Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ain't no Slice
"By your logic no country is capitalist. EVERY SINGLE capitalist country has regulations on its financial system."
Correct, but less regulations there are the more successful the country is.
Unfortunately it's nature of politicians to seek more power.
"That is common sense. without it 'fare work acts' would not exist and business (motivated by profit more than anything else) will use anti-competitive and unethical practise (such as environmental hurdles, wage deductions, exploitation, price fixing etc) to outcompete their competitors."
Far better than having incompetent government deciding over how business should be ran.
There is nothing bad in business that is motivated by profit. There is nothing anti-competitive or unethical in wage deductions or price fixing.
It seems that you're new to the concept of creative destruction?`Without competition, the incompetent people would make business. Which is bad in long term.
Competition is there to weed out the idiotic assholes.
"And eventually, in nearly, every industry you'll get private ''too-big-too-fail'' MONOPOLIES that will destroy, not only the fabric of capitalism, but also the economy and consumer sovereignty. This is basic economic principle."
There is nothing wrong in private monopoly. What you should be more afraid is monopoly owned by government. You see private monopoly can be destroyed via competition. But you cannot destroy government owned monopoly with competition.
Too big to fail is socialist policy where government takes part of the industry and helps out company that has been ran by incompetent fools. Those incompetent fools still keep their money and power. This is only possible in system where government interferes with business.
"Regulation was built into capitalism from the beginning. Do you know what capitalism is?"
It's economic system where private industries and ownership are all controlled by individuals instead of government.
"And for you second para, why did you cut out the second half of that quote?"
Focus to the core point and to avoid flooding the comment with text.
"and now they incapable of escaping their circumstances because all their income is spent on necessities and none to actually improve their situation. You end up with the exact same thing you were accusing me off, but without a way to actually escape the poverty trap."
Nope, in work they are capable of escaping. They can actually save their money while working. In your system you cannot get any welfare benefits if you have money on your bank account. You're literally trapped.
Also in capitalistic countries without mininum wage, people actually earn more than enough to enjoy their life.
"You realise people with jobs can still receive welfare (I told you already), thats why impoverished and unemployed are separate categories."
No they don't. At least not in scandinavia.
"The minimum wage is not a living wage. I'm just repeating what I said above now."
Here in Finland current minimum wage is actually lower than in USA. Yet we live pretty well even with it. Also what you're suggesting with welfare is government subsidies. Where do you think all this money is suppose to come? As I said, you will only create vicious circle which will eventually lead into economic collapse as we have already seen in europe.
4
-
4
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"If you must deny the concept of collective ownership"
No, I don't. As I explained. There is no such thing as collective ownership sector. There is only private and public sectors. Collective ownership is related to totally different issue. It is not, and I repeat... It is not a third option. Since collective ownership exists in both public and private sectors.
"then go ahead and create a new name for it for the sake of this debate."
There already is name for it. It's called as Co-Ownership. And again it's capitalist. Once you abolish private sector, then workers of said company cannot legally own said company. Since then everything is by definition controlled and owned by the government. Check out definitions of both private and public sectors.
You simply want to call it as socialism because of people around you don't like the word capitalism. So you fear of losing friends and family members by being actually honest to yourself.
"Interesting point of view."
It's not a point of view. It's a fact, which you had no clue since you don't understand economics. This is very definition of private sector.
" Let's imagine a blast furnace and everyone owning it equally. Is this according to you private ownership?"
In order to own something, it has to be private.
"If so, are you saying that the very definition of socialism is capitalism? "
In socialism everything is owned by the public sector, which is defined through government ownership/control. If there is no government involved in ownership of said furnace, then it's private sector. If government owns it, then it's public. Simple as that.
" Socialism is, after all, defined as the means of production being owned collectively."
Nope, you're taking it out from context. Because same definitions and all socialist philosophers all have stated that they will abolish private sector. So the "collective" that owns the means of productions is the government. Since government represent the people. Therefore people own those means of productions but they don't have direct control over them. Since that control is given to the government.
"You quoted Merriam-Webster dictionary, which specifically says that means of production are owned collectively or by the government. You quoted Marx's definition of Marxism."
Quote mining. Said same page provides extra things in those definitions. Like system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
"I have to admit on this one. Criminalizing wage labor for a capitalist's profit is indeed forcing people (capitalists)"
As I said, socialism is based on using force and authority. It's dark and cruel system which does not care rights of an individual, instead it seeks to destroy individualism. Socialists are borg.
4
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
No, I'm not kidding you. Power to decide who is allowed to create business and who is not, is tremendous power. It's bound to be abused. It pretty much gives you the key to dictatorship.
" the council gives a permit."
Rent is not the problem... This is the problem.
"This is all so that workers can't start businesses just wherever they like and get chaotic,"
Yeah... And how it's decided who get's and where? Some places are far better for business than others? Surely no one would use personal connections or bribery to get that best spot for themselves (sarcasm).
"Please educate yourself on different forms of ownership. It's not that black and white."
Collective ownership exists in both private and public. You need to educate yourself. You don't even understand basic economics. All public sector is collective, while some private are collective. Once private has been abolished, you have only public ownership.
"Per day, the place started producing 15,000 tons of iron ore, 4,000 tons of pig iron, 2,500 tons of steel."
how much something produces, doesn't prove that it's efficient in producing it. What you fail to take into account is how much it costs to create the thing and produce with it. Plus logistics.. Like is it even worth to have in that one place, wouldn't be more worth to have several smaller furnaces around different areas instead? etc... Logistics... This is also reason why your mob rule never works. Because people like you who are incapable of thinking things like this.
And you would kill all the people who are capable to think these things through... Because they would all be opposing you.
"? That suddenly workers didn't own it and that the government owned it, despite every worker owning it...???"
You clearly didn't read the quote you provided. It's public property owned by government. Workers were simply allowed to use it, but in practice they didn't own it, it was only owned by them arbitrarily. Because government represents the collective. Got it now?
In socialism government represents collective. It's always owned by government and never by the workers who made it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱ
-Everything to do with government. Since workers owns all means of production through government body. How do you expect such thing being enforced without government?
- True, not much to do with taxation, expect socialists use taxation as attempt to kill private industry and turn them to public. They have even stated this pretty openly.
- How do you expect them to use them in action.
"Imagine a capitalist company. There's a boss who hires people and his sole purpose is profit, while not doing anything himself"
misconception. In fact the boss generally does the most out of all the workers. Not only that but it demands set of skills that rare amount of people poses.
Seems like I need to explain this...
Owner of the company, used his own resources to create the company. However he knows that if he wishes to expand he needs more people to work with him. So he looks out for people who provide their service as someone to help him. These people are capitalist as well, since they provide supply of workforce. Their product is their workeffort and talent.
got it now?
"Now remove the boss and let the workers of that company collectively decide what is best for the company"
You can already make a collective company in capitalist society. What you are speaking of, is that workers steal someone's factory that the said person did build with his own resources and talent.
Now even this plan of yours have several issues.
1. Have you ever worked in a group project? If you have then you should already know that they never work democratically, they always demand that someone acts as authority if you want to get things done.
2. Bunch of these workers lack education to understand management, financial issues, logistics and people skills. They may also lack talent to even have brain capability to conduct high level thinking. So now you think that they will run efficient company with mob rule?
3. How would worker create a company or hire anyone into it? You see now you have given government power to decide which companies are allowed to be created and which not.
4. Where you get resources to create this company of yours?
5. Why would anyone stay in your collective company when they know that they can get much better salary from another country's company?
6. As I said, you can already create company that is collectively owned by everyone who is part of it.
There isn't a single regulation in capitalist countries that prevents you from doing this.
7. the 6 point leads to the another fair obvious point. Since it's already possible, then why do you think that not a single collectively owned company has been as successful and efficient as private one? ;)
" All I'm going to say is that all communists are socialist, but not all socialists are communist."
Which is why those socialists are called as "useful idiots". Because whole point of socialism is to turn society into communism.
"English is not my native language and I apologize for that. Replace "Publicly owned" to "Collectively owned" in this case.)"
Doesn't really matter so don't worry. Since definition of socialism has both government and collective mentioned.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4