American's Rights

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
One other important thing to remember is that a true right cannot be given to someone by the government, it is independent of the government and exists for all humans. Governments can only restrict or take away a person's rights they don't give them to them.

Then there are no true rights. You have no rights in nature, therefore, there can be no natural rights. Rights only exist between people and only when other people recognize them. Try an exercise a right that you believe you have but isn't recognized by others and you will, at the least, find yourself an outcast, and very possibly, an outlaw.

[David Floyd]

No it's not the same thing. I already told you that a right to get a job is not a right to work. Stop being obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm really not understanding what you are talking about. If you are criticizing our current system because there is no right to work, yet you don't define the right to work as having a job, then what exactly IS the right to work?

I've told you over and over that people will work, also it's quite obvious that they will.

Then why is turnover so high in retail, when unemployment exists? Why is illegal immigration so high? No, the fact of the matter is that while people are willing to work, many/most people are NOT willing to work in a field they view as demeaning or beneath them.

I think the point was that a system that doesn't have enough jobs for everyone is going to be depressing on wages and not benefit workers.

That's not the case at all. Wages aren't depressed in the US, in fact, the opposite is true. 2006 statistics show http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalw...epercapita.htm that the average US income was $44,970, ranking the US 7th, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, and Ireland.

If anything, it is the command economies of the world that have depressed incomes, which you will see if you check out the chart I linked to.

Oh, BS. You just got through saying that Americans don't even like to work, that they leave most of the hard jobs to immigrants. Now you are telling us that the head of organizations work so hard.

No, Americans are more than willing to work, but the fact that we have high levels of illegal immigration and the fact that there is very high turnover in the retail and restaurant industries tells us that many Americans are not willing to work jobs they see as demeaning or lower in social standing than they would like to be. Also, illegal immigration is partially accounted for because of the minimum wage, which actually causes unemployment.

The money wouldn't be worthless jackass. You just made that assertion.

You're right, I did make the assertion that printing unlimited amounts of money would depress the value of that money. I thought that was basic economics. For a reference, see, e.g., Zimbabwe.

People would be educated to do their jobs.

You originally said that, and I quote,

I don't want a communist system that produces all of the same things that the old system produces. The question of what is produced shouldn't be decided by who has the money to pay. It should be decided by everyone equally and fairly.

So, your point is that you are going to educate EVERYONE in the fairly complicated field of economics? Or, is your point that you are only going to educate SOME people in that field, and they are the ones who are going to make all the decisions?

So, either you are trying to build a system where everyone is an expert at everything (unless economics is going to be the only field where everyone gets an equal say?), or, you are trying to build a system where the people who know what they are talking about make economic decisions (kind of like what we have today?), in which case you clearly contradicted yourself based upon your own statements. So which is it going to be?

Houses, food, healthcare, education, everything that the free market sucks at producing in quantity that we desire more of.

Really? The US market "sucks" at producing those things? There isn't a housing shortage, last I heard. The US is a MAJOR net food exporter, has been for centuries. As for healthcare and education, we can debate those two categories, but typically what you will find is that higher education and specialized health care is superior in the US than the rest of the world. An argument can be made that in some places, GP medicine and (especially) primary education is superior elsewhere, I'll freely grant that, but here's my question - look at every command economy throughout history, and name one that was a net food exporter, had world-recognized health care, everyone owned a house, and everyone received world-recognized primary and university-level education.

My idea is that they don't get vacation until they finish. Maybe they would even work some weekends.

You mean, the same system we have now? Apparently you aren't familiar with the corporate workplace, but if there is a major project going on, I guarantee that you will have to put in weekend time, and won't be going on any vacations, until that project is finished. That's not accountability, that's just called a mandatory work ethic.

Come on, you can do better than that.

It's not really corporations. There wouldn't be any corporations to have that kind of power over workers and society. There would be groups of people that use societies resources to produce goods and services for society.

That's a nice, fuzzy, concept, but how exactly would that work? How exactly would you transition to that system, without completing wrecking the economy and sending inflation through the roof?

They get paid well. They don't have a heartless corporation to work for. They get more vacation if they work hard. In a word, freedom.

As I've already pointed out, US workers are among the highest paid in the world. As for corporations being heartless, of course they are - they aren't people But seriously, you're familiar with the phrase "not personal, just business", right? Operating along those lines is essential for success - you can't treat everyone like your best friend, because sometimes you have to make hard decisions that affect their jobs and ultimately their lives. And as for the promise of more vacation, I thought in your system part of your accountability was to withhold vacations?

But still, I don't think you're seeing my point. If you give someone $10 million, and tell them to start a company, but even if they build that $10 million startup into a $200 million business, they won't have the option to sell out and pocket the $190 million profit, then there really is no incentive for them to work that hard. Vague promises of "extra pay" and "extra vacation" time are nice, but it's not the same as becoming a multi-millionaire based off of your own hard work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not being obtuse, I'm really not understanding what you are talking about. If you are criticizing our current system because there is no right to work, yet you don't define the right to work as having a job, then what exactly IS the right to work?

Did you know that the federal reserve balances inflation with unemployment, and they favor unemployment? A right to work means that the government doesn't plan to have unemployment. If there is no job for you you get training for a job that exists or they pay you just as if you had a job. That is a right to work.

Then why is turnover so high in retail, when unemployment exists? Why is illegal immigration so high? No, the fact of the matter is that while people are willing to work, many/most people are NOT willing to work in a field they view as demeaning or beneath them.

What I said was that people would work in the new system that I'm proposing. In that system a retail worker and an agricultural worker will get paid well. Also there wouldn't be as many retail workers. Those are crap jobs. We don't need sales people to stand around stores doing nothing except waiting for suckers to come in.

That's not the case at all. Wages aren't depressed in the US, in fact, the opposite is true. 2006 statistics show http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalw...epercapita.htm that the average US income was $44,970, ranking the US 7th, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, and Ireland.

Wages would be a lot higher too if efforts to depress wages by corporations weren't so effective.

If anything, it is the command economies of the world that have depressed incomes, which you will see if you check out the chart I linked to.

You can't compare those economies to that of the US.

You're right, I did make the assertion that printing unlimited amounts of money would depress the value of that money. I thought that was basic economics. For a reference, see, e.g., Zimbabwe.

I never said that unlimited money would be printed. That's something else to be managed.

You originally said that, and I quote, So, your point is that you are going to educate EVERYONE in the fairly complicated field of economics? Or, is your point that you are only going to educate SOME people in that field, and they are the ones who are going to make all the decisions?

No. The overall goals of society are voted on. There are experts who actually make that happen by setting prices and planning production. Demand is also measured by prices and sales to determine which products are desired more by more people.

[SlowwHand]

Planning production! That's me!

[Zkribbler]

The Freedom to be left alone.

[Kidlicious]

Don't forget about the right to shoot people who get on your land!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You mean, the same system we have now? Apparently you aren't familiar with the corporate workplace, but if there is a major project going on, I guarantee that you will have to put in weekend time, and won't be going on any vacations, until that project is finished. That's not accountability, that's just called a mandatory work ethic.

Making people work until the work is done is accountability. I don't see how you can disagree.

That's a nice, fuzzy, concept, but how exactly would that work? How exactly would you transition to that system, without completing wrecking the economy and sending inflation through the roof?

The beauty of capitalism is that it wrecks itself.

As I've already pointed out, US workers are among the highest paid in the world. As for corporations being heartless, of course they are - they aren't people But seriously, you're familiar with the phrase "not personal, just business", right? Operating along those lines is essential for success - you can't treat everyone like your best friend, because sometimes you have to make hard decisions that affect their jobs and ultimately their lives. And as for the promise of more vacation, I thought in your system part of your accountability was to withhold vacations?

But still, I don't think you're seeing my point. If you give someone $10 million, and tell them to start a company, but even if they build that $10 million startup into a $200 million business, they won't have the option to sell out and pocket the $190 million profit, then there really is no incentive for them to work that hard. Vague promises of "extra pay" and "extra vacation" time are nice, but it's not the same as becoming a multi-millionaire based off of your own hard work.

You don't have to make people rich to get them to do things. People will cooperate as long as they get a fair shake in the deal. That's one of my major complaints with capitalism, that everyone wants to rush to give corporations and investors so much just to get something in return that isn't even worth that much to them.

[David Floyd]

Did you know that the federal reserve balances inflation with unemployment, and they favor unemployment? A right to work means that the government doesn't plan to have unemployment. If there is no job for you you get training for a job that exists or they pay you just as if you had a job. That is a right to work.

So, let me get this straight. If I choose to not try very hard to find a job, I can just get paid anyway? Hmmm, I wonder what I'm going to do?

That's why even though we have unemployment compensation, there are both time limits and wage limits on those benefits. Otherwise, there wouldn't really be a reason to try to find a job.

Again, there are jobs out there. There is no reason for anyone who wants a job, not to have one.

What I said was that people would work in the new system that I'm proposing. In that system a retail worker and an agricultural worker will get paid well.

Then why in the hell would anyone decide to pursue a more challenging career? Again, it's all about incentive. Are you going to mandate what jobs people have and what education they receive?

Also there wouldn't be as many retail workers. Those are crap jobs. We don't need sales people to stand around stores doing nothing except waiting for suckers to come in.

"Sales people", as you put it, have been around since the beginning of time. They exist to sell goods and services to customers. Are you going to eliminate choice in goods and services? Yeah, I suppose there would be no need for salespeople if there was only one brand of computer, only one model of TV, etc.

Wages would be a lot higher too if efforts to depress wages by corporations weren't so effective.

Says you. The whole reason corporations "depress wages" is to stay in business. If they're not in business, they can't pay people any wages. I know you're just going to say that in your model, profitability will no longer be the goal and that corporations won't exist, but all that's going to do is eliminate the ability to generate wealth.

You can't compare those economies to that of the US.

Exactly. The US economy provides high wages and relative prosperity. Command economies provide neither. Show me one that does.

I never said that unlimited money would be printed. That's something else to be managed.

Well, you want to drastically raise wages, fully subsidize health care and education, eliminate unemployment by artificially creating jobs (through such methods as giving workers additional paid vacation and shorter working weeks), as well as funding and running a massive central bureaucracy responsible for economic planning, monetary and fiscal policy, manufacturing/production, etc. The only plan I've heard from you on how to support this is to print money and set prices/wages.

The problem is, this will lead to massive inflation. Even assuming that this won't wreck the economy in a closed system (ie, no international markets), think about what it will do in our global economy. Again, the money will be essentially worthless. The country would be unable to purchase oil on the international market, because no one would accept our currency.

No. The overall goals of society are voted on. There are experts who actually make that happen by setting prices and planning production. Demand is also measured by prices and sales to determine which products are desired more by more people.

First of all, that's basically the system we already have, except that rather than having an "expert" set prices and plan production, we let prices and production levels be set by market conditions. In other words, rather than having someone decide that demand for Frosted Flakes will be 500 million boxes in Fiscal 2019, the company that makes Frosted Flakes estimated demand based upon prior experience, generates a price that will both enable them to be competitive with other cereal manufacturers and generate a profit, and adjustments can be made based upon results. As for demand, you haven't proposed anything new, either. Demand is currently measured by how much people are buying, and price absolutely affects demand. Why do you think businesses advertise sales every single day?

Additionally, how do you have a referendum on the "overall goals of society"? What exactly are "overall goals"? To me, an overall goal is to be prosperous, to be free, to be happy, etc., etc. Who doesn't want any of those things?

[David Floyd]

Making people work until the work is done is accountability. I don't see how you can disagree.

No, accountability is firing people who do substandard work or who are lazy. Except in your system, getting fired doesn't matter, because the right to work demands you get paid as if you had a job anyway.

You don't have to make people rich to get them to do things. People will cooperate as long as they get a fair shake in the deal. That's one of my major complaints with capitalism, that everyone wants to rush to give corporations and investors so much just to get something in return that isn't even worth that much to them.

Sorry, not true, at least not when it comes to what we're talking about. No one is going to bust their ass for years to build a company that you told them to build, with your money, taking as much care as if it was their own money, knowing the whole time that they will not be able to reap the full financial benefit of their work.

And if financial return isn't "worth that much" to people, then why do so many people try to find a way to get rich?

[David Floyd]

Also, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/market/mktec2.htm gives a fairly succinct description of the different results achieved by planned vs market economies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/market/mktec2.htm gives a fairly succinct description of the different results achieved by planned vs market economies.

You couldn't compare those economies to the economy of the US if they were market either.

This is getting tiresome for me now. It was fun though.

[David Floyd]

Well, you know what they say - Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still ****ing retarded.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, you know what they say - Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still ****ing retarded.

Nah, don't be hard on yourself. You did just fine.