minority of people who will abuse any system -- trust me, it's tiny: anything else is political bullshit pumped out to generate some phoney indignation and enable politicians to sound tough and virile to the sort of voters who are still impressed by alpha-male posturing.

I honestly can't work up that much indignation over the fiddlingly small fraction of my taxes that get wasted on the wasters. If you want to see some REAL frauds and cheats, take a look at the magical world of corporate welfare and pork-barrel projects. Gasp in astonishment as sums of money you didn't think were possible are flushed away into the pockets of already stupendously wealthy people who happened to fund the political campaign of whichever no-good brain-dead bum happens to be parked in the top spot at present. Squeal in disbelief as moronic projects go over-budget by factors of 10, again and again and again, and fail to produce anything worthwhile (hint: check the military for this). Hear your eyes make a disturbing "fwang!" sound as you realise that your obsession with a handful of deadbeat social security cheats has been nothing more than a piece of political misdirection to try to hide the real criminals here.

I agree that corporate welfare sucks majorly and needs to stop, but that's a red herring; a misdirection. Bringing up a problem over here, doesn't solve the problem over there. Also, the "minority" you speak of is not THAT small.

I've known many of them. I hate to say it, but the woman who used to be my stepmother recieved unemployment insurance for two years. During that time, she saw no reason to get a job, because she was getting paid to not work. Instead, she chose to play video games and get fat. My dad eventually decided he didn't want to be married to a dead beat (amongst other things) and kicked her ass out.

I went a school for really bad kids (I wasn't bad, just a smart kid that they couldn't be bothered with to send to be with other smart kids), and I was amazed at how many of the kids there were living in foster homes and the people running those foster homes were usually completely worthless individuals. Most of them, and a lot of the kid's parents (those who had parents, anyway) were on welfare and foods stamps.

The recent welfare reform forces people on welfare to put in a certain amount of work SOMEWHERE to get their welfare check. So, now that these people aren't getting free money, they're getting off welfare and actually doing something instead of doing the crap jobs they're being given. The "welfare mom" is quickly becoming a thing of the past, thank goodness. People who exist on welfare drag everyone around them down. Not because they're sucking up a few dollars of tax money, but because it builds a society on bad morals and ethics. It's hard to explain, but when you work for your living, there's a feeling of honesty and pride that you CAN'T get being a deadbeat. It's easier to be a deadbeat, but it's not at all satisfying. People who grow up in welfare homes end up with really bad attitudes towards the world in general and usually end up in dead end lives, strung out on drugs and/or in the prison system (which is a whole other topic) or dead. I've seen way too much of it first hand to believe that their lives couldn't have been better if they didn't grow up in a better home where the parents had better attitudes towards life.

Marvellous rhetoric, shame about the lack of content though.

I ask you where you live if you believe that the number of spongers on any welfare state is insignificant.

The following is the Housing benefit paid in the UK, in £ sterling


Multiply by the current excahange rate and then by 4.5 to reflect the population difference to get some idea of what it would be in he USA under the same system.

There are, of course, many other handouts made. You can check these for yourself on the site I linked to in the data.

I am not saying that the corporate welfare etc. should not be stopped. I am simply pointing out that the number of spongers is not going to be that small.

Aha! Here we have the problem. To you, anyone on any form of welfare is a "sponger". Frankly, that's a flat-out ignorant statement. Life can turn and bite you in the arse without a moment's notice, and it is the mark of a civilised society that we erect a safety net to catch our people if they should fall. This is enlightened self-interest: we are all at risk from misfortune, no matter how hard-working and capable we may feel ourselves to be; therefore it makes perfect sense to spread the risk as widely as possible.

The huge majority of people who receive welfare payments are NOT "spongers", or "slackers", or "parasites". The very small number of people who will abuse or try to abuse any social security system is the price we have to pay for living in a fair and decent country. The actual sums of money wasted on the cheats, which no doubt can sound terribly impressive in the foam-flecked pages of The Daily Mail, are trivial in comparison to the vast amounts pissed away on idiot military projects, corporate welfare and tax-avoidance, and scams for the rich. I mean, if UK Housing Benefit payments are only running at £2 million per month, that's only £24 million per year -- of which only a tiny fraction is going to frauds; the rest goes to help people pay their rent and avoid becoming homeless. £24 million is buttons, believe me. It would get you maybe half a Eurofighter, on a good day. Woo-hoo.

I agree that corporate welfare sucks majorly and needs to stop, but that's a red herring; a misdirection. Bringing up a problem over here, doesn't solve the problem over there. Also, the "minority" you speak of is not THAT small.

That is true, although it's not intended as misdirection. Think of it more like being on a leaky boat: there's all manner of screaming and yelling about the water trickling in down in Steerage, but nobody is paying any attention to the torrent in First Class. Fix the big problems first.

I've known many of them. I hate to say it, but the woman who used to be my stepmother recieved unemployment insurance for two years. During that time, she saw no reason to get a job, because she was getting paid to not work. Instead, she chose to play video games and get fat. My dad eventually decided he didn't want to be married to a dead beat (amongst other things) and kicked her ass out.

I went a school for really bad kids (I wasn't bad, just a smart kid that they couldn't be bothered with to send to be with other smart kids), and I was amazed at how many of the kids there were living in foster homes and the people running those foster homes were usually completely worthless individuals. Most of them, and a lot of the kid's parents (those who had parents, anyway) were on welfare and foods stamps.

The recent welfare reform forces people on welfare to put in a certain amount of work SOMEWHERE to get their welfare check. So, now that these people aren't getting free money, they're getting off welfare and actually doing something instead of doing the crap jobs they're being given. The "welfare mom" is quickly becoming a thing of the past, thank goodness. People who exist on welfare drag everyone around them down. Not because they're sucking up a few dollars of tax money, but because it builds a society on bad morals and ethics. It's hard to explain, but when you work for your living, there's a feeling of honesty and pride that you CAN'T get being a deadbeat. It's easier to be a deadbeat, but it's not at all satisfying. People who grow up in welfare homes end up with really bad attitudes towards the world in general and usually end up in dead end lives, strung out on drugs and/or in the prison system (which is a whole other topic) or dead. I've seen way too much of it first hand to believe that their lives couldn't have been better if they didn't grow up in a better home where the parents had better attitudes towards life.

Well, your evidence is anecdotal, but at least you don't seem to think that everyone on welfare is like your former stepmother. You have to be careful, though, that your opinions of an entire mass of people doesn't become coloured by your personal experiences with one individual.

Most people want to work. Having been long-term unemployed myself, it's a soul-destroying experience. You feel cast off, adrift from the rest of society. The crippling poverty isn't much fun, either. That's my anecdotal evidence :). I can't comment about the recent US legislation because I'm a UK citizen and I don't know anything about it. But I think it's foolish to obsess about a small waste of money when there are many huge wastes of money going by unremarked.

I agree 100%
The private financial institution I work for trades more than $2 trillion a day (that's $2000 billions, or $2 000 000 000 000 PER DAY). When compared to this the social security net is ridiculous.

Aha! Here we have the problem. To you, anyone on any form of welfare is a "sponger". Frankly, that's a flat-out ignorant statement. Life can turn and bite you in the arse without a moment's notice, and it is the mark of a civilised society that we erect a safety net to catch our people if they should fall. This is enlightened self-interest: we are all at risk from misfortune, no matter how hard-working and capable we may feel ourselves to be; therefore it makes perfect sense to spread the risk as widely as possible.

The huge majority of people who receive welfare payments are NOT "spongers", or "slackers", or "parasites". The very small number of people who will abuse or try to abuse any social security system is the price we have to pay for living in a fair and decent country. The actual sums of money wasted on the cheats, which no doubt can sound terribly impressive in the foam-flecked pages of The Daily Mail, are trivial in comparison to the vast amounts pissed away on idiot military projects, corporate welfare and tax-avoidance, and scams for the rich. I mean, if UK Housing Benefit payments are only running at £2 million per month, that's only £24 million per year -- of which only a tiny fraction is going to frauds; the rest goes to help people pay their rent and avoid becoming homeless. £24 million is buttons, believe me. It would get you maybe half a Eurofighter, on a good day. Woo-hoo.

Most of the true sponger types I've met in the US skip the welfare system altogether and make their rounds through the US penitentiary system. In and out, in and out.

Most criminals I've met have an odd and deep sense of entitlement. When they aren't trying to rob, steal, or scam a living, or sell a small amount of drugs (or their bodies) to make a handful of dollars, they spend a short time on welfare (yes, they aren't the majority), and spend a lot of time in prison.

Some are rather intelligent about this, and time their crimes (and the expected sentence, which is often measured in months) so that they can avoid cold weather.

Aha! Here we have the problem. To you, anyone on any form of welfare is a "sponger". Frankly, that's a flat-out ignorant statement. Life can turn and bite you in the arse without a moment's notice, and it is the mark of a civilised society that we erect a safety net to catch our people if they should fall. This is enlightened self-interest: we are all at risk from misfortune, no matter how hard-working and capable we may feel ourselves to be; therefore it makes perfect sense to spread the risk as widely as possible.

The huge majority of people who receive welfare payments are NOT "spongers", or "slackers", or "parasites". The very small number of people who will abuse or try to abuse any social security system is the price we have to pay for living in a fair and decent country. The actual sums of money wasted on the cheats, which no doubt can sound terribly impressive in the foam-flecked pages of The Daily Mail, are trivial in comparison to the vast amounts pissed away on idiot military projects, corporate welfare and tax-avoidance, and scams for the rich. I mean, if UK Housing Benefit payments are only running at £2 million per month, that's only £24 million per year -- of which only a tiny fraction is going to frauds; the rest goes to help people pay their rent and avoid becoming homeless. £24 million is buttons, believe me. It would get you maybe half a Eurofighter, on a good day. Woo-hoo.


Well, this all depends upon your definition of parasite. To me, and many others, a parasite is something that survives on the basis of the effort or work of others. The figure of $24 million per year is a factual figure, one that can be agreed upon. Neither you nor I will disute it. The question is not wjether this is chicken feed compared to a Euro fighter. That is not the issue here. It is a valid point against those that argue that the government should provide the srttrongest possible military, but do nothing for the homeless. I, howeverdo not fall into that category. My doubt is about the validity of UK Housing Benefit. Who receives this money? Housing benefit payments do not include the council housing rent reductions granted to low income and unemployed families. Or were you not aware of that. Who gets this money are the private landlords and hostel owners. I find that a little excessive. To tax someone who is actualy working and then pay this money to someone who lives off the ownership of property and the misfortune of others is unjustifiable.

Next points. What standard of housing is necessary? Who should have a claim on Government funded accomodation? If you are unemployed, through choice, then should you be housed by the government. I have to pay my mortgage, if not, then I lose my home. If I lived in a UK council house, if I don't pay, so what. I am not going to be evicted. But I, in the past as I left the UK when Blair came into power, have paid taxes just so that someone who could work, but refuses to do so, can have a comfortable place to live. If you are really unable to work, then you should be getting Disability benefits, not housing ones. If the work is too low paid for you to afford your accomodation, move somewhere cheaper, or work more hours (there is a minimum wage there now).
Here, in the third world, ther is no housing benefit. If you have no job, you invent a way of making a living. If you can not pay to live in a confortable manner you do not live in a comfortable manner. This motivates innitiative from the poorer sectors. What the government should fund, if it wants to eliminate poverty and misery is education. Not housing and making the poor comfortable. That is counter productive.

Considering that no nation in the EU really has the ability to project force worldwide without US assistance, and that war seems extremely unlikely in the European theater, why does the EU have as much military equipment as it does?

Especially when so much of it is useless compared to US forces?

The most modern French air defense radars - in a network more complete and dense and sophisticated than any set up in France - was in Iraq prior to the last two invasions of Iraq.

Both were turned into unusable junk rather rapidly.

So, unlike the US, who makes weapons to make a healthy profit for defense contractors AND to win wars, does the typical EU nation make weapons only for defense contractors to get rich?

I must respectfully disagree. First, an electrician and a robotic engineer is hardly on the same socioeconomic strata as an assembly line worker, If I were to lean over and tell my room mate, a computer science major, that he's on par with someone who works at CompUSA, then I'll get smacked. Specialization is a handy unit to break down groups of people into, it can even be used to form subcultures. . . however to say that it's the only one is to deny that there is a larger classification that we can utilize to understand the society that they exist in. Without the concept of Socioeconomic class, then a billionair like Gates and a billionair like the Bush Family and a billionair like the Trump Family would have no reason to mingle. Simply put, they wouldn't be in once class (Upper class) but would be in three seperate classes (Computer Software, Oil, and Investment). Likewise, a Janitor in a slum who makes 20,000 a year would see himself as being on equal with an Oak Ridge national laboritory janitor who makes 50,000 a year. . . however, even though they share the same specialization, the janator making 50,000 a year is going to see himsself as a class above the slum's janitor.

What the government should fund, if it wants to eliminate poverty and misery is education. Not housing and making the poor comfortable. That is counter productive.The state can do both, no?

Specializations do not remove social classes as they are two different things. I couldn't go to school for training for being "upper-middle class." Specializations are more specific, and vary based on supply and demand rules. Social classes are a measure of what already is (there is very little "Demand" for social classes other than the wealthy, and the "demand" for the wealthy is tied into the supply that the seller wants the wealthy to consume). You need to refute possible counter-arguments in your paper so that it is completely covered in its points.

Greetings,
Snackwell

So, unlike the US, who makes weapons to make a healthy profit for defense contractors AND to win wars, does the typical EU nation make weapons only for defense contractors to get rich?And to detract hostile nations from invading Europe (like the US).

I must respectfully disagree. First, an electrician and a robotic engineer is hardly on the same socioeconomic strata as an assembly line worker, If I were to lean over and tell my room mate, a computer science major, that he's on par with someone who works at CompUSA, then I'll get smacked. Specialization is a handy unit to break down groups of people into, it can even be used to form subcultures. . . however to say that it's the only one is to deny that there is a larger classification that we can utilize to understand the society that they exist in. Without the concept of Socioeconomic class, then a billionair like Gates and a billionair like the Bush Family and a billionair like the Trump Family would have no reason to mingle. Simply put, they wouldn't be in once class (Upper class) but would be in three seperate classes (Computer Software, Oil, and Investment). Likewise, a Janitor in a slum who makes 20,000 a year would see himself as being on equal with an Oak Ridge national laboritory janitor who makes 50,000 a year. . . however, even though they share the same specialization, the janator making 50,000 a year is going to see himsself as a class above the slum's janitor.

The conceptual problem that some people have is that they believe in the Marxist concept of value - that all work is of equal value.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyone who doesn't believe that economic classes exist hasn't spent a year eating instant macaroni and cheese and instant ramen noodles.

The conceptual problem that some people have is that they believe in the Marxist concept of value - that all work is of equal value.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyone who doesn't believe that economic classes exist hasn't spent a year eating instant macaroni and cheese and instant ramen noodles.Did you read Marx?

The state can do both, no?

If it does both, you have to be willing to believe that people are motivated more by the welfare of all than by their own personal comfort. This is something that I have difficulty with.

If it does both, you have to be willing to believe that people are motivated more by the welfare of all than by their own personal comfort. This is something that I have difficulty with.Your own personal comfort is threatened when you have people on the street who ask you money or when they breack into your house to get it.

Your own personal comfort is threatened when you have people on the street who ask you money or when they breack into your house to get it.

I personally feed the homeless when I meet them. I've had some stay in my house. I don't find someone threatening just because they ask for food, money, or shelter.

I find it stupid to wait for the government to do something, because most of that tax money goes to pay the salaries of incompetent bureaucrats.

I've given shelter to victims of domestic abuse, because the shelters run by the government only allow a victim to stay 30 days.

But if someone offers me violence, I am not going to tolerate it, no matter what their reason may be.

Here in the US, people don't break into your house to get food to eat. Most often, they are looking for something that can be sold or traded quickly for drugs. It's the main motivation behind the home invasion robbery. The second highest reason for break-ins and home invasion in the US is rape.

Are you telling me that women shouldn't be afraid of rape?

Your own personal comfort is threatened when you have people on the street who ask you money or when they breack into your house to get it.

What I was getting at is the problem of motivation in a state controlled society. In a capitalist society, your effort allows you to live a more comfortable life than the life you would have without that effort. This is one of the basic motivational factor that drives the capitalist system. Under a communisitc system, where all your basic needs are met by the state, then this motivational factor disapears. You are not, if you are like most people, hedonistic to some degree, going to go and clean toilets, or work on an assembly line, just for the pleasure of it. You would have to be motivated by the overall welfare of society, and have this motivation be stronger than your own desire for pleasure. I do not believe that this can happen.

The only other alternative is to use central punishment for non contributors, which is going away from communism and toward a social engineering dictatorship, big brother style.

Here in the US, people don't break into your house to get food to eat. Most often, they are looking for something that can be sold or traded quickly for drugs. It's the main motivation behind the home invasion robbery. The second highest reason for break-ins and home invasion in the US is rape.

Are you telling me that women shouldn't be afraid of rape?That is because you have a social safety net.

What I was getting at is the problem of motivation in a state controlled society. In a capitalist society, your effort allows you to live a more comfortable life than the life you would have without that effort. This is one of the basic motivational factor that drives the capitalist system. Under a communisitc system, where all your basic needs are met by the state, then this motivational factor disapears. You are not, if you are like most people, hedonistic to some degree, going to go and clean toilets, or work on an assembly line, just for the pleasure of it. You would have to be motivated by the overall welfare of society, and have this motivation be stronger than your own desire for pleasure. I do not believe that this can happen.

The only other alternative is to use central punishment for non contributors, which is going away from communism and toward a social engineering dictatorship, big brother style.Actually in communistic society, you work to improve your life. The more you work the more you get paid. whereas in a capitalistic society you work to have a life and to improve the one of the shareholders. The shareholders don't work at all but they are getting most of the pay. There is no incentive to work. The stock market has a better return than work.

Actually in communistic society, you work to improve your life. The more you work the more you get paid. whereas in a capitalistic society you work to have a life and to improve the one of the shareholders. The shareholders don't work at all but they are getting most of the pay. There is no incentive to work. The stock market has a better return than work.

I guess that's why productivity kept dropping in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states.

I've talked to many people who said that the great thing about that system was that you could go to work, screw off all day, and still get paid.

And I've met people who were doctors, and people who were bricklayers from these countries. And the pay for each was virtually the same - someone who saves lives and is highly educated didn't get any more than someone who screwed off in school and couldn't do anything more complicated than put one brick on top of another.

There was a COMPLETE lack of motivation to do anything. And, the people who got the good stuff worked for upper Party members or the secret police (so much for the more you work the more you get paid). At the level of the normal citizen, no matter how hard you worked, there wasn't anything more. Ever. If you said, "hey, I worked harder, and longer, so give me more" you were accused of being reactionary.

In a communist society, you are COUNTING on the ALTRUISM of the individual to work for the good of all. They actually have NO motivation in REAL LIFE to do so.

I guess that's why productivity kept dropping in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states.Well actually the GDP of the USSR was more than 3 times the current combined GDP of all those states now that they are capitalistic. In the 60's, this GDP was increasing at the double rate than the one of the USA.

I've talked to many people who said that the great thing about that system was that you could go to work, screw off all day, and still get paid.

And I've met people who were doctors, and people who were bricklayers from these countries. And the pay for each was virtually the same - someone who saves lives and is highly educated didn't get any more than someone who screwed off in school and couldn't do anything more complicated than put one brick on top of another.

There was a COMPLETE lack of motivation to do anything. And, the people who got the good stuff worked for upper Party members or the secret police (so much for the more you work the more you get paid). At the level of the normal citizen, no matter how hard you worked, there wasn't anything more. Ever. If you said, "hey, I worked harder, and longer, so give me more" you were accused of being reactionary.

In a communist society, you are COUNTING on the ALTRUISM of the individual to work for the good of all. They actually have NO motivation in REAL LIFE to do so.
You must have read too much McCarthy propaganda.

Well actually the GDP of the USSR was more than 3 times the current combined GDP of all those states now that they are capitalistic. In the 60's, this GDP was increasing at the double rate than the one of the USA.

You must have read too much McCarthy propaganda.

You must be reading too much USSR propaganda. The GDP figures are only valid if you accept the USSR's proclaimed exchange rate.

The real exchange rate was an order of magnitude lower than the official exchange rate - rubles to dollars. So take those figures down a notch or two.

Also, I've talked to the people themselves. I've been to Poland, the Ukraine, and Russia (even as far east as the Urals). So no, I wasn't reading propaganda.

I was talking to a software developer there who said that during the Soviet Era, they were unable to make lithography machines that could turn out the chips that we in the West were taking for granted. No one was motivated to build them - no one was willing to work that hard, and the system was unwilling to pay people for those advances, so they never made them.

Not that it was beyond their technical skill. When motivated, as in their space program, out of national pride, they could accomplish miracles. But their system could not motivate people to make technological advances at the rate that the West could achieve - just to make everyone's life easier.

Same for automated welding robots. Same for computer controlled milling machines. Same for their first jet engines. Same for their first intercontinental bomber.

So then who is the "Global Village Idiot?"

Me!

You must be reading too much USSR propaganda. The GDP figures are only valid if you accept the USSR's proclaimed exchange rate.

The real exchange rate was an order of magnitude lower than the official exchange rate - rubles to dollars. So take those figures down a notch or two.
That's funny when you consider the Breton wood moneraty accords were totally dictated by the US and that the dollar lost 90% of its value when they ceased.

Also, I've talked to the people themselves. I've been to Poland, the Ukraine, and Russia (even as far east as the Urals). So no, I wasn't reading propaganda.

I was talking to a software developer there who said that during the Soviet Era, they were unable to make lithography machines that could turn out the chips that we in the West were taking for granted. No one was motivated to build them - no one was willing to work that hard, and the system was unwilling to pay people for those advances, so they never made them.

Not that it was beyond their technical skill. When motivated, as in their space program, out of national pride, they could accomplish miracles. But their system could not motivate people to make technological advances at the rate that the West could achieve - just to make everyone's life easier.

Same for automated welding robots. Same for computer controlled milling machines. Same for their first jet engines. Same for their first intercontinental bomber.
You must not have been to the same areas where I went. I have a lot of Russian and romanian friends also and they're not happy with what is said in the West about their country. They had a much higher standard of living back then and their technology was much better than it is now.
They also deplore the taking over of their country by capitalistic mafias of all flavors.

You must not have been to the same areas where I went. I have a lot of Russian and romanian friends also and they're not happy with what is said in the West about their country.

Well, for starters, let's compare the latest, greatest aircraft, tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery systems, and anti-aircraft systems that money could buy.

Let's also give them to the 4th largest army in the world - no expense spared, and the absolute latest stuff from the Soviet Union. Train those troops and give them the latest Soviet night vision equipment and tactics.

Now, let a largely US/UK force - that is outnumbered by the defenders, arrive.

The stage is set for the first Gulf War.

Now, we all know the results of the air campaign - it was a slaughter. The Soviet air defense equipment and aircraft and missiles were essentially useless crap.

But even the tanks - the latest Soviet tanks with the latest guns and armor - in head to head battles - tank vs. tank - the Iraqis might as well have been riding on bicycles for all the protection and tactical capability they had.

The battle of 73 Easting, for instance.

The Tawakalna Mechanized Division of the Republican Guard Forces Command was positioned about 25 miles west of the Kuwait border, located exactly in the center of the US 7th Corps' sector, The Tawakalna was probably the best division in the Iraqi Army. It had fought with distinction during the war with Iran and was one of the lead divisions in Saddam Husayn's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Its two mechanized brigades and one armored brigade were equipped with the most advanced equipment available in the Iraqi Army, including 220 T-72 tanks and 278 infantry fighting vehicles. On 25 February it had moved into a blocking position west of the Iraq Petroleum Saudi Arabia (IPSA) pipeline about 80 miles from Kuwait city. In spite of the air campaign, most of this division was in position and ready to fight when the US 7th Corps arrived on 26 February 1991.

The main battle began on the Tawakalna's (18th Mechanized Brigade's sector) left flank. At 3:30 pm on 26 February 1991, the US 2nd Squadron of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment arrived at the edge of the Tawakalna's operation zone and destroyed three T-72 tanks. A few moments later it ran right into a battalion strong point of the 18th Iraqi Mechanized Brigade. Strong points consisted of dug in vehicle and soldier fighting positions, wire, mines and prepared fields of fire. In most cases the Iraqi units were in the right place, but had not developed their positions as well as they should have. In what was later known as the Battle of 73 Easting, the 2nd Squadron attacked. It was a short, but violent battle. Iraqi vehicles exploded as 120mm rounds found their marks. US scout platoons followed the M1 tanks providing "scratching fires" to protect the US tanks from the Iraqi infantry. Just as the 2nd Squadron arrived at the rear of the battalion strong point the Iraqis launched a counterattack. While brave, it was ineffective. In 23 minutes one troop from the US squadron destroyed over half of the Iraqi battalion.

That's 9 M-1 tanks and 10 Bradley fighting vehicles destroying over 30 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers and 70 trucks in 23 minutes

The 3rd Squadron moved just to the south of the 2nd Squadron and attacked the southern portion of the same Iraqi strong point at about 3:30 pm. At 4:45 pm, the Iraqis launched a counter-attack against the US 3rd Squadron with a T-72 tank company. At 2,500 meters, they fired at the Bradley cavalry fighting vehicles. The range was too great and their rounds struck the earth just short of their intended targets. They were unable to get many more rounds off as M1 tanks bounded forward and, at about 2,100 meters, destroyed most of the Iraqi T-72 tanks.

It shows how worthless the Soviet equipment was. The US forces took ZERO casulaties in the battle of 73 Easting.

ZERO.

What is the point again?

Me!
No, ME!

Ah, I see the thread has survived without me doing anything but putting out an inflammatory comment I don't even believe in anymore...It made sense when I posted it, but not anymore.

Well, this all depends upon your definition of parasite. To me, and many others, a parasite is something that survives on the basis of the effort or work of others. The figure of $24 million per year is a factual figure, one that can be agreed upon. Neither you nor I will disute it. The question is not wjether this is chicken feed compared to a Euro fighter. That is not the issue here. It is a valid point against those that argue that the government should provide the srttrongest possible military, but do nothing for the homeless. I, howeverdo not fall into that category. My doubt is about the validity of UK Housing Benefit. Who receives this money? Housing benefit payments do not include the council housing rent reductions granted to low income and unemployed families. Or were you not aware of that. Who gets this money are the private landlords and hostel owners. I find that a little excessive. To tax someone who is actualy working and then pay this money to someone who lives off the ownership of property and the misfortune of others is unjustifiable.

Of course Housing Benefit doesn't pay for rent reductions of the (small and dwindling) council-owned rented accomodation. Housing Benefit is paid out by the local councils, and even they aren't stupid enough to give you a cheque and then ask for it back. Good grief. The end beneficiaries of Housing Benefit are, indeed, private landlords and the various Housing Associations set up to take over, administrate, quasi-privatise and generally bugger up the ex-council housing stock. In the process, though, people do get to stay in houses and flats (and, indeed, at the bottom end, B&Bs), instead of park benches and doss-houses. I am all for building a lot more social housing, and for keeping it out of the grubby paws of the private sector, believe me. But I don't think it's a good idea to abandon people who can't afford to pay the (admittedly inflated -- hey, that's capitalism for you) rent on their poor-quality housing and see them kicked out into the street.

Next points. What standard of housing is necessary? Who should have a claim on Government funded accomodation? If you are unemployed, through choice, then should you be housed by the government. I have to pay my mortgage, if not, then I lose my home. If I lived in a UK council house, if I don't pay, so what. I am not going to be evicted. But I, in the past as I left the UK when Blair came into power, have paid taxes just so that someone who could work, but refuses to do so, can have a comfortable place to live. If you are really unable to work, then you should be getting Disability benefits, not housing ones. If the work is too low paid for you to afford your accomodation, move somewhere cheaper, or work more hours (there is a minimum wage there now).
Here, in the third world, ther is no housing benefit. If you have no job, you invent a way of making a living. If you can not pay to live in a confortable manner you do not live in a comfortable manner. This motivates innitiative from the poorer sectors. What the government should fund, if it wants to eliminate poverty and misery is education. Not housing and making the poor comfortable. That is counter productive.

Have you ever heard of "unemployment"? It's a little thing that happens from time to time, when factories close down and there are 50 people applying for every shitty little job that comes along. It is possible, through no fault of your own, to be unable to find work. If you are in a deprived area -- say, one where the local major employer has upped stakes and flitted away to China -- then it's not as if you can suddenly reinvent yourself as a self-employed window cleaner or shoeshine boy, because nobody else has any money to pay for your services. The right-wing fantasy of perpetual unlimited work opportunities if only the poor would show some initiative is just that -- a fantasy. Particularly where certain levels of income are required to meet basic costs, such as feeding, clothing and housing a family. Not much point earning peanuts from your desperation startup small business if your income fails to cover your bills and you and your family find themselves out on the street. It's not like your creditors will give you any time to get back on your feet, either. A decent, humane society recognises this, and provides a safety net.

As for "making the poor comfortable": Jesus. Believe me, there is very little that is "comfortable" about living on the bread line. The accomodation you can afford is squalid (there are sharp and sudden limits to the generosity of Housing Benefit), and you have just enough cash to squeak by each week as long as nothing unexpected crops up -- like, for example, developing a hole in your shoe. When even cheap shoes cost more than your total weekly budget, that's pretty significant. Sure, it stimulates initiative, but there's only so far a hot knife can take you vis-a-vis shoe repair.

The nation's citizens are not disposable assets, to be flung aside as soon as they need help. A small amount of investment from the state generally brings people back into productive life after as short a period as possible. Sure, there will always be individuals who will try to rip off the system, but are they really worth getting so worked up about? Why are you so massively exercised by the footling small change that such genuine social parasites cost you? Frankly, if it's a matter of the state wasting my money, dole-cheats are a long, long way down any sane and rational list of culprits.

No, economic classes in the traditional sense do not exist. Just specializations.



Yeah and how can people get specializations? High cost college. Who can afford it? The rich ones with trustfunds and connections.


Your whole point is rubbish.

That's 9 M-1 tanks and 10 Bradley fighting vehicles destroying over 30 T-72 tanks and 50 armored personnel carriers and 70 trucks in 23 minutes

It shows how worthless the Soviet equipment was. The US forces took ZERO casulaties in the battle of 73 Easting.

ZERO.

Pardon me, but it's not the equipment, it's how you use it.

If Soviet equipment is really so bad that you can't win with it and using it against superior equipment results in automatic and painful victory ... well how about those fellows in OPFOR? The ones who use real Soviet equipment.. and tend to regularly kick the asses of most units in those field training simulations they do.

Pardon me, but it's not the equipment, it's how you use it.

If Soviet equipment is really so bad that you can't win with it and using it against superior equipment results in automatic and painful victory ... well how about those fellows in OPFOR? The ones who use real Soviet equipment.. and tend to regularly kick the asses of most units in those field training simulations they do.

That explains the inability of the T-72 rounds to penetrate the M-1 from any angle.

I've seen an M-1 with an APFSDS dart from a Russian-made 125mm gun sticking out of the side. The dart never made it into the interior of the vehicle.

They cut the dart off with a saw and painted over the spot.

I've seen T-72 wrecks where the front glacis and turret were penetrated by the AP rounds from the Bradley's 25mm.

So, is the vaunted Soviet equipment still worth paying money for? Not if you're going up against the US.

...weren't they using Iraqi-manufactured ammunition for their tanks?

And I still want to know what you think about OPFOR.

Yeah and how can people get specializations? High cost college. Who can afford it? The rich ones with trustfunds and connections.


Your whole point is rubbish.
Well, while I disagree with my original post, I'll add something.

You can pick up a specialization without high-cost college or trust funds. You can
A.)Go to a state college
B.)Get mucho-excellente grades in high school and college and get scholarships
C.)Go to community colleges
D.)Partake in a specialization that does not require higher education, e.g. auto mechanics.

And a potential theory with OPFOR is that since it's not a live-fire exercise, then the firepower failures of Soviet equipment are thus negated.

Please not this crap again.
I thought this thread was about economic classes.
Whispering Legs : you said something about russian military but what was the point? I thought we were talking about the USSR and the fact that their country is falling appart since capitalism has been implemented. Why are you talking about how big your country's tanks are?

Please not this crap again.
I thought this thread was about economic classes.
Whispering Legs : you said something about russian military but what was the point? I thought we were talking about the USSR and the fact that their country is falling appart since capitalism has been implemented. Why are you talking about how big your country's tanks are?

Actually USSR is in the middle of a economic upswing. The economy suffered a great deal at the onset, due to corruption in privatisation process which lead to the Russian Oligarchs. Also as soon as they began to turn around the economy, an Asian recession hit and killed their oil exports, which lead to a debt crisis.

Since then, the economy has recovered, Russia has made advanced repayments to the IMF, the Rubel has stabilized, and foreign investments are growing rapidly.

Actually USSR is in the middle of a economic upswing. The economy suffered a great deal at the onset, due to corruption in privatisation process which lead to the Russian Oligarchs. Also as soon as they began to turn around the economy, an Asian recession hit and killed their oil exports, which lead to a debt crisis.

Since then, the economy has recovered, Russia has made advanced repayments to the IMF, the Rubel has stabilized, and foreign investments are growing rapidly.
Foreign investment is not a solution because the foreign investors demand dividends. In the long run, they sell out their country and their industry is been taken over by foreign and local capitalist oligarchs. They are moving toward the global class system. Unemployment is rising (from its 0% USSR level) and the lower class is paying all the cost of the new capitalists.