That sounds nice and all. But: 1) How do you make multinational corporations pay decent wages?
You strengthen labour laws like minimum wage requirements.
Quote:
2) How do you get the public onboard with paying more for stuff? Because if labour costs go up, prices go up.
You pay them more so they don't notice the increase. See point #1 on how to do that.
Quote:
3) What to do about technology? Push the cost of labour high enough and it becomes more attractive to simply replace people with automation. It's already happening - self-serve checkouts everywhere from WalMart to McDonalds. Do you forbid companies from innovating with cost-saving technology? That would require massive interventions in the economy. And if you suppress innovation by Canadian and American companies., how do you stop them from being overtaken by companies in other countries that press ahead with technological advances?
You impose new taxation on financial transactions to help pay a living wage so that companies aren't penalized for innovation and their employees aren't penalized for their loyalty.
Taxes on financial transactions helps curb runaway speculation which devalues currencies and contributes to boom and bust economies which impact the average worker more than the average beneficiary of the stock market game.
Because such a huge majority of transactions are now done without oversight, this would have a marginal impact on the financial sector itself. These taxes already exist in some of the largest financial markets on the planet. For example, this sort of tax is how the American Securities and Exchange Commission funds itself.
I think that Hillary has run a poor campaign and has looked pretty bad on the public front. On top of that, I think if you poll people that don't think she's honest.
On top of that having Bill campaigning for her makes her look weak and like she can't fight her own battles.
Sanders has had a good campaign, I think that he's the republicans greatest hope coming out of the democratic side depending on who wins the republican race.
I think that barring a miracle, Hillary has lost any momentum that she had and Sanders needs to double down on what he's doing.
I don't think having Bill campaign makes her look weak. I think it likely helps her because for whatever reason people love that guy.
But she hasn't run a good campaign. She tried to present herself different than who she is and no one bought it.
The GOP has a huge issue though. The powers that be hate Trump. They also hate Cruz. Cruz I think will absolutely wilt under the scrutiny as like his college roommate said, he just isn't a guy you can like.
Yes, and vice versa, and that's ok. It's nice to have these discussions regardless. I'll just respond to the last point below:
I find it offensive that anyone would get into their mind that their efforts are worth 10's of thousands or hundreds of thousands times more than anyone else. There's just not that discrepancy in effort put into work, regardless of what occupations you're comparing. And just because the market says it's that, doesn't mean we should just adhere to it. Men's hair growth gets a ridiculous level of research compared to some very deadly diseases, does that make it right just because the market says "we don't want to be bald"?
Why are you wasting your time arguing? Just point him to the clear-cut example of where your policies where implemented - the Soviet Union. Pay according to need, as opposed to profession? Check. Research and government spending allocated according to what's best for society instead of those pesky market forces? Check. It was all a resounding success. Check and mate, my friend, check and mate...
You impose new taxation on financial transactions to help pay a living wage so that companies aren't penalized for innovation and their employees aren't penalized for their loyalty.
I agree that a micro-tax on financial transactions is our best bet at taming the beast of rampaging capital. And a universal living wage is where we're headed, as automation makes the labour of fewer and fewer people necessary. I just think it will be done directly, skipping the business middle-man and wages altogether. And I don't think it will happen until the costs of not doing anything become impossible to ignore.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Why are you wasting your time arguing? Just point him to the clear-cut example of where your policies where implemented - the Soviet Union. Pay according to need, as opposed to profession? Check. Research and government spending allocated according to what's best for society instead of those pesky market forces? Check. It was all a resounding success. Check and mate, my friend, check and mate...
It isn't black and white capitalism against communism like you portray. There is a middle ground with checks and balances which avoids the extremes. Right now the middle class is shrinking which isn't good even for the very rich, as who will buy there products if their workers can't afford them.
It isn't black and white capitalism against communism like you portray. There is a middle ground with checks and balances which avoids the extremes. Right now the middle class is shrinking which isn't good even for the very rich, as who will buy there products if their workers can't afford them.
I am talking about his specific points, not the economic theory in general. My point was that what he is advocating above has literally been done with great success.
What should actually be done is a separate issue.
I don't think having Bill campaign makes her look weak. I think it likely helps her because for whatever reason people love that guy.
Bill Clinton is an excellent public speaker. He's really smart and well informed and can explain things in ways people can understand.
Not everything he says is necessarily true, but he almost never says things that you'd call lies either. Which again is likable.
But I think one thing that isn't doing the Clinton campaign any favours is the fact that the Clintons (Bill especially) are so super-friendly with all the establishment people.
For example if you hate the Bush administration, like many Democrats do, images like the one below are making the Clintons hard to root for.
I don't think having Bill campaign makes her look weak. I think it likely helps her because for whatever reason people love that guy.
But she hasn't run a good campaign. She tried to present herself different than who she is and no one bought it.
The GOP has a huge issue though. The powers that be hate Trump. They also hate Cruz. Cruz I think will absolutely wilt under the scrutiny as like his college roommate said, he just isn't a guy you can like.
I don't necessarily disagree, I think that across the board, all of these candidates are pretty horrible, I actually have started to feel sorry for American's because the choices that they make leading to their next president, are going to be shades of terrible.
People like Bill, they liked him as the President, but with Hillary leaning on him so heavily to campaign from her, I believe it makes her look weak, and it makes the people that are on the bubble about her wonder if they're going to get president Hillary or sock puppet Hillary.
Is she a person with her own opinions and abilities to make tough decisions, or is she going to be propped up and be a mouth piece for Bill.
To me, and maybe its just me, she looks like someone who can't do it herself.
Maybe its a bizarre double standard, because I can't think of any other country except for countries with dynastic succession that has had a husband and wife team of candidates.
I also think that if you look at how this has gone, you have to look at the Bush family legacy, where you had a very good president in Sr, and a boob in W
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Why are you wasting your time arguing? Just point him to the clear-cut example of where your policies where implemented - the Soviet Union. Pay according to need, as opposed to profession? Check. Research and government spending allocated according to what's best for society instead of those pesky market forces? Check. It was all a resounding success. Check and mate, my friend, check and mate...
The way Soviet-era communism was ran is not the only way to do it. Just like the way the US runs it's free market isn't the only way to do capitalism. There are things in between. It's a spectrum, not a set of 4 or 5 points with hard and fast rules.
That said, I do think that ACTUAL communism (IE: not dictatorships under the guise of communism) has a much better chance of working with the way our technology has developed to this point. You wouldn't have the problems of lack of types of food like fruit and whatnot, because that stuff can all be done locally using indoor farms, information is so shared that there wouldn't be discrepancies in what we "have" vs what "they" have. And honestly, in order for something like communism to truly work, it would have to be a global system, because any country adhering to it on their own would have to isolate, which is obviously not only impossible at this point, but beneficial for no one.
I'll just sit here and wait for McCarthy to come handcuff me.
This has a very North Korea vibe to it doesn't it?
Nah, I didn't get that sense, they were trying to replicate the 50's and 60's jingoistic appeal of things, plus those girls are no where near as trained and brutalized by the girls in North Korea who go to classes to teach them how to smile.
Pus they're parades work with any kind of music
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I don't necessarily disagree, I think that across the board, all of these candidates are pretty horrible, I actually have started to feel sorry for American's because the choices that they make leading to their next president, are going to be shades of terrible.
Yep some pretty bad choice on the right side of the aisle. Clinton for all her flaws and Sanders in the end I think would actually be pretty good presidents. I don't see that on the other side of the aisle.
Quote:
Is she a person with her own opinions and abilities to make tough decisions, or is she going to be propped up and be a mouth piece for Bill.
To me, and maybe its just me, she looks like someone who can't do it herself.
Maybe its a bizarre double standard, because I can't think of any other country except for countries with dynastic succession that has had a husband and wife team of candidates.
It's natural. Bill has been president. It's really, really, really different than when a "normal" spouse campaigns. And spouses do campaign all the time. But I don't think that should reflect poorly on Clinton. In fact I think it should be a positive. If there is ANYONE in this world that knows what it's like to be president without actually being president it is Clinton. Not just because she was first lady but because she has also led her own very high level political life.
Of all the candidates there should be no question who has the most relevant experience and ability to handle the job (ignoring platforms of course).
That said out of all the candidates I'd vote Sanders right now as I think he has a nice vision (and a vision that by necessity will be tempered and moved closer to the center). But I don't get to vote...I just have to live with what happens.
The way Soviet-era communism was ran is not the only way to do it. Just like the way the US runs it's free market isn't the only way to do capitalism. There are things in between. It's a spectrum, not a set of 4 or 5 points with hard and fast rules.
That said, I do think that ACTUAL communism (IE: not dictatorships under the guise of communism) has a much better chance of working with the way our technology has developed to this point. You wouldn't have the problems of lack of types of food like fruit and whatnot, because that stuff can all be done locally using indoor farms, information is so shared that there wouldn't be discrepancies in what we "have" vs what "they" have. And honestly, in order for something like communism to truly work, it would have to be a global system, because any country adhering to it on their own would have to isolate, which is obviously not only impossible at this point, but beneficial for no one.
I'll just sit here and wait for McCarthy to come handcuff me.
The problem with any utopian system is that inevitably breaks down when confronted with human nature. Whatever "fair" system you invent has to be administered by people, and those people will inevitably be lazy/corrupt/incompetent/power-hungry/stupid/etc. The communists only wanted "fairness" for the toilers, but in the end it turned out that a lot of those toilers were "inconvenient", so you had to slaughter a few million, and keep the others firmly under the jackboot...
The problem with any utopian system is that inevitably breaks down when confronted with human nature. Whatever "fair" system you invent has to be administered by people, and those people will inevitably be lazy/corrupt/incompetent/power-hungry/stupid/etc. The communists only wanted "fairness" for the toilers, but in the end it turned out that a lot of those toilers were "inconvenient", so you had to slaughter a few million, and keep the others firmly under the jackboot...
You've nailed the biggest reason why Communism whether dictatorial or not tends to fail, because it goes against Human nature.
I remember reading about the Soviet Union and doctors were paid on the same level as truck drivers because Truck Drivers in the eyes of the command system had a similar value, so you ended up with a state full of crappy doctors.
Communism is also marked by incredibly poor and inefficient manufacturing.
It expects you to work for the good of society, and removes the motivation to innovate and strive because you're not going to be rewarded for it.
Eventually Communism forces the government to lie about the successes of their society to keep the people engaged.
The last thing that you want to do is have a command system deciding wages and how businesses are run.
with communism while it glorifies the idea of the worker running the country, what really happens is the workers fall behind because the government in place sucks at building an economy.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Yep some pretty bad choice on the right side of the aisle. Clinton for all her flaws and Sanders in the end I think would actually be pretty good presidents. I don't see that on the other side of the aisle.
Fair enough, I don't think there are great candidates on either side of the aisle. I don't think very much of Hillary to be honest, I like Sanders, but I think that it will be interesting to see what happens if he does win and the bullets start really flying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
It's natural. Bill has been president. It's really, really, really different than when a "normal" spouse campaigns. And spouses do campaign all the time. But I don't think that should reflect poorly on Clinton. In fact I think it should be a positive. If there is ANYONE in this world that knows what it's like to be president without actually being president it is Clinton. Not just because she was first lady but because she has also led her own very high level political life.
Of all the candidates there should be no question who has the most relevant experience and ability to handle the job (ignoring platforms of course).
Maybe, but whether it does or doesn't reflect on her poorly is a matter for interpretation.
If the Republicans battle Hillary, she will be framed as a part of the establishment, and they will try to whip up the protest vote. I think that she wasn't a good secretary of state and her record there will certainly be up for challenge, especially the Russian reset, her work in Asia and how badly she handled the middle east. I just have a feeling that she's not being viewed as trustworthy right now whereas Sanders is viewed as extremely honest to the point that his policies have become a completely different thing.
Sanders could certainly pick up a large portion of the Democratic vote and the usual protest vote its time for a change from the usual players.
[/quote]That said out of all the candidates I'd vote Sanders right now as I think he has a nice vision (and a vision that by necessity will be tempered and moved closer to the center). But I don't get to vote...I just have to live with what happens.[/QUOTE]
If I was voting, I probably would to, its a place to park a vote in light of none of the other candidates being good and being part of the hard establishment (except for Turnip who's frankly insane in the brain).
However I would expect that the angle of the attack on Sanders would be anti-capitalist system at its nicest, and Better Dead then a Sander's commie batard at worst.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Yeah I don't disagree with you guys at all really. I've never argued for a total state-controlled economy (maybe a couple more industries than we currently have). I've mostly been arguing for tax as a means to offset gross imbalances. Not that truck drivers and doctors should make the same money, but that the kids of truck drivers should have the same opportunities to succeed as the kids of doctors, and that education should be incentivized towards what you're good at/interested in, not what makes the most money. In order to do that, there are certain things that you either A) need to provide the truck driver with enough income that he can afford them for his family, or B) have those things provided by state and funded by taxes on excessive wealth.
Either way, I've ranted a lot about it in here so I'll leave it to others to discuss.
This has a very North Korea vibe to it doesn't it?
I don't (or at least didn't) think Trump was trolling the whole country, but that crazy song n' dance n' lipsync routine is pretty compelling evidence that he is taking them all for a ride.
What the hell are they doing at about 1:45?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
But I think one thing that isn't doing the Clinton campaign any favours is the fact that the Clintons (Bill especially) are so super-friendly with all the establishment people.
For example if you hate the Bush administration, like many Democrats do, images like the one below are making the Clintons hard to root for.
So you're saying American politics would be better if Democrats and Republicans hated each other more and became even more partisan?
You realize that the U.S. system - all democratic systems - only work if elected representatives of all parties can sit at the table with each other, compromise, cut deals, and work together, right?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
