Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Intercollegiate Studies Institute"
channel.
-
@shgalagalaa
"Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by the collective and as a result its benefits are shared."
"Having subsidised housing and free health care isn't socialism."
Rental housing and healthcare are both means of production. You are contradicting yourself in these two sentences.
"It can just as if not more easily be argued that social benefit systems fit capitalism better"
In what way are social benefits paid for by taxes "capitalism"?
"You are arguing for capitalism where the excess efficiency of the system is directed more towards increasing the quality of life of lower classes."
Oh, excess efficiency. Except there is no such thing as excess efficiency. Taxes remove funds from those with more, and provide services to those with less.
"Its not besides the point. One system revolves around a core moral argument for freedom, where as the other revolves around sacrificing said freedom for another goal."
Correct, socialism is about social freedom, while capitalism is about restricting social freedom based on income. Or are you talking about natural freedom, because with only natural freedom people are free to starve to death, that's not exactly particularly free though. Social freedom however gives people the power to do things that they would not otherwise be able to.
"You go into the negative rights about how one has to "choose between food and rent" without realizing that capitalism doesn't exclude the positive rights to both of those"
So in capitalism we can have free food and housing for the poor? Oh right, so long as we do it by suspending capitalism for them.
"Unlike socialism the moral framework of capitalism isn't about excluding a right but instead views one right as most important and compliments it with other rights that are necessary for the realization of that right."
Also known as "fuck you, I got mine". In capitalism all rights are subject to wealth. Not enough wealth, you lose a right.
""Should people die from preventable diseases just so you can avoid taxes?" when you are either not understanding the topic or are unable to argue for your position"
Again, if you are trying to claim that taxes paying for people to recieve medical care is somehow capitalism, then I'm not sure you know what capitalism is. In what way are taxes paying for welfare privately owned means of production?
"One is that the workers elect a leadership that will function as a traditional socialist system where everyone is paid evenly and we would expect the amount to be at the median as thats where democratic decision making logically leads to."
Why would that be a conclusion? Workers are paid according to a market. You could create median wages for positions, but not all staff. Most cooperatives also have caps for the highest paid employees, pointing out they can't be paid more than X times more than the lowest.
"The other option is that everyone is paid according to their contribution in which case you reach the same outcome as you would under a capitalist system meaning that your new system is the same as the old system in real terms."
Except it isn't, as workers still own and control the company. They own the means of production. That is the difference. You can't possibly compare a non-democratic, totalitarian traditional capitalist company to a cooperative where everyone owns what they have produced through the company.
"Then you talk about how one can sell the means of production."
No, I didn't.
"Then you finish off by showing that you have no clue what freedom to use your funds as you see fit as you pretend that if you can afford necessities you could be taxed at any rate and it wouldn't restrict your freedom to spend your funds as you wish."
What human rights are restricted by removing, as you called it, excess? Taxes do not take from those with nothing, they take from those that can afford it to give to those with nothing. They are designed to form the basic infrastructure of the nation. And, as I said earlier, earning that money in the first place would be impossible without the stability and infrastructure provided by those tax dollars. So in reality people are paying based on what the system helped them to gain, not based on a removal of their rights.
"I specifically didn't address any economic aspects of socialism or capitalism and solely focused on the moral aspects of the core ideologies of both as that was the topic of the discussion."
But the removal for people's labour to give to a capitalist is literally a core moral issue. Should you not be entitled to the fruits of your own labour? Why should people working for Apple not get paid part of the Billions they earn each year in profits? Do they not deserve to profit from their labour?
So again, you really need to educate yourself on market socialism. Also, figure out what taxes are.
1
-
1
-
@shgalagalaa
"Yes healthcaare and food are positive rights. Meaning that others have to act to provide you with such things."
Yet the US still struggles to provide healthcare, creating an expensive private system and shoddily covering people in a patchwork mess.
"In a capitalist system they would have to be provided so that the individual can access his most important rights in freedom. In socialism they would have to be provided because they value the right in and of itself. Meaning they don't value the freedom but rather the satisfaction of needs itself."
This is total nonsense. The right IS the freedom.
"Taxes don't suspend capitalism. Taxes are required in every single capitalist theory ever. One cannot have the positive rights required without taxation. You cannot have private property without a legal system, police force and a military. Every single capitalist argument agrees on the above."
Might want to talk to James about that, given he advocates for private police forces and non-governmental legal systems. He also advocates against public schooling, and thinks taxation is theft. So maybe tone back the "every single capitalist" talk.
"As such it is not outside of the capitalist moral framework to provide housing, food and healthcare through tax funds if it is agreed on that they are required for the person to use their right to freedom."
In what way are government provided food, housing and healthcare privately owned? Again, you have to step outside of capitalism to make this work. Even public schools are a form of socialism. They are not privately owned means of production, they are not capitalism.
"So now you would have a welfare system under a capitalist economic system in line with capitalist theory and moral values."
There is nothing capitalist about welfare. Again, capitalism is private ownership the exact opposite of welfare.
"Yet you want to claim it as socialist because you absolutely refuse to accept that capitalism can do everything that socialism can but better."
You want to claim it is capitalist because you cannot defend the idea that capitalism can guarantee positive human rights. This is your only avenue of escape.
"You are so happy to jump from form of socialism to another but cannot wrap your mind around the fact that all your arguments collapse because all the nordic countries are capitalist countries."
You seem to have a very black and white view of capitalism and socialism, when in reality it's a scale. Private businesses in those Nordic countries are indeed capitalist. They are not however entirely capitalistic. Norway for instance has publicly owned oil, which they use to create a fund to support the Norwegian people. They also have socailised medicine, housing first initiatives and more. All of this is socialism. They have what is commonly referred to as a mixed economy.
"If you own the company but get paid what you would without ownership the distribution is identical."
Who said it was identical. In a capitalist company the profits go to shareholders and owners. In a cooperative they go to the employees. Dividends are a big difference maker. There is also the ability to choose who is in charge, usually a board elected by the workers. Workers can also use their positions to vote for by-laws that the leadership must adhere to. It's like comparing fascism to a democracy and saying "these are basically the same because jobs pay the same" while ignoring all the other factors.
"So you believe that the increases in productivity arise from the development of human capital rather than technological progress?"
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that even with technological progress you still need people. If theoretically you did not need people, then congratulations, you just made the argument for universal basic income and automation based taxes.
"If we have a theoretical company with only shareholders, the board and fully automated factories. What is the labour that is growing the company here?"
If you want to go full tilt and claim that we could theoretically have a 100% automated process with self-repairing robots et cetera then the answer is simple, companies at that point have progressed to the point that labour is no longer needed, meaning we are at the point where workers are mostly not needed. When that happens we are just advocating for more taxes, specific taxes and universal basic income.
"Unfortunately you cannot take that position as doing so would mean that capital has value, the value of the capital should belong to the ones who invented it or to who they sold the patent to."
I never said that capital doesn't have value, but capital's value is created via labour. The labour that created the automation, that programmed it, that installed it, that built the machinery.
"Meaning private property rights in production or a lower level of innovation due to the lower payoff of RnD."
RnD by who? Should companies profit off the work of researchers they employ? Surely the researchers did the work, right?
And then you end with a strawman. Cool, thanks.
1
-
@shgalagalaa
"Meanwhile entirety of Europe is filled with capitalist countries that do provide the things you want."
Which they do with socialism. Again, mixes economy.
"If the right was the freedom you wouldn't need to restrict property rights."
If you want to call taxes a restriction of property rights, then you also have to agree that taxes are taken from those that can afford them, and used to provide multiple human rights to everyone. They are also used to create the fundamental infrastructure that society is built on, the same society that allowed the wealth to be created in the first place. Without it your income would be lower, not higher.
"You seem to fail to grasp the idea that capitalism is simply an economic system where capital is privately owned."
No, I get it, which is exactly why welfare is NOT capitalism.
"You can have a capitalist country with a significant amount of government intervention."
Sure, as markets become less free you move away from free market capitalism and into a planned market capitalism. The more control over the markets the government imposes, the less free the markets are. This however is not how I define socialism. Socialism is not when the government does stuff, it is the common ownership of the means of production. What is being described here is authoritarian vs anarchistic markets. Both of which can exist in both socialism and capitalism.
"We also see this in the real world but I suppose you have to ignore it or claim that it is socialism as otherwise you would come to the awkward conclusion that socialism isn't needed to achieve what you wish for."
Except the real world very clearly shows that capitalism is not able to provide human rights.
"You fail to make any arguments and then you say this random shit. No shit there is an exception to everything. When people say "every single" the obvious meaning of it is the very overwhelming majority."
What a cop out. Again, James in this literal thread believes this, so not sure why you are acting as if this is not new.
"You believe norway is socialist because they have an oil fund. This is how far gone you are. Norway is a capitalist country. You can pretend that it isn't but that wont change reality."
Again, you are talking in absolutes. Norway has a mixed economy, with socialist and capitalist elements. The parts of their economy that socialism handles provide universal healthcare, housing, food, retirement benefits and more to the people of Norway.
"Ofcourse capitalism can provide positive human rights. You know why? Because it quite literally is doing exactly that in nearly all European countries."
Through socialism. See how that works.
"You talk about how there's a scale to socialism and capitalism. Firstoff there really isn't."
Yes there is.
"The two cannot co-exist so you wither have a capitalist system or a socialist system."
So what part of Medicare is privately owned? How about the British NHS? The Military? Stop me when I get to a capitalist system. You even agreed the police are not private, yet here you are claiming that mixed economies don't exist. So stupid.
"And for RnD yes obviously the people taking on the risk of development and funding the development should gain the benefits of the development."
So not that actual people doing the research, but the capitalist that wants to steal their work. Cool, thanks.
"Yet your ideology demands that he may not make such a contract as according to your argument such a contract is unjust. Before you ramble off something completely unrelated again you are supposed to justify why the contract is immoral even with content of both parties. "
Because it's exploitative. It forces researchers, and any workers for that matter, to gain less than they otherwise would have. They are losing out on the products of their own labour.
"So you concede that capital has value. If capital has value and the value is realized through labour."
Labour being the operative word. Thanks.
"The capital holders are entitled to compensation for the use of said capital that increases the productivity of labour."
Why? You are starting with an assumed conclusion.
"If they are not there is no reason for them to invest in the capital and forcefully using the capital without their consent would obviously be stealing and immoral."
So we're just using terms like "obviously" now. Cool.
"Probably according to a contract between the two parties that both parties willingly agree to without coercion. Aka capitalism."
Sure, no coersion in capitalism. "Work or die" but no coersion. lol.
"I wont actually respond to the latter ones"
Typical braindead capitalist can't respond to points.
"You are out here pretending that you can have a system where capital is owned by the employees but the employees are also allowed to sell their capital."
Nope. Didn't say that.
"The entire point of worker owned corporations is that the employees cannot sell their capital but instead the capital is tied to the job."
Congrats, you figured it out. Not sure why you needed to strawman me to get there, but good job either way.
But thanks for the pathetic insults that show you have absolutely no intention of acting in good faith.
Anything else you want to spill out of the shithole you call a mouth?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philjames8148
"The boom and bust cycles are more of a result of outside forces like government intervention."
Right, like Tulip Mania...oh wait no.
"The 1922 crash was a result over expansion of credit. The crash self corrected in 6 months without any government intervention."
Which was a result of soldiers returning after WWI and not having jobs. There was no underlying mass debt or speculation associated with this downturn. Comparing it to the likes of 1929 or 2008 is obviously disengenuous.
"The 1929 crash was a result of multiple factors. The market had began to recover in the following months."
Total bollocks. The crash was far too large for a recovery to happen that fast, and was in conjunction with droughts and global economic issues. People were speculating up to their eyeballs, mortgaged their homes to buy 10 times as many stocks as the mortgage value, and lost the whole lot. It was a disaster.
"The 1972 crash from the oil prices. The government again intervened and set price caps this caused major shortages and slowed the economy to a crawl."
The alternative being allowing the poor to just not have fuel. It was a global shortage. World oil prices peaked in 1980, nothing Reagan did changed the global price.
"The 2008 crash a result of politicians forcing the lowering of credit standard."
The Credit Standards were only lowered on loans that banks wanted to sell to the government. Large investment firms had been buying up sub-prime loans for years at this point, and were the epicentre of the crash. In fact, the largest investment firm crash was larger than the entire government loan failure. There was also the fraudulent rating agencies, who were sued for billions by the government for their failures to accurately rate loans, and were the main cause of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failing. The only problem with the government intervension was they should have done what other nations did and bought up companies that were failing, allowing the general public to get their money back on a bailout. This crony capitalism that lead to massive payments to private firms for literally no obligation should never have happend. The recovery however would never have been quick. Global economic downturns don't correct overnight.
1
-
1
-
@ExPwner
Tulip Mania
WWI job shortage
1929 market speculation at such high levels people were mortgaging their homes and buying 10 times the amount in stocks.
Oil was globally highly priced and globally short in 1980, and nothing Reagan did changed that.
2008 crash was mostly incorrectly and fraudulently rated loans, but the worst were subprimes, which were not federally backed, had no regulatory requirements related to risk or rating, and were purchase en masse by investment firms, who failed at the very start of the crash and triggered a chain reaction. The rating agencies were also sued for billions by the state. If you want I can be more specific, which is that even though the state had huge numbers of loans they has purchased using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase market liquidity, a program they have been operating for generations, the hole left by the crash was smaller than the catastrophic failure that was the investment firms. They speculated like mad and lost.
So you're just going to ignore all that and claim the Fed caused massive market speculation in both 1929 and 2008, and global oil shortages in 1980.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnitschke Again, Sowell claimed, contrary to pretty much every criminologist on the planet, that crime went up in the 60s, 70s and 80s because of welfare.
He ignored that most people believe crime increased due to the aging boomer population. As they reached their early 20s crime increased accordingly. As they aged out in the mid 90s, crime went down. There is also the lead pipes theory, the war on drugs causing mass incarcerations leading to recidivism, the switch of drugs over to cocaine and crack, the second phase of the Great Migration causing huge economic issues for the black communities, and general economic issues such as the global oil shortage. None of this relates to welfare causing crime, and in fact crime went down while welfare still exists.
So thanks. I win.
1