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.
There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.
I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.
Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?
"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."
You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?
"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."
Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.
"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. "
The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.
It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!
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.
I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.