nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5806|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)
Let's suppose that a group of 10 graduate students regularly go out to a pub for beer, and the tab for the 10 comes to $100 total.  If they pay for their bill the way Americans pay for our taxes (based on our so-called "progressive" tax system), the breakout would be like this:

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing.  They get to drink for free.
The fifth pays $1
The sixth pays $3
The seventh pays $7
The eighth pays $12
The ninth pays $18
The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.

Being good friends and liberal progressives, that's what they all agree to do.  It seems only fair that each person should pay what they can afford to pay, remembering the old adage they learned in school: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx).

Every few days, the 10 good friends would meet up in the pub and would pay up as agreed upon.

Then one day, the proprietor gave them a deal.  "Since you are such good customers, from now on", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your tab by $20.  You can just pay me $80!"

Everyone wanted to continue to pay their bill just the same way as they had before.  So the first four people (the poorest) are unaffected.  They continue to get to drink for free. 

But what about the remaining 6 people?  How should they split up the  unexpected $20 savings "windfall" so that everyone would get "his fair share"?  They figured that $20 shared by 6 comes out to $3.33 each.  But if they simply subtracted that amount from each of the 6 paying friends, then person #5 and person #6 would actually be paid to have their beers since person #5 only paid $1 anyway and person #6 only paid $3!

What to do?

The pub owner came to their rescue.  He suggested that each person's bill should be reduced by roughly the same amount, and he used his calculator to work out what that should be:

Persons 1-4 continue to get to drink for free
The fifth person, like the first four, now pays nothing and drinks for free (100% savings!)
The sixth pays just $2 instead of the original $3 (33% savings!)
The seventh pays just $5 instead of the original $7 (28% savings!)
The eighth pays just $9 instead of the original $12 (25% savings!)
The ninth pays just $15 instead of the original $18 (17% savings!)
The tenth pays just $49 instead of the original $59 (16% savings!)

All 6 friends were better off then before.  And their first four buddies continued to drink for free, because they didn't have a lot of money.

They all felt pretty good about it.

After they thanked the pub owner and left to walk back to campus, they began to compare their savings under this new deal.

The sixth person was very quiet, though.  Finally he blurted out. "You know, splitting up the bill that way wasn't fair!  I only got a dollar out of that $20 we all saved, and yet (he pointed to the tenth person) he got $10!"

"Hey, you're right", shouted the seventh person.  "I got cheated too.  I only saved 2 dollars.  It's unfair that he got back 5 times more than me!"

"Damn it!  I've been ripped off  too", yelled the eighth.  "Why should he get back $10 when I got back only $3.  The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute", screamed friends one through four.  "We didn't get anything at all!  The system exploits the poor!"

The first nine people surrounded the tenth person and beat him up.

The next day, tempers had cooled down and the nine friends showed back up at the pub.  They were sorry for what they had done and they wanted to apologize to their tenth friend.

But the tenth person didn't show up for drinks.  So the nine proceeded to drink without him.

When it came time to pay the tab, they discovered that they had a problem.  They didn't have enough money among all nine of them to pay for even half of the bill!
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6827|949

Please demonstrate your understanding of what socialism is.  If you think your story above reflects the definition of socialism in thoery or practice you need to go back to school.  Or, it could be you have no idea that our country works as a hybrid of capitalism and socialism in virtually every level of government and economics.

I have this inkling in the back of my massive brain that you have not yet experienced "the real world" - that you live with your parents and that you are still in high school at best.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5893
He is a teenager.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6844

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I have this inkling in the back of my massive brain that you have not yet experienced "the real world" - that you live with your parents and that you are still in high school at best.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
He is. And it shows.

EDIT: That's not to say he was smart enough to come up with such a lengthy analogy, only dumb enough to believe it.

Last edited by ghettoperson (2009-05-18 18:12:51)

Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6732|Long Island, New York
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v702/osgood35nyi/tumbleweed.gif

Jesus, what's it with conservatives and taking chain emails to heart?
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5806|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)
It is essentially how our system works, and we are getting closer to socialism all the time. Our current system does not work, and it goes against the very Founding Principles of our country.
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5770|The Wild West
cite your source or get out
Brasso
member
+1,549|6825

i will stick my head in here to say i laughed heartily.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina
It was easy for the Founding Fathers to be Libertarian-leaning.  They lived in a time where feudalistic levels of wealth disparity were the norm and acceptable even in the wealthiest countries.

Times have clearly changed in the last 200 years or so.  While adhering to the Bill of Rights is a good thing, our society has evolved past simply assuming that the market will clear everything.

The last year or 2 should be enough evidence to see that the market doesn't do too well when it is mostly unregulated.  While some regulations were to blame in their own right, it was mostly a lack of regulation that brought us where we are.  It is wealth disparity itself that makes our crime more significant than in nearly every other 1st World country.

The only logical counter to this is to have better managed social programs.  In some ways, more taxes might be necessary, but more than anything, better management of funds is needed.

The most productive and well-to-do societies are a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.  America itself is one as well, although we lean more in the capitalistic direction than most.  It is inevitable that we will lean more towards socialism in the long run, because capitalism alone cannot sustain itself in a way that is acceptable for 1st World living in the long run.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

nickb64 wrote:

It is essentially how our system works, and we are getting closer to socialism all the time. Our current system does not work, and it goes against the very Founding Principles of our country.
A tip to avoid sounding like a lunatic: try not to capitalize phrases like "Founding Principles".

Turquoise wrote:

capitalism alone cannot sustain itself in a way that is acceptable for 1st World living in the long run.
'cause...?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

capitalism alone cannot sustain itself in a way that is acceptable for 1st World living in the long run.
'cause...?
Basically, after the Great Depression, nearly every First World nation developed an extensive array of social programs.  Socially, a moral imperative appeared that dictated society must collectively take care of the needy.  While this imperative existed before the Great Depression, it was often pushed aside for churches and private charities to handle.   After the Great Depression occurred, that was no longer acceptable.

Therefore, socialism melded with capitalism to bring us where we are today.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-05-18 18:42:19)

mcjagdflieger
Champion of Dueling Rectums
+26|6505|South Jersey
why should he cite it? So you can bitch him out for that too? Im not defending him, im just sayin...it really isnt gonna make a difference at this point haha
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

capitalism alone cannot sustain itself in a way that is acceptable for 1st World living in the long run.
'cause...?
Basically, after the Great Depression, nearly every First World nation developed an extensive array of social programs.  Socially, a moral imperative appeared that dictated society must collectively take care of the needy.  While this imperative existed before the Great Depression, it was often pushed aside for churches and private charities to handle.   After the Great Depression occurred, that was no longer acceptable.

Therefore, socialism melded with capitalism to bring us where we are today.
You answered why we arrived where we are today, not why "capitalism alone cannot sustain itself...in the long run".
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


'cause...?
Basically, after the Great Depression, nearly every First World nation developed an extensive array of social programs.  Socially, a moral imperative appeared that dictated society must collectively take care of the needy.  While this imperative existed before the Great Depression, it was often pushed aside for churches and private charities to handle.   After the Great Depression occurred, that was no longer acceptable.

Therefore, socialism melded with capitalism to bring us where we are today.
You answered why we arrived where we are today, not why "capitalism alone cannot sustain itself...in the long run".
Because the vast amount of poverty created by the market showed that intervention was necessary to avert future disasters.

Unfortunately, proper intervention is often periodically lacking.   In other cases, improper intervention is implemented (like the CRA).
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Basically, after the Great Depression, nearly every First World nation developed an extensive array of social programs.  Socially, a moral imperative appeared that dictated society must collectively take care of the needy.  While this imperative existed before the Great Depression, it was often pushed aside for churches and private charities to handle.   After the Great Depression occurred, that was no longer acceptable.

Therefore, socialism melded with capitalism to bring us where we are today.
You answered why we arrived where we are today, not why "capitalism alone cannot sustain itself...in the long run".
Because the vast amount of poverty created by the market showed that intervention was necessary to avert future disasters.

Unfortunately, proper intervention is often periodically lacking.   In other cases, improper intervention is implemented (like the CRA).
It showed that mistakes were made, nothing more, nothing less. If you are doing something stupid and fall down and scrape your knee, you have two options. Continue doing stupid things and buy a box of band-aids, or quit doing stupid things.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6348|what

Poseidon wrote:

Jesus, what's it with conservatives and taking chain emails to heart?
It's like they think it has to be true, they read it once on the internet.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6827|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

It is essentially how our system works, and we are getting closer to socialism all the time. Our current system does not work, and it goes against the very Founding Principles of our country.
A tip to avoid sounding like a lunatic: try not to capitalize phrases like "Founding Principles".

Turquoise wrote:

capitalism alone cannot sustain itself in a way that is acceptable for 1st World living in the long run.
'cause...?
Because too many people are selfish and don't like to share.  Too many humans (especially in the US) do not care enough about the human condition - the well being of their fellow man.  Too many people are concerned with amassing great amounts of wealth (and mistakenly believe that is what the "American Dream" is).  The only way a society can succeed in the long run is to reduce class stratification - capitalism inherently supports class stratification at a detriment to the society as a whole.  If humans were not incredibly selfish and Americans in general stopped promoting the idea of the individual as the greatest asset of our society then perhaps capitalism could work.  Unfortunately people have to be forced to "share", and even then many people go out of their way to "share" (pay tax) as little as possible.

Pure capitalism and pure communism can't work.  It's utterly ridiculous to think either can.  The only way is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


You answered why we arrived where we are today, not why "capitalism alone cannot sustain itself...in the long run".
Because the vast amount of poverty created by the market showed that intervention was necessary to avert future disasters.

Unfortunately, proper intervention is often periodically lacking.   In other cases, improper intervention is implemented (like the CRA).
It showed that mistakes were made, nothing more, nothing less. If you are doing something stupid and fall down and scrape your knee, you have two options. Continue doing stupid things and buy a box of band-aids, or quit doing stupid things.
When dealing with society as a whole, the 2 main options after a disaster are...

1) let the market clear itself but have a much smaller group of people with nearly all of the wealth

2) reinvest and redistribute funds so that some semblance of a middle class remains

Intervention is required for the second option to occur, hence social programs and graduated tax systems.

Capitalism alone breeds oligopoly, monopoly, and extreme wealth disparity in the long run.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85
So KEN, you want to break humans of their most basic tendencies?

You want to take away what makes capitalism capitalism, then say capitalism only works in a hybrid. Well no shit.

Pure capitalism and pure communism can work, the problem is no one has or probably will ever have the balls or brains, respectively, to make them work.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Because the vast amount of poverty created by the market showed that intervention was necessary to avert future disasters.

Unfortunately, proper intervention is often periodically lacking.   In other cases, improper intervention is implemented (like the CRA).
It showed that mistakes were made, nothing more, nothing less. If you are doing something stupid and fall down and scrape your knee, you have two options. Continue doing stupid things and buy a box of band-aids, or quit doing stupid things.
When dealing with society as a whole, the 2 main options after a disaster are...

1) let the market clear itself but have a much smaller group of people with nearly all of the wealth

2) reinvest and redistribute funds so that some semblance of a middle class remains

Intervention is required for the second option to occur, hence social programs and graduated tax systems.

Capitalism alone breeds oligopoly, monopoly, and extreme wealth disparity in the long run.
Capitalism in the true long run promotes the competition that breaks the monopolies and wealth disparities. Your idea of the long term is limited by the first roadblock. No one is ever willing to stick any system out for long enough to discover its true long term ramifications in the real world.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6827|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So KEN, you want to break humans of their most basic tendencies?

You want to take away what makes capitalism capitalism, then say capitalism only works in a hybrid. Well no shit.

Pure capitalism and pure communism can work, the problem is no one has or probably will ever have the balls or brains, respectively, to make them work.
Yes, either could work on a small scale.  300 million plus, no.

The only basic tendency I wish humans would break from is their overwhelming ignorance.  The key is to understand what a society is and the benefits of that society, then create a government that best serves that society.  Right now our government serves 10% of the people.  If greater government intervention is needed to serve the remaining 90% of the population, I support it.  Unfortunately, as a result of greed and power concentration we need to enact seemingly mindless regulations and laws so that we can try to limit the amount of greed and power concentration. 

There is nothing in human history that has shown a society can overcome lust for money (and by extension power) for the greater good of society under any form of government.  We must take action to limit the lust for power as much as possible.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6189|Truthistan
"But the tenth person didn't show up for drinks.  So the nine proceeded to drink without him.
When it came time to pay the tab, they discovered that they had a problem.  They didn't have enough money among all nine of them to pay for even half of the bill!"

When the tenth person didn't show up I think in the real world that's call tax evasion, an international price transfer, or moving your money off shore to a tax haven. I believe at that point the bar tender, who is obviously the govt, who is delivering the service that everyone wants would hunt the welcher down and make him pay his taxes... So unlike the story, in real life the 10the person isn't able to just leave. You can't decide not to participate.

And unlike the story where a person buying drinks is charity, taxes are not charity, although the rich would rather not pay any taxes for social programs because they believe that those taxes are unrecognised charity. You see the rich would rather have the ability to dispose of their taxed monies in a way that would better stroke their egos. And in that vein, the rich person in the story acted in a realistic manner when he decided not to show up because the others had obviously not sucked his d*k when they received their charity beers.

In the real world all ten people are chained to their bar stools and the bar tender has a bat.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yes, either could work on a small scale.  300 million plus, no.
At least for capitalism, education and patriotism is key. Frankly our education and indoctrination systems are pitiful. If we were to revolutionize both with the full intention of making a shift in government I feel that we could be successful.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The only basic tendency I wish humans would break from is their overwhelming ignorance.  The key is to understand what a society is and the benefits of that society, then create a government that best serves that society.  Right now our government serves 10% of the people.  If greater government intervention is needed to serve the remaining 90% of the population, I support it.  Unfortunately, as a result of greed and power concentration we need to enact seemingly mindless regulations and laws so that we can try to limit the amount of greed and power concentration.  There is nothing in human history that has shown a society can overcome lust for money (and by extension power) for the greater good of society.  So we must take action to limit it as much as possible.
Power > money. Wealth is a tangible form of power, but only one of its forms. People desire power, not wealth.

If you understand how core that concept is to so many people, you can understand how it could be educated against. Concentration of money is not a problem - concentration of power as a result is. An extremely successful businessman with no inclination to abuse his undemocratic but completely legitimate power would be the ideal citizen of tomorrow's America.

Patriotically guided, economically unrestricted, ruthlessly competent, supremely ethical, and immaculately moral children is what we should strive to achieve in our lifetimes as a gift to our grandchildren.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6827|949

The motive for capitalism is to accrue wealth.  There is nothing about morals and ethics inherent in capitalism.  Capitalism appeals to the most basic selfishness of humans (and seemingly rewards them for it).  You recognize basic human tendency, seem to sardonically question my desire to turn around this most basic tendency, then say that we need to educate humans to break their most basic tendency.  K, good one.

By the way, when I said people want money (and by extension, power), I thought that was sufficiently elucidating my understanding of the money/power relationship.  Unfortunately I wasn't successful, seeing as your little explanation to me about the power/money relationship was essentially a rehash of what I said

By the way, patriotism has virtually nothing to do with capitalism.  It can be a successful tool for enacting massive reform and changing public sentiment on a large scale (positive or negative), but it is far from a prerequisite.  Caring about and wanting to improve the human condition trumps the most fervent patriotism.  If anything, patriotism rewards and promotes favoring one group over another to the detriment of society as a whole.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6348|what

nickb64 wrote:

How Socialism Works in the Real World: A lesson in Barstool Economics

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing.  They get to drink for free.
The fifth pays $1
The sixth pays $3
The seventh pays $7
The eighth pays $12
The ninth pays $18
The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.
I'm not convinced that is how it works in the real world.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard