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.
Its a visual aid that is specifically relevant to showing you that our ideology is further from totalitarianism than the status quo current day. If I say I am moving to Florida and the entirety of your argument "against" that idea is why I shouldn't move to California, showing you a map might be the best place to start. 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.
Except Florida and California are real places. Socialism is a concept. You showing me a subjective picture about a subjective topic that exists only within your mind is not proof of its efficacy. In fact it is not even an argument, it is just you repeating your pathological need to always play the role of the educator, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant and in need of your benevolence graced upon them via your superior knowledge. It is a stale shtick and you are essentially a walking appeal to authority.
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.
My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that. In fact, workers owned less in those societies than they do in the capitalist societies we have today. Naming two things the same doesn't make them the same.
Your definition of Socialism is constantly shifting depending on how little of an argument you have at the time to support it. You can define Socialism as a can of smashed assholes, you still don't explain how that can comes into reality, or how the workers "own the means of production" without stealing the property and rights of others. All of the failures I have mentioned involved people just like you spouting about how they were going to return the means of production back to the workers. Saying it is not the same as doing it.
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?
The problem is your argument is that moving further away from it will cause it. Democracy is decentralization of power. You haven't explained how decentralizing power would lead to centralization of power. Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.
"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?
Its a fact of math for currencies with finite value like a gold standard. The US dollar does not have a static total value and that value is derived from the strength of the US economy. Money holders who would feel like inflation robbed them aren't wise because who would walk into a situation where people are being robbed and stay there. Purchasing power has been on the decline and the economy is stronger. 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?
No, it is just math, you don't get to deconstruct math out of reality too. It is a fact endless money printing will inevitably debase the buying power of a currency. There is nothing to debate there, it is a fact no matter how "strong" the economy is. Thanks for the nifty chart proving my pointing that the policies you advocate debase the buying power of the wages of workers. You want to lie to them so they can be robbed by bankers, have them dependent on these policies, and grateful for them getting handed back SOME of their own money. Banks are the primary beneficiaries of money printing.
Communism and Socialism are banker lies designed to strip our bones, and you gleefully welcome them barely understanding what you do on a superficial level while claiming the authority of an expert and educator.
"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.
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.
Are you claiming that the economy is running at full capacity? 4% of the country is just sitting on their hands because there is no work. That is idle resources. You should take a trip to the rust built. GM just announced they are laying off 15% of its employees and closing 3 plants. All that capital that was stolen from American workers will be sent overseas. Everytime something like this happens, there are idle resources. Grocery stores are an easy example. Capitalism will never allow full employment because at that point, the tables are turned and people are no longer coerced to taking a bad job.
People are resources now? I thought they were workers. Which one of us is fighting for the workers again? You don't get to determine what resources are idle, the market does. Supply and demand create price signalling which tunes the supply and price of products and resources EXACTLY where they need to be to be most efficient at delivering these products. Now you want to come in and play around with this finely tuned machine that keeps us all warm, fed, and safe cause "workers should own the means of production".
"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!
Another nice straw man.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!
You need to stop naming logical fallacies if you aren't even going to bother to take the time to learn to use them correctly. It is just sad... like picking up a gun and threatening to shoot as you point it at your face. I made very specific criticisms in direct response to your premise.
A straw man would be for example when you reply
"My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that."
to my statement of
"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."
that would be a straw man, because I point out the end result of attempting to implement your ideology and you simply say "workers owning the means of production isn't totalitarianism!". You give the appearance of arguing against my point while never even addressing it. You go ahead and keep misusing logical fallacies though if you like, I will keep showing you the real definitions with examples of you yourself demonstrating them.
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 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.
Most people enjoy the fruits of some of the labor. The fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value) only go to the 1%. People would have much more quality of life without the fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value). They would be able to keep most of the value they produced. Apple profits 400,000 per employee per year but the average employee salary (before profit) is only 28,000-178,000. What quality of life would these same people have if they controled the labor value they actually worked to produce?
Oh were you? So I suppose some how magically your ideology would only effect the RIGHT people wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't indiscriminately steal wealth from people arbitrarily designated as the "1%" now would it?
What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.