Quote from: TECSHARE on November 26, 2018, 02:56:34 AM

Quote from: coins4commies on November 26, 2018, 01:48:27 AM

So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism. Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism?

1. Nope we've been through this. Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency.
2,3. The economy is not running at full steam. There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services. We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone.

Quote

The usual goals of monetary policy are to achieve or maintain full employment, to achieve or maintain a high rate of economic growth

I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.

That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.

Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?

1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.

2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.

A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.

4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?

There are many types of socialism. These systems lie on a spectrum which harkens back to your giant blind spot on the political compass. Even amongst socialists, there are many means to many ends.

Workplace democracy is the form of socialism I have been arguing for all along. You've been dying to get back to a semantic argument of how you define socialism but I refused to continue. You're still going to have to be consistent. No one wants a system like the Soviet union. Every socialist I have ever met wants democratic socialism. Please point me to one who wants totalitarianism. You can't have it both ways to say that "my ideology" has killed millions of people then say the success of Marcora law and workplace democracy is not my ideology.

1. Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money. Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth. Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.

2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies. It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth. Resources are finite but they are not all being used. This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it. Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about.

4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend. Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand. This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money.

Simplisitic example:

-Unemployed shoe workers start shoe cooperative and make money selling shoes, pay taxes.

then

-Said workers buy bikes with their extra money, expanding the bike market

then

-More workers start a bike cooperative to help meet increased bike demand

then

-All of these new bike workers buy shoes.....GDP increases

This process doesn't continue forever. Cooperatives are only improved in areas where resources are idle and there is need. If all aluminum was already in the economy, a business plan for aluminum bikes would not be funded.

Quote from: bones261 on November 26, 2018, 02:57:46 AM

Quote from: coins4commies on November 26, 2018, 01:48:27 AM

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.

I actually think the old school way of workers forming unions and negotiated a deal with the "evil" capitalists gets a far better deal than government mandated minimum wages, etc. I also don't think government inspired wealth redistribution inspires healthy innovation. Many nouveau riche deserve to be rich and some of their contributions are so good, they should be able to ensure that their descendants get some advantages too.

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe. Its a good compromise. Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.