What's the best way to be socially secure? Isn't it obvious? Provide all of your personal data to a single organization which documents your social information into a giant, national database! Now you're socially secure.
Virgil0211 "'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
"'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
@Virgil0211 if the supply shifts right then that means the supply increases and that means that demand goes down. unless your advocting to kill thousand apon thousands of people to insure that the population of people, who are looking for work, doesn't go up, then minimun wage WILL fall in value.
@headlessmonkey4all WRONG. If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES. MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!
okey, if the demand were to stay where it was when the supply shifts, then there will be a surplus of supply. meaning that there are more people looking for work than there is jobs offered. naturally over time, however, the supply and demand would again meet where they are intersected at, so if the supply does not decrease(shift left), then the demand will. unless you have govermant regulation.
@headlessmonkey4all You're completely ignoring price. The surplus you're talking about is what happens with price controls, which you would know if you had even a rudimentary understanding of economics.
and your still off on a tangent, my argument is that supply and demand cannot keep wages at a fair price because of the constint rise in supply. over time, the wages will lower until it's worth almost nothing. unless you have goverment regulation.
Yeah. You're still failing basic econ. If that were true, no wages would ever increase without government mandates. Do you even think about the things you say before you say them? That's not just a basic econ fail, it's a basic logic fail.
And no, government regulation would only increase unemployment. The wages would stay the same, simply eliminating any jobs that paid less leaving those individuals unemployed.
ok i Might agree with that if its true, BUT if is is so bad and we were to remove it, what do you do for all the person on SSI that really needs it once its gone?
@valerytozer Obviously there needs to be a transitional program to take care of them. I think the first step is to make Social Security needs-based on net worth. Then we need to work on eliminating the Ponzi aspects of it. Chile showed us one way this could be done.
@valerytozer By the time that has happened, private charity could take up the slack. Remember, 15% of your paycheck goes to SS. We're one the most charitable country in the world when it comes to private donations. Imagine how much more charity we could afford with that 15% returned to us.
These problems seem easy to solve. I can see a few solutions right away:
1) @3:14 - "The rest, according to government, is "invested"" --just don't "invest" it -- this would be infinitely sustainable
2) @3:14 - "The rest, according to government, is "invested"" -- actually, really, truely invest it -- this would be infinitely sustainable
3) @4:03 - "Then whatever surplus remains..." -- just make sure the amount of the black area = red area each year -- this would be infinitely sustainable
@shanedk 1) Ok I responed to the followup, but you said #2 is sustainable. Let's do that, but we should probably take in a little more than payed out and not touch it in case something bad happens like crazy changes in the population or an economic downturn--no one saves in this country anymore.
@rader55555 #2 is sustainable WITH the caveat I mentioned. And it isn't susceptible to changes in the population as the current system is. Chile has showed us the way.
@shanedk So you would a least note that a government-run system, based on taxation, is NOT A PONZI SCHEME if it were benefits were directly linked to contributions?
@rader55555 No, it would STILL be a Ponzi scheme if they were paying those beneficiaries from new contributors. You would need to BOTH link benefits to contributions (as I said) AND really invest it, not just put it in Treasury bonds (as you said).
Do both of those and I think then it stops being a Ponzi scheme.
If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work? What's to stop the proliferation of sweatshops running on de-facto slave labor? What is there to stop factories bringing in teenagers to work for the fraction of the price of an adult worker for more profit?
Is it so wrong that the board of executives not buy that new yacht or luxury car so that their workers can lead decent lives?
@Cookaloka "If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?"
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
"What's to stop the proliferation of sweatshops running on de-facto slave labor?"
The fact that we have enough economic wealth where employees can demand better.
@Cookaloka "What is there to stop factories bringing in teenagers to work for the fraction of the price of an adult worker for more profit?"
Why do you have a problem with teenagers having jobs?
It's supply and demand, MORON. NO ONE can change it any more than they can change gravity. Corporations DO NOT SET WAGES; if they set it too high they can't hire enough workers; too low and they have a shortage of available employees. BASIC ECONOMICS.
It's just the same socialist babble: SAY that the free market people caused the problem without even showing they even got into power in the first place!
@Cookaloka Of course, if you look around for the REAL data, you'll find the IMF warning NZ that if they don't fix their fiscal policy their debt-to-GDP ratio will top 100% by 2015. It's currently over 90%.
Yeah, that's some REAL Libertarianism there...you fucking tool!
No, all you've said is "It's you fucking socialists who dictate these things--and DESTROY JOBS IN THE PROCESS"
That's not an explanation. It's an assertion. Come on. You're starting to sound like a fundamentalist Christian who thinks Atheists are "not listening" to evidence for a god.
@Cookaloka Come on--you haven't seen the COPIOUS economic studies showing how things like Minimum Wage and employment taxes destroy jobs? THIS IS NOT A FUCKING ASSERTION!!!
In what universe does minikum wage destroy jobs? I know the very thought of workers getting enough in wages to survive angers you and that the holy corporations profits are far morr important than the welfare of thr workers but lets get serious.
And no, "research" done by the right-wing neoliberal thinktanks like Mises and Cato is hardly research at alll. Do you have any credible sources?
How so? You've called me a "cultist", a "fucking liar", a "bigot" among others without any justification and that's not ad-hominem? I smell a double standard Shane. You treat anyone who opposes you like dirt. Sounds like what an intolerant, close-minded fundamentalist would do.
How so? That's just an assertion. Justify it with evidence.
I have presented evidence and you've ignored it. You're a market fundamentalist in the cult of libertarianism.
No, it's not ad hominem, because they were BASED ON YOUR STATEMENTS--things that YOU SAID!!! That's the consequences of YOUR ACTIONS. No double-standard here, just holding you accountable for the things you say.
"I have presented evidence"
NO...YOU...HAVE...NOT!!! And you have REPEATEDLY ignored the evidence I've posted. JUST like a creationist!
@shanedk "'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand."
dude, if there is a high supply of labor, that means that that the demand is low, and that wages would be lowered too. the more people there are looking for work, the lower the wages will be.
@headlessmonkey4all You can have high supply and high demand at the same time. One does not take from the other. That's why they're represented on separate curves with different equations.
@headlessmonkey4all Tel that to the IT people in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada about 12-13 years ago. The city was CARPETED with them, well over 25% of the whole population was some sort of IT worker. Wages were sky-high, too, because the demand was even HIGHER.
See, demand and supply are not coupled in any particularly tight way. It is the case that demand exceeding supply drives up prices, and this encourages an increase in supply, but that's just the market in action.
@shanedk Yeah, if I'd gone for the CS degree I should have from the very start, I'd have had a shot at taking a chunk of that bubble. There ARE still companies like that, even in IT, though. I'm not sure I'd WANT to work for Check Point (a friend who used to work there told me that he got worked into the ground), but they still treat employees mostly like the days of the bubble.
@Virgil0211- "Supply doesn't affect demand. Demand might be lower relative to supply, but demand is unchanged. That's why the price goes down."
though you are wrong that damand will stay, you are right that the price of labor will go down when supply goes up. therefore, it is not enough to just let supply and demand control MW; we need goverment regulation.
@headlessmonkey4all As we all know, monkeys fall when unsupported by tree branches. Because of this, aliens are required to rescue these monkeys. Therefore, we must fly to Jupiter for skittles as soon as possible.
When you decide you don't have to first establish your premise or a logical progression, you can come to any wacky conclusion you want.
Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even get supply and demand right?
@Cookaloka "Actually, you did no such thing. Claiming that something is a "ponzi scheme" is not an explanation but a statement."
The VERY VIDEO YOU ARE COMMENTING ON explains it in detail! It doesn't just CLAIM it--I talk about what a Ponzi scheme is and compare it to SS! You either didn't watch the video or you're a FUCKING LIAR.
Actually, I've watched it several times and in no wy to you actually explain how it's a "ponzi scheme". What it is a tirade of how evil and bad Social Security is and how the glorious holy market will solve all problems.
"You either didn't watch the video or you're a FUCKING LIAR."
Aww, are we down to childish swearing already? Not used to having actual opposition are you?
@Cookaloka "I've watched it several times and in no wy to you actually explain how it's a "ponzi scheme". "
You are a FUCKING LIAR. I did EXACTLY THAT from 0:35 to 4:58! Over HALF THE VIDEO!!!
So go ahead, call me all the names you want and slobber out all the ad hominems you can; it won't change the fact that you've LIED about this video, and anyone watching it can see it.
If you can't refute the LENGTHY explanation I gave as to why SS is a Ponzi scheme, you're nothing but a dogmatist.
Again, you're yelling and swearing won't change anything.
I'm not calling you any names or using ad hominem. You just called me a "fucking liar" for absolutely no reason. Before you accuse anyone, be sure to check your facts you hypocrite.
Yeah, I just summarized you "lengthy" explanation into a a few short words It's simply this : "What the governments do is bad and a ponzi scheme but the great free market has a solution and it can solve this problem!"
You never blatantly said it BUT your disdain for any government intervention in economics (Equating it to a "ponzi scheme") and the fact that the example of a "good" healthcare system is a place in Texas which had opted out of Medicare shows that you want the Free Market to solve this problem and any others. Because the evil government wants to rob us of our money right? (Ponzi scheme, remember?)
You're an Austrian economist, yes? It's impossible not to worship Mises then.
@Cookaloka "BUT your disdain for any government intervention in economics (Equating it to a "ponzi scheme")"
I showed HOW it was a Ponzi scheme. Your ONLY response to this was to LIE and say I never did it!
"You're an Austrian economist, yes?"
No.
You're a dogmatic bigot. Everything is black-and-white to you--us vs. them, and ANYONE who dares to criticize your lords and saviors in government is the enemy.
Yeah, you "showed" it by going on and on about how government social security is bad. It's a ponzi scheme that will rob you of your money. Let's use the free market! Look at this place in Texas! It got no Medicare and is better! Yay! Go free market!
I'm a bigot? How so? Do you have any evidence?
Actually, YOU think it's black-white. After all, you call me a believer in the "cult of the omnipresent state" simply for wanting social security.
Anyone who doesn't like the free market is a "statist" and believes in the "cult of the omnipresent state".
Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "liar" or a "bigot"
Social security is equatable to the totalitarian Oceanian regime in George Orwell's 1984 (Funny how he's a democratic socialist and don't say you never meant to do that and put the cover of 1984 for shits and giggles)
What "projection"? I don't think government intervention will fix everything. I'm the sort of Socialist that wants workers to take control of industry. After all, it's the emancipation of the working class, not an enormous bureaucratic apparatus.
I only respect Marx and Engels as economists, sociologists and revolutionaries. I'm sure you've heard of Josip Broz Tito and Salvador Allende.
@Cookaloka "I'm the sort of Socialist that wants workers to take control of industry."
Workers HAVE control of industry in a free market! It's only when your precious government steps in that they don't! One more example of government breaking your legs, then handing you crutches, and saying, "See? Without us, you couldn't walk!"
In what Universe? Does the working class make the big decisions? Do working people run the companies? Of course not! Are you actually equating the Board of Directors to the working class?
What does government breaking legs have got to do with this? By that logic, For-profit Corporations would smash every bone in your body, cut your pay for being a nuisance, force you to pay extravagant hospital bills and that exclaim about how they look out for the ordinary person.
I was talking about workers cooperatives where the workers control the company democratically and make the decisions. A worker cooperative or producer cooperative is a cooperative, that is owned and democratically controlled by its "worker-owners". There are no outside owners in a "pure" workers' cooperative, only the workers own shares of the business.
@Cookaloka There's nothing stopping such a system in a free market. You just can't force it on people.
A lot of workers don't even want that--they want to show up, do the work, and get a paycheck without having to worry about executive decisions or having their pay cut if things aren't going well.
Unfortunately, no it's not. The bosses wouldn't want to give up their power and wealthy to the working people. They would rather give themselves enormous bonuses while laying off people because of a "lack" of funding. In a free market, there would probably be no worker-run co-operatives. Any attempt would have been bought over by or run out of business by a larger for-profit corporation.
@Cookaloka In a free market, they have NO power over workers, and they only get wealth by convincing people to work for them and to buy their product or services. I know because that's how it ACTUALLY WAS when we had something MUCH closer to a free market than we do now. All you're doing is spewing long-refuted Marxist propaganda.
@Cookaloka You're a FUCKING LIAR. Wages, working hours, and ALL of these other things are mutually agreed upon by both employee and employer. You're nothing but a fucking dogmatist. NONE of this is dictated in a free market.
It's you fucking socialists who dictate these things--and DESTROY JOBS IN THE PROCESS.
But Shane! Without our glorious and infallible leaders, people would only make 2 pennies a decade, and would have to eat worms to stay alive!!1111111eleventy-sixone
Again with the childish swearing. Try to keep the conversation civil and refrain from making wild accusations.
Right, so when employers make pay cuts or working hours, they obviously meet their workers beforehand and ask their permission before doing anything. Oh wait, they don't. The Board of Executives decides that, like oligarchs.
I'm a dogmatist? Then you're a dogmatist to the "Free Market fixes all problems" dogma.
Oooh, I said a word on a list...whereas you TOLD A LIE. Sorry, but that makes ME the better, more mature person--and you just use this list of words as some kind of magical incantation to try to get out of the consequences of your actions.
You know NOTHING about the business world or how it works. YOU ARE A BIGOT.
How about we have an actual debate instead of childish name calling. What do you say Murdock? Provide evidence that your cult of free-market fundamentalists can solve anything.
@Cookaloka Um, we already have. Direct historical evidence. Better health care, better schools, more jobs, better pay for fewer working hours... We also have copious historical evidence that your lords and saviors in government can't solve anything and can only stifle the economy and hurt the poor and the middle class to benefit corporate cronies.
So it's on YOU: can YOU provide evidence that your Cult of the Omnipotent State can solve anything?
Really? Like in New Zealand when Libertarian economics caused the debt to double, caused to "workless and wanting work" to peak at 11.2% (From 4.2%), increased the gap between rich and poor when the top the top 10% of income earners measurably increased their share of total income. The lowest 10% lost 21.6% of their 1984 income. More than 50% of the total working population had lower real income in 1996 than in 1984.
And don't get me started on Chile. Libertarianism has FAILED!
You have never heard of Rogernomics have you? Look it up online. Whatever done was done with Libertarian principles in mind. Its called the "New Zealand Libertarian Experiment" fora reason. And it failed miserably. You may want a balanced budget, but when actually practised, it leads to a balooning in debt and unemployment.
@Cookaloka Oh, and the "gap between rich and poor" is economic pseudoscience that is meaningless to reality and only used to try and stir up bogus class warfare.
And now you ignore that there is a gap between the rich and poor. Not surpising that when its actually applied in real life, Libertarianism favors the wealthy and powerful. Want a decent life? Only if youre rich.
"If Libertarianism favors the wealth[y] and powerful, how come the wealthy and the powerful don't support Libertarians?" I know, right? Last I checked, that's an issue we have right now with the republicrats....
@Cookaloka That is NOT saying that there is NO gap (there wouldn't be rich and poor if there weren't), it's attaching economic significance to this fact.
Once again, you LIE and LIE and LIE to cover up the problems with your own statements.
"Oh yes they do."
Really? Where are all the billions of dollars flowing to Libertarian candidates then?
There is. I don't see how it's "insignificant" if a small group of people are able to live lavishly and live in opulence while a large number of people can't even earn enough money to get by. I don't see how it's "insignificant" that the rich are getting richer while the working class has to take the brunt of the recession and the rabid "austerity" cuts to social security.
Like I said earlier, they support Libertarian economic policy or what we know today as neoliberalism.
@Cookaloka If you have everything that you have, and no one has over $10 million, versus if you have exactly the same things that you do, and there ARE people who have over $10 million, how are you suddenly poorer?
This is BOGUS and every thinking person knows it.
And it's YOUR PRECIOUS GOVERNMENT that's destroying the middle class and small businesses. Your Lords and Saviors are the ones you REALLY should be against, but you just don't want to see that.
Wrong again Shane. Its rabid neoliberal free-market libertarian economics that have done that. Real wages have stagnated while the pays of the CEOs and executives have ijcreased tremendously.
Perhaps yiu should google "America inequality" and do some actual research.
I like how a market fundamentalist likens himself to a "thinking person". You are no better than a religious fundamentalist. WWMD. What Would the Market Do?
@Cookaloka "The market" is NOT A THING, you cultist idiot!!! The market is PEOPLE, it's INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions! And you HATE that--YOU want your lords and saviors to FORCE people to make different decisions, because they apparently know better than these people how to live their lives.
And you KNOW that's wrong, you KNOW that's evil, so you have to pretend that there is this mysterious force known as "the market" that you're doing it against, and not PEOPLE.
I'm a "cultist idiot"? I'm not the one who thinks the holy magic free market will bestow everything with holy magic and everything will be gumdrops and rainbows afterwards.
My "lords and saviors"? That would be YOU. YOU think the infinite wisdom of the market will save everything.
And you want us to live in a corporate command economy run by oligarchs and mega-corporations. Once regulations are gone, what's there to stop the giants taking over smaller companies?
I have no probelm with swearing believe me. But when all you've got is "fucking liar", believe me, it ticks me off.
I told a lie? Have you got any evidence? I know the consequences of my actions. YOU don't. It appears you're just picking and choosing from my actual argument so that you have an easy strawman to knock down. You are a psuedo-intellectual.
Someone calling me a liar, cherry picking my arguments and insulting me is calling me a bigot. The irony is lost.
@Cookaloka And since you KNOW that's not all I have--since I've said MUCH more than that in the form of arguments and evidence--this is ANOTHER FUCKING LIE.
What "Evidence"? All you've done is call me a "fucking liar", a "bigot", cherry pick my comments and completely ignore any facts that I have presented! If that's your definition of "arguments and evidence", then you have a very low standard of what constitutes actual debate or evidence.
Im pathetic? Im not the one who has to resort to insulting someone just to make a point. What "evidence"? Until you start presenting some actual evidence instead of calling me a "liar". Until then, all you have are assertions and whatever evidence you might have is just a figment of your imagination.
Very poorly done Shane. Perhaps you should try a bit harder.
All anyone will see is you calling me a "fucking liar", "bigot" and a "cultist" without presenting any evidence whatsoever. All you do is whinge about the evil, deplorable government and how horrible it is to provide for the weakest members of society and how the holy market solves everything. Youre the cultist and an orthodox Market Fundamentalist. Just replace "god" with "market" and you get Libertarianism
@shanedk Damn straight that's the way I want my jobs. If I WANTED to operate a company, I'd damn well set up my OWN damn business. The fact that I DON'T do that is precisely BECAUSE I don't want to operate a company. (Actually, there's this idea for a custom fabrication shop I'd like to set up, that could be done as a home business, but I need to build the equipment first. That's kind of a sticking point. I CAN do it, I just have to actually do it.)
@shanedk It gets worse: The equipment that makes the business feasible (by being cheap enough for me to make) also makes the business essentially self-obsoleting (by making the equipment cheap enough for any prospective client to make as well). Oh well, that's what happens when you try to make a business out of something which could be a technological singularity. (On the other hand, how many people actually learned the electronics skills I bothered to learn in high school 25 years ago?)
Hey, honestly curious, not a hater; please don't mistake naivete for trollery. Tell me your thoughts on this fantasy scenario: what if the government had somehow been effectively prevented from raiding SS funds? Seems like breaking that link would change it from a Ponzi scheme into something more sustainable, or at least less sinister. Your thoughts?
You're knowledge of the Social Security system is lacking.Why isn't this a ponzi scheme? Well because Social Security is supposed to be taken care of and paid for with a trust fund (ever hear of the Social Security Trust Fund? I bet you have!). The ONLY reason it's in trouble now, is because Republican presidents and Republican congresses have seen fit to raid said trust fund. Your information in inaccurate beyond belief.
@Psionx0 "Well because Social Security is supposed to be taken care of and paid for with a trust fund (ever hear of the Social Security Trust Fund? I bet you have!)."
And what is in this so-called "trust fund"? (Hint: the answer is IN THE VIDEO!!!)
"The ONLY reason it's in trouble now, is because Republican presidents and Republican congresses have seen fit to raid said trust fund."
BULLSHIT!!! BOTH Democrats AND Republicans have been doing that FOR DECADES!!!
@Cookaloka Cult of the Omnipotent State again. What supernatural powers does the state have to do things no other group of people can do?
The "invisible hand" is US. Charities and mutual aid societies have a WONDERFUL track record of helping the poor, the sick, the needy, etc. Government has been a complete FAILURE in this regard because people in power do not have the incentives to succeed at this, nor do they have accountability when they fail.
It's not a cult at all. I don't think the state has any "supernatural powers" but some think that the market is an all knowing, benevolent entity that seems to solve all problems.
Social security is to help the protect and improve the economic status of disadvantaged and at-risk populations. Stuff like unemployment benefits, medicare and disability. People have been claiming it's a failure or a Ponzi scheme since the '60s. It's nothing new.
@Cookaloka "It's not a cult at all." It absolutely is! You're saying that government--which is just a group of people--can do things that no other group is capable of doing! That makes it a cult!
"I don't think the state has any "supernatural powers"" Then why do you think the state--a group of people--can do things no other group of people can do?
@Cookaloka "but some think that the market is an all knowing, benevolent entity that seems to solve all problems." BLATANT strawman. The market is NOT an entity; it is US. It is the top-down planners in big government who think of the economy as an entity, that can be fixed the way one fixes a car. But since the economy is each of us, "fixing" the economy means inhibiting our freedom and telling us how we must live our lives.
Last I checked, Shane is against corporatism and corporations.
Here's the Google Dictionary definition of Corporation: "1. A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law"
Practically speaking, this means corporations are government created entities with gov't granted privileges that would not, and could not exist in a free market (e.g. Immunity, unlimited debt shield).
@Cookaloka "If one means something like a supermarket or a local farmer's market, then it involves us. I'm talking about a market in free market capitalism."
And just what in your mind could the difference POSSIBLY be???
"What do you mean by "fixing" the economy?"
Like, taking our money or saddling our children with debt to bail out losers.
And corporations ARE A CREATION OF GOVERNMENT! They are NOT a part of a free market.
@Cookaloka "Social security is to help the protect and improve the economic status of disadvantaged and at-risk populations." Then it's an absolute failure, because it's nothing but a Ponzi scheme.
"Stuff like unemployment benefits, medicare and disability." Likewise. They just EXTEND unemployment, and saddle our children with tens of trillions of dollars in debt!
See my video on Social Security. It IS a Ponzi scheme.
Actually, no. Social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. No-ones being misled in Social Security. In fact, Social security is the moral opposite of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go insurance program and it does exactly what it's supposed to do by using benefits paid by today's workers to pay for today's retirees. This is not the same as an investment scam where victims are told their money is making money.
But in seriously, this talking point was repeated for decades
@Cookaloka Why don't you watch my video on the subject and THEN try to explain what the difference is? So far, the only "difference" you've cooked up is intention--which is completely, 100% irrelevant.
Ah, the usual "Social policies are for lazy people". Honestly, I've heard this far too many times. Aren't there anymore talking points that have been created since then?
Also, private insurance plans are NOT universal, they don't help everyone. How exactly would it be better?
@Cookaloka I already explained it! Government has incentives to expand the program (i.e., get more people unemployed for longer) and no accountability when they screw up.
It's Rule #1: if you subsidize something, you get more of it!
Why would the government want to make people unemployed? Private corporations cut their work-forces to save money and to increase profit. A government should not run based on the profit motive.
Really now? By your logic, a country such as Germany would have higher unemployment. but it does not. In fact, it has a lower unemployment compared to the United States.
@Cookaloka "Why would the government want to make people unemployed?" Because they're incentivized to! The more unemployed people they have on the rolls the more money they get from the taxpayers.
"Private corporations cut their work-forces to save money and to increase profit." Complete economic bullshit! Cutbacks HARM productivity! Companies only do that when they have to.
Germany has much more strict requirements on unemployment. Look at France for a better example.
@Cookaloka "Ah, the usual "Social policies are for lazy people". " No one said that, LIAR.
And why don't you see my video "How to Fix Health Care Without Spending a Dime"? If anything else, educate yourself PROPERLY instead of revealing yourself to be an ignorant cultist with every post!
@Cookaloka I only called you a liar BECAUSE YOU LIED. I NEVER said the thing you quoted me of saying.
And why don't you watch the video to find out? But that sentence makes it clear that you're just a dogmatist who will never be swayed by reason, so what's the point?
I have. I have just told you how social security is not in any way, a ponzi scheme. It is in fact a pay-as-you-go insurance system. The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days.
Get it? Also, the US taxes are at an all time low.
@Cookaloka "I have just told you how social security is not in any way, a ponzi scheme."
No, you've just made it clear you have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is or what makes it fail.
"It is in fact a pay-as-you-go insurance system."
It's not insurance! It's an annuity! Why do people not get that?
The ONLY reason Social Security lasts longer than other Ponzi schemes is because government can take the money by force. Let us opt out and watch it crash!
The biggest lie being told about Social Security is that it is going broke and that Social Security is in crisis. The fact is, there is no crisis. Social Security will have a 4.3 trillion dollar surplus by 2023 and can pay out all scheduled payments for decades without any changes at all. By 2037, the trust fund could still make 75% of pay outs without any changes to the system.
I actually have watched the video. Thanks for the needless assumption making.
Nice move, but I'm not the one worshiping the free market as the answer to all problems and pointing the finger of blame to the government and that somehow everything government does is "wrong". The Wall Street fatcats love you too.
@Cookaloka "I actually have watched the video. Thanks for the needless assumption making."
I reached the CONCLUSION (NOT the assumption) that you hadn't watched it because you cannot speak intelligently about the content the video provides, nor can you answer the central question running throughout. If you have watched it, you're an even bigger dogmatist than I thought you were! I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt there!
Unfortunately, your conclusion was off. I did watch your video and it was nothing more than a tirade against social security and how its a "ponzi scheme" when it most certainly is not. I have actually. I have engaged in civil debate without resorting to childish name calling ("cultist", "dogmatist") or making stupid assumptions. You have not shown me how privatization would make anyone better off other than the wealthy.
What was the question? There is no question in the video.
you have some great stuff here
khijasmith 1 month ago
thanks for your work. I have learned a lot from your videos.
BolnoyBratchny 1 month ago
great video thanks
sprattysy 1 month ago
What's the best way to be socially secure? Isn't it obvious? Provide all of your personal data to a single organization which documents your social information into a giant, national database! Now you're socially secure.
GuitarMannnnnn 1 month ago
Virgil0211 "'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
"'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES.MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!"
yeah i think the following is close to right.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 if the supply shifts right then that means the supply increases and that means that demand goes down. unless your advocting to kill thousand apon thousands of people to insure that the population of people, who are looking for work, doesn't go up, then minimun wage WILL fall in value.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all WRONG. If the supply curve shifts to the right demand STAYS WHERE IT IS! It's the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE between supply and demand that drops, but EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITY INCREASES. MORE are sold at a LOWER price!!!
In what way is that demand going down???
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
okey, if the demand were to stay where it was when the supply shifts, then there will be a surplus of supply. meaning that there are more people looking for work than there is jobs offered. naturally over time, however, the supply and demand would again meet where they are intersected at, so if the supply does not decrease(shift left), then the demand will. unless you have govermant regulation.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all You're completely ignoring price. The surplus you're talking about is what happens with price controls, which you would know if you had even a rudimentary understanding of economics.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211
and your still off on a tangent, my argument is that supply and demand cannot keep wages at a fair price because of the constint rise in supply. over time, the wages will lower until it's worth almost nothing. unless you have goverment regulation.
thats all i care about.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all So labor is homogeneous and always increasing?
Yeah. You're still failing basic econ. If that were true, no wages would ever increase without government mandates. Do you even think about the things you say before you say them? That's not just a basic econ fail, it's a basic logic fail.
And no, government regulation would only increase unemployment. The wages would stay the same, simply eliminating any jobs that paid less leaving those individuals unemployed.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 yes, the labor supply is aways increasing.
and about the rest, why is what your saying true?
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all Even if the population drops? How does that work?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk if the population drops then the price of labor goes up.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all You realize, of course, that you're completely ignoring Say's Law?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk but right now, the population is going up, and does not look like it's going down, hence the growth of supply.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all There are places in the world, such as Germany and Japan, where the population is decreasing.
shanedk 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all "if the demand were to stay where it was when the supply shifts, then there will be a surplus of supply."
No, there wouldn't! I just explained it to you! Are you even READING?
shanedk 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 watch this, search on you tube for:
1st: Economics #1: The Supply and Demand Curve (MTK Style!)
2ed: Shifting both the supply and demand curve
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 check this guy out, this is what kind of economics i'm talking about.
Economics #1: The Supply and Demand Curve (MTK Style!)
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
177 butthurt statists rated this video....
vspqbd 5 months ago
ok i Might agree with that if its true, BUT if is is so bad and we were to remove it, what do you do for all the person on SSI that really needs it once its gone?
valerytozer 5 months ago
@valerytozer Obviously there needs to be a transitional program to take care of them. I think the first step is to make Social Security needs-based on net worth. Then we need to work on eliminating the Ponzi aspects of it. Chile showed us one way this could be done.
shanedk 5 months ago
ok i agree with that BUT what do you do for all the person on SSI that really needs it once its gone?
valerytozer 5 months ago
@valerytozer By the time that has happened, private charity could take up the slack. Remember, 15% of your paycheck goes to SS. We're one the most charitable country in the world when it comes to private donations. Imagine how much more charity we could afford with that 15% returned to us.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
These problems seem easy to solve. I can see a few solutions right away:
1) @3:14 - "The rest, according to government, is "invested"" --just don't "invest" it -- this would be infinitely sustainable
2) @3:14 - "The rest, according to government, is "invested"" -- actually, really, truely invest it -- this would be infinitely sustainable
3) @4:03 - "Then whatever surplus remains..." -- just make sure the amount of the black area = red area each year -- this would be infinitely sustainable
rader55555 5 months ago
@rader55555 1) No, it wouldn't; see the follow-up.
2) It would be IF AND ONLY IF you link benefits directly to contributions, as in the Chilean system.
3) No, it wouldn't; you'd have to invest it as per my answer to #2.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk 1) Ok I responed to the followup, but you said #2 is sustainable. Let's do that, but we should probably take in a little more than payed out and not touch it in case something bad happens like crazy changes in the population or an economic downturn--no one saves in this country anymore.
rader55555 5 months ago
@rader55555 #2 is sustainable WITH the caveat I mentioned. And it isn't susceptible to changes in the population as the current system is. Chile has showed us the way.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk So you would a least note that a government-run system, based on taxation, is NOT A PONZI SCHEME if it were benefits were directly linked to contributions?
rader55555 5 months ago
@rader55555 No, it would STILL be a Ponzi scheme if they were paying those beneficiaries from new contributors. You would need to BOTH link benefits to contributions (as I said) AND really invest it, not just put it in Treasury bonds (as you said).
Do both of those and I think then it stops being a Ponzi scheme.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
And you still have no evidence whatsoever that it's a "ponzi scheme". Last I checked, a Ponzi scheme doesn't pay you back.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka Uh, yes, it does! That's why they're so hard to prosecute!
shanedk 5 months ago
@Cookaloka Yeah, it does. That's how a Ponzi scheme gets you to pay into it.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
Cookaloka, false accusations ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THIS CHANNEL. Your post was deleted. First warning.
Also, you didn't answer the question: If NZ's policy was in any way libertarian, how did they end up with such a high debt-to-GDP ratio?
shanedk 5 months ago
If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work? What's to stop the proliferation of sweatshops running on de-facto slave labor? What is there to stop factories bringing in teenagers to work for the fraction of the price of an adult worker for more profit?
Is it so wrong that the board of executives not buy that new yacht or luxury car so that their workers can lead decent lives?
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka "If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?"
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand.
"What's to stop the proliferation of sweatshops running on de-facto slave labor?"
The fact that we have enough economic wealth where employees can demand better.
shanedk 5 months ago
@Cookaloka "What is there to stop factories bringing in teenagers to work for the fraction of the price of an adult worker for more profit?"
Why do you have a problem with teenagers having jobs?
It's supply and demand, MORON. NO ONE can change it any more than they can change gravity. Corporations DO NOT SET WAGES; if they set it too high they can't hire enough workers; too low and they have a shortage of available employees. BASIC ECONOMICS.
shanedk 5 months ago
commondreams (.) org (/) views (/) 081500-106 (.) htm
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka Oh, yeah, THAT'S an unbiased source...
It's just the same socialist babble: SAY that the free market people caused the problem without even showing they even got into power in the first place!
shanedk 5 months ago
@Cookaloka Of course, if you look around for the REAL data, you'll find the IMF warning NZ that if they don't fix their fiscal policy their debt-to-GDP ratio will top 100% by 2015. It's currently over 90%.
Yeah, that's some REAL Libertarianism there...you fucking tool!
shanedk 5 months ago
Also Shane, you have yet to explain how Socialists destroy jobs.
Youre doing a very poor job Shane. Perhaps you should stick to your strong point. Basic Science.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka I have explained it over and over again. You just do not want to hear.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
No, all you've said is "It's you fucking socialists who dictate these things--and DESTROY JOBS IN THE PROCESS"
That's not an explanation. It's an assertion. Come on. You're starting to sound like a fundamentalist Christian who thinks Atheists are "not listening" to evidence for a god.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka Come on--you haven't seen the COPIOUS economic studies showing how things like Minimum Wage and employment taxes destroy jobs? THIS IS NOT A FUCKING ASSERTION!!!
YOU are the one ignoring reality.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
In what universe does minikum wage destroy jobs? I know the very thought of workers getting enough in wages to survive angers you and that the holy corporations profits are far morr important than the welfare of thr workers but lets get serious.
And no, "research" done by the right-wing neoliberal thinktanks like Mises and Cato is hardly research at alll. Do you have any credible sources?
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka "In what universe does minikum wage destroy jobs?"
THIS one. Basic economic theory predicts it, and NUMEROUS studies have confirmed it.
"I know the very thought of workers getting enough in wages to survive angers you"
The pathetic ad hominem again. It does NOT give these workers more wages--it MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO WORK!!!
See the work of David Neumark on this issue. Not that any facts will get through that cultist head of yours...
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Alright. What studies? By whom?
How so? You've called me a "cultist", a "fucking liar", a "bigot" among others without any justification and that's not ad-hominem? I smell a double standard Shane. You treat anyone who opposes you like dirt. Sounds like what an intolerant, close-minded fundamentalist would do.
How so? That's just an assertion. Justify it with evidence.
I have presented evidence and you've ignored it. You're a market fundamentalist in the cult of libertarianism.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka "Alright. What studies? By whom?"
Got a ton of them right here: gooDOTgl/nwQey
No, it's not ad hominem, because they were BASED ON YOUR STATEMENTS--things that YOU SAID!!! That's the consequences of YOUR ACTIONS. No double-standard here, just holding you accountable for the things you say.
"I have presented evidence"
NO...YOU...HAVE...NOT!!! And you have REPEATEDLY ignored the evidence I've posted. JUST like a creationist!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
So, what have I said to justify your blatant ad-hominem attacks?
I have. You have merely dismissed it because it doesn't conform to your precious beliefs. Coincidentally, like a religious fundamentalist.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka I have made NO ad hominem attacks against you; stop LYING.
You have presented NOTHING. You've made it clear you don't even know what a Ponzi scheme IS!!! You just said they don't pay you back!
You have presented NO evidence, and REPEATEDLY ignored the evidence given to you, and anyone here can see that.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk "'If there is no minimum wage, what is there to stop corporations to short-change their employees and pay them close to nothing for their work?'
The same thing that stops them from paying everyone MW and no more right now: supply and demand."
dude, if there is a high supply of labor, that means that that the demand is low, and that wages would be lowered too. the more people there are looking for work, the lower the wages will be.
or econimics is a sham
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all High supply doesn't mean low demand, much in the same way a reduction in spending doesn't equal an increase in income.
You're lecturing on economics and you got THAT wrong? Or is 'econimics' a different field entirely that I just haven't heard of?
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211
ya, i think you never heard of what i'm talking about.
so, what are you talking about?
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all I'm referring to this statement:
'dude, if there is a high supply of labor, that means that that the demand is low'
Supply doesn't affect demand. Demand might be lower relative to supply, but demand is unchanged. That's why the price goes down.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211,'dude, if there is a high supply of labor, that means that that the demand is low'
uh, yeah it really does. . .
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all You can have high supply and high demand at the same time. One does not take from the other. That's why they're represented on separate curves with different equations.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all Alright, then. Show me one chart where a shift in the supply curve immediately results in a shift in the demand curve.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all Tel that to the IT people in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada about 12-13 years ago. The city was CARPETED with them, well over 25% of the whole population was some sort of IT worker. Wages were sky-high, too, because the demand was even HIGHER.
See, demand and supply are not coupled in any particularly tight way. It is the case that demand exceeding supply drives up prices, and this encourages an increase in supply, but that's just the market in action.
evensgrey 5 months ago
@evensgrey Ah, the tech bubble. Those were the days. It'll be awhile before I see $80k a year again...
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Yeah, if I'd gone for the CS degree I should have from the very start, I'd have had a shot at taking a chunk of that bubble. There ARE still companies like that, even in IT, though. I'm not sure I'd WANT to work for Check Point (a friend who used to work there told me that he got worked into the ground), but they still treat employees mostly like the days of the bubble.
evensgrey 5 months ago
@Virgil0211- "Supply doesn't affect demand. Demand might be lower relative to supply, but demand is unchanged. That's why the price goes down."
though you are wrong that damand will stay, you are right that the price of labor will go down when supply goes up. therefore, it is not enough to just let supply and demand control MW; we need goverment regulation.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all As we all know, monkeys fall when unsupported by tree branches. Because of this, aliens are required to rescue these monkeys. Therefore, we must fly to Jupiter for skittles as soon as possible.
When you decide you don't have to first establish your premise or a logical progression, you can come to any wacky conclusion you want.
Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even get supply and demand right?
Virgil0211 5 months ago
"I explained in detail how it is! Can you refute that or not?"
Actually, you did no such thing. Claiming that something is a "ponzi scheme" is not an explanation but a statement.
"Yes, I have, you just continually ignore the facts. That's why you're a dogmatist!"
When? Do you have any evidence to prove it?
"Then you're a LIAR. The question was asked THROUGHOUT BOTH PARTS. Watch it or STFU."
Evidence. Please try to keep it civil.
Universal healthcare works. Use that system.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka "Actually, you did no such thing. Claiming that something is a "ponzi scheme" is not an explanation but a statement."
The VERY VIDEO YOU ARE COMMENTING ON explains it in detail! It doesn't just CLAIM it--I talk about what a Ponzi scheme is and compare it to SS! You either didn't watch the video or you're a FUCKING LIAR.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Actually, I've watched it several times and in no wy to you actually explain how it's a "ponzi scheme". What it is a tirade of how evil and bad Social Security is and how the glorious holy market will solve all problems.
"You either didn't watch the video or you're a FUCKING LIAR."
Aww, are we down to childish swearing already? Not used to having actual opposition are you?
Do some research before you churn out shit.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka "I've watched it several times and in no wy to you actually explain how it's a "ponzi scheme". "
You are a FUCKING LIAR. I did EXACTLY THAT from 0:35 to 4:58! Over HALF THE VIDEO!!!
So go ahead, call me all the names you want and slobber out all the ad hominems you can; it won't change the fact that you've LIED about this video, and anyone watching it can see it.
If you can't refute the LENGTHY explanation I gave as to why SS is a Ponzi scheme, you're nothing but a dogmatist.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Again, you're yelling and swearing won't change anything.
I'm not calling you any names or using ad hominem. You just called me a "fucking liar" for absolutely no reason. Before you accuse anyone, be sure to check your facts you hypocrite.
Yeah, I just summarized you "lengthy" explanation into a a few short words It's simply this : "What the governments do is bad and a ponzi scheme but the great free market has a solution and it can solve this problem!"
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@shanedk
I'm a dogmatist? Says the one who thinks the magic free market can fix all problems and worships the likes of Mises like a god.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka "Says the one who thinks the magic free market can fix all problems"
Never said it, LIAR.
"and worships the likes of Mises like a god. "
Never said it, LIAR.
BLATANT projection!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
You never blatantly said it BUT your disdain for any government intervention in economics (Equating it to a "ponzi scheme") and the fact that the example of a "good" healthcare system is a place in Texas which had opted out of Medicare shows that you want the Free Market to solve this problem and any others. Because the evil government wants to rob us of our money right? (Ponzi scheme, remember?)
You're an Austrian economist, yes? It's impossible not to worship Mises then.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka "BUT your disdain for any government intervention in economics (Equating it to a "ponzi scheme")"
I showed HOW it was a Ponzi scheme. Your ONLY response to this was to LIE and say I never did it!
"You're an Austrian economist, yes?"
No.
You're a dogmatic bigot. Everything is black-and-white to you--us vs. them, and ANYONE who dares to criticize your lords and saviors in government is the enemy.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Yeah, you "showed" it by going on and on about how government social security is bad. It's a ponzi scheme that will rob you of your money. Let's use the free market! Look at this place in Texas! It got no Medicare and is better! Yay! Go free market!
I'm a bigot? How so? Do you have any evidence?
Actually, YOU think it's black-white. After all, you call me a believer in the "cult of the omnipresent state" simply for wanting social security.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@shanedk
Anyone who doesn't like the free market is a "statist" and believes in the "cult of the omnipresent state".
Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "liar" or a "bigot"
Social security is equatable to the totalitarian Oceanian regime in George Orwell's 1984 (Funny how he's a democratic socialist and don't say you never meant to do that and put the cover of 1984 for shits and giggles)
And I'm the "bigot" and I think in "black-white"?
I know, facts hurt don't they?
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@shanedk
"BLATANT projection!"
What "projection"? I don't think government intervention will fix everything. I'm the sort of Socialist that wants workers to take control of industry. After all, it's the emancipation of the working class, not an enormous bureaucratic apparatus.
I only respect Marx and Engels as economists, sociologists and revolutionaries. I'm sure you've heard of Josip Broz Tito and Salvador Allende.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka "I'm the sort of Socialist that wants workers to take control of industry."
Workers HAVE control of industry in a free market! It's only when your precious government steps in that they don't! One more example of government breaking your legs, then handing you crutches, and saying, "See? Without us, you couldn't walk!"
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
In what Universe? Does the working class make the big decisions? Do working people run the companies? Of course not! Are you actually equating the Board of Directors to the working class?
What does government breaking legs have got to do with this? By that logic, For-profit Corporations would smash every bone in your body, cut your pay for being a nuisance, force you to pay extravagant hospital bills and that exclaim about how they look out for the ordinary person.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka EVERY job is a mutual agreement between employee and employer. To deny that is to be as deluded as a creationist.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
I was talking about workers cooperatives where the workers control the company democratically and make the decisions. A worker cooperative or producer cooperative is a cooperative, that is owned and democratically controlled by its "worker-owners". There are no outside owners in a "pure" workers' cooperative, only the workers own shares of the business.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka
So you're a syndicalist?
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd
In a way, yes.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka There's nothing stopping such a system in a free market. You just can't force it on people.
A lot of workers don't even want that--they want to show up, do the work, and get a paycheck without having to worry about executive decisions or having their pay cut if things aren't going well.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
It's not forced. It's very much voluntary.
Unfortunately, no it's not. The bosses wouldn't want to give up their power and wealthy to the working people. They would rather give themselves enormous bonuses while laying off people because of a "lack" of funding. In a free market, there would probably be no worker-run co-operatives. Any attempt would have been bought over by or run out of business by a larger for-profit corporation.
How do you know?
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka In a free market, they have NO power over workers, and they only get wealth by convincing people to work for them and to buy their product or services. I know because that's how it ACTUALLY WAS when we had something MUCH closer to a free market than we do now. All you're doing is spewing long-refuted Marxist propaganda.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
No, just enough power to determine their wages, working hours among other things. That's "no power" to you?
And you're spouting long refuted Libertarian propaganda. We can do this all day.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka You're a FUCKING LIAR. Wages, working hours, and ALL of these other things are mutually agreed upon by both employee and employer. You're nothing but a fucking dogmatist. NONE of this is dictated in a free market.
It's you fucking socialists who dictate these things--and DESTROY JOBS IN THE PROCESS.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
But Shane! Without our glorious and infallible leaders, people would only make 2 pennies a decade, and would have to eat worms to stay alive!!1111111eleventy-sixone
vspqbd 6 months ago
@shanedk
Again with the childish swearing. Try to keep the conversation civil and refrain from making wild accusations.
Right, so when employers make pay cuts or working hours, they obviously meet their workers beforehand and ask their permission before doing anything. Oh wait, they don't. The Board of Executives decides that, like oligarchs.
I'm a dogmatist? Then you're a dogmatist to the "Free Market fixes all problems" dogma.
Really? How do Socialists "destroy jobs"?
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka "Again with the childish swearing."
Oooh, I said a word on a list...whereas you TOLD A LIE. Sorry, but that makes ME the better, more mature person--and you just use this list of words as some kind of magical incantation to try to get out of the consequences of your actions.
You know NOTHING about the business world or how it works. YOU ARE A BIGOT.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk It's no use arguing with that guy. He's practically brainwashed with Marxist and Socialist economic theories.
murdock283 6 months ago
@murdock283
How about we have an actual debate instead of childish name calling. What do you say Murdock? Provide evidence that your cult of free-market fundamentalists can solve anything.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka Um, we already have. Direct historical evidence. Better health care, better schools, more jobs, better pay for fewer working hours... We also have copious historical evidence that your lords and saviors in government can't solve anything and can only stifle the economy and hurt the poor and the middle class to benefit corporate cronies.
So it's on YOU: can YOU provide evidence that your Cult of the Omnipotent State can solve anything?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Really? Like in New Zealand when Libertarian economics caused the debt to double, caused to "workless and wanting work" to peak at 11.2% (From 4.2%), increased the gap between rich and poor when the top the top 10% of income earners measurably increased their share of total income. The lowest 10% lost 21.6% of their 1984 income. More than 50% of the total working population had lower real income in 1996 than in 1984.
And don't get me started on Chile. Libertarianism has FAILED!
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka When did New Zealand EVER have a Libertarian government?
How would Libertarianism cause debt to INCREASE??? Libertarians want a balanced budget--NO DEBT!!!
This is how ignorant you are--this is how ignorant your cult makes you. JUST like the creationists.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
You have never heard of Rogernomics have you? Look it up online. Whatever done was done with Libertarian principles in mind. Its called the "New Zealand Libertarian Experiment" fora reason. And it failed miserably. You may want a balanced budget, but when actually practised, it leads to a balooning in debt and unemployment.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka Oh, and the "gap between rich and poor" is economic pseudoscience that is meaningless to reality and only used to try and stir up bogus class warfare.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
And now you ignore that there is a gap between the rich and poor. Not surpising that when its actually applied in real life, Libertarianism favors the wealthy and powerful. Want a decent life? Only if youre rich.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka "And now you ignore that there is a gap between the rich and poor."
I did no such thing, LIAR. Once again, you can't answer the argument, all you can do is LIE.
If Libertarianism favors the wealth and powerful, how come the wealthy and the powerful don't support Libertarians?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
"If Libertarianism favors the wealth[y] and powerful, how come the wealthy and the powerful don't support Libertarians?" I know, right? Last I checked, that's an issue we have right now with the republicrats....
vspqbd 5 months ago
@shanedk
You just said it was "economic psuedoscience that is meaningless to reality". Whos the liar now Shane?
Oh yes they do. They support Libertarian economic policy or what we know today as neoliberalism.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka That is NOT saying that there is NO gap (there wouldn't be rich and poor if there weren't), it's attaching economic significance to this fact.
Once again, you LIE and LIE and LIE to cover up the problems with your own statements.
"Oh yes they do."
Really? Where are all the billions of dollars flowing to Libertarian candidates then?
LIAR.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
There is. I don't see how it's "insignificant" if a small group of people are able to live lavishly and live in opulence while a large number of people can't even earn enough money to get by. I don't see how it's "insignificant" that the rich are getting richer while the working class has to take the brunt of the recession and the rabid "austerity" cuts to social security.
Like I said earlier, they support Libertarian economic policy or what we know today as neoliberalism.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka If you have everything that you have, and no one has over $10 million, versus if you have exactly the same things that you do, and there ARE people who have over $10 million, how are you suddenly poorer?
This is BOGUS and every thinking person knows it.
And it's YOUR PRECIOUS GOVERNMENT that's destroying the middle class and small businesses. Your Lords and Saviors are the ones you REALLY should be against, but you just don't want to see that.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Wrong again Shane. Its rabid neoliberal free-market libertarian economics that have done that. Real wages have stagnated while the pays of the CEOs and executives have ijcreased tremendously.
Perhaps yiu should google "America inequality" and do some actual research.
I like how a market fundamentalist likens himself to a "thinking person". You are no better than a religious fundamentalist. WWMD. What Would the Market Do?
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka "The market" is NOT A THING, you cultist idiot!!! The market is PEOPLE, it's INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions! And you HATE that--YOU want your lords and saviors to FORCE people to make different decisions, because they apparently know better than these people how to live their lives.
And you KNOW that's wrong, you KNOW that's evil, so you have to pretend that there is this mysterious force known as "the market" that you're doing it against, and not PEOPLE.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
I'm a "cultist idiot"? I'm not the one who thinks the holy magic free market will bestow everything with holy magic and everything will be gumdrops and rainbows afterwards.
My "lords and saviors"? That would be YOU. YOU think the infinite wisdom of the market will save everything.
And you want us to live in a corporate command economy run by oligarchs and mega-corporations. Once regulations are gone, what's there to stop the giants taking over smaller companies?
Try "logic".
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@shanedk
I have no probelm with swearing believe me. But when all you've got is "fucking liar", believe me, it ticks me off.
I told a lie? Have you got any evidence? I know the consequences of my actions. YOU don't. It appears you're just picking and choosing from my actual argument so that you have an easy strawman to knock down. You are a psuedo-intellectual.
Someone calling me a liar, cherry picking my arguments and insulting me is calling me a bigot. The irony is lost.
Cookaloka 6 months ago
@Cookaloka And since you KNOW that's not all I have--since I've said MUCH more than that in the form of arguments and evidence--this is ANOTHER FUCKING LIE.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
What "Evidence"? All you've done is call me a "fucking liar", a "bigot", cherry pick my comments and completely ignore any facts that I have presented! If that's your definition of "arguments and evidence", then you have a very low standard of what constitutes actual debate or evidence.
You're doing very poorly Shane. Try to keep up.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka No, LIAR, I've given you PLENTY of evidence. Once again you LIE to ignore it. You're pathetic.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
Im pathetic? Im not the one who has to resort to insulting someone just to make a point. What "evidence"? Until you start presenting some actual evidence instead of calling me a "liar". Until then, all you have are assertions and whatever evidence you might have is just a figment of your imagination.
Very poorly done Shane. Perhaps you should try a bit harder.
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@Cookaloka I HAVE presented evidence--COPIOUS amounts, as anyone reading these comments can see. Your desperation is obvious.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
All anyone will see is you calling me a "fucking liar", "bigot" and a "cultist" without presenting any evidence whatsoever. All you do is whinge about the evil, deplorable government and how horrible it is to provide for the weakest members of society and how the holy market solves everything. Youre the cultist and an orthodox Market Fundamentalist. Just replace "god" with "market" and you get Libertarianism
Cookaloka 5 months ago
@shanedk Damn straight that's the way I want my jobs. If I WANTED to operate a company, I'd damn well set up my OWN damn business. The fact that I DON'T do that is precisely BECAUSE I don't want to operate a company. (Actually, there's this idea for a custom fabrication shop I'd like to set up, that could be done as a home business, but I need to build the equipment first. That's kind of a sticking point. I CAN do it, I just have to actually do it.)
evensgrey 5 months ago
@evensgrey Ah, that's always the issue: getting up off your butt and getting something done.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk It gets worse: The equipment that makes the business feasible (by being cheap enough for me to make) also makes the business essentially self-obsoleting (by making the equipment cheap enough for any prospective client to make as well). Oh well, that's what happens when you try to make a business out of something which could be a technological singularity. (On the other hand, how many people actually learned the electronics skills I bothered to learn in high school 25 years ago?)
evensgrey 5 months ago
@evensgrey
try sell some pot in the mid west, and then try sell some pot in the west coast. tell me, who's weed is cheeper.
headlessmonkey4all 5 months ago
@headlessmonkey4all Where did the non sequitor come from?
evensgrey 5 months ago
D'oh! Sorry, viewing your follow-up now.
GreatBigBore 7 months ago
Hey, honestly curious, not a hater; please don't mistake naivete for trollery. Tell me your thoughts on this fantasy scenario: what if the government had somehow been effectively prevented from raiding SS funds? Seems like breaking that link would change it from a Ponzi scheme into something more sustainable, or at least less sinister. Your thoughts?
GreatBigBore 7 months ago
You're knowledge of the Social Security system is lacking.Why isn't this a ponzi scheme? Well because Social Security is supposed to be taken care of and paid for with a trust fund (ever hear of the Social Security Trust Fund? I bet you have!). The ONLY reason it's in trouble now, is because Republican presidents and Republican congresses have seen fit to raid said trust fund. Your information in inaccurate beyond belief.
Psionx0 7 months ago
@Psionx0 "Well because Social Security is supposed to be taken care of and paid for with a trust fund (ever hear of the Social Security Trust Fund? I bet you have!)."
And what is in this so-called "trust fund"? (Hint: the answer is IN THE VIDEO!!!)
"The ONLY reason it's in trouble now, is because Republican presidents and Republican congresses have seen fit to raid said trust fund."
BULLSHIT!!! BOTH Democrats AND Republicans have been doing that FOR DECADES!!!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Cookaloka 8 months ago
So, somehow, ensuring that the sick, disabled, unemployed, those that can't work and those who are generally less well off is "bad".
Let, me guess, let the magic "invisible hand" of the free market do it's "magic" riight? You free-market people amuse me.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka Cult of the Omnipotent State again. What supernatural powers does the state have to do things no other group of people can do?
The "invisible hand" is US. Charities and mutual aid societies have a WONDERFUL track record of helping the poor, the sick, the needy, etc. Government has been a complete FAILURE in this regard because people in power do not have the incentives to succeed at this, nor do they have accountability when they fail.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
It's not a cult at all. I don't think the state has any "supernatural powers" but some think that the market is an all knowing, benevolent entity that seems to solve all problems.
Social security is to help the protect and improve the economic status of disadvantaged and at-risk populations. Stuff like unemployment benefits, medicare and disability. People have been claiming it's a failure or a Ponzi scheme since the '60s. It's nothing new.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "It's not a cult at all." It absolutely is! You're saying that government--which is just a group of people--can do things that no other group is capable of doing! That makes it a cult!
"I don't think the state has any "supernatural powers"" Then why do you think the state--a group of people--can do things no other group of people can do?
shanedk 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "but some think that the market is an all knowing, benevolent entity that seems to solve all problems." BLATANT strawman. The market is NOT an entity; it is US. It is the top-down planners in big government who think of the economy as an entity, that can be fixed the way one fixes a car. But since the economy is each of us, "fixing" the economy means inhibiting our freedom and telling us how we must live our lives.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
If one means something like a supermarket or a local farmer's market, then it involves us. I'm talking about a market in free market capitalism.
What do you mean by "fixing" the economy?
But of course, government is evil and giant corporations are good.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka
Last I checked, Shane is against corporatism and corporations.
Here's the Google Dictionary definition of Corporation: "1. A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law"
Practically speaking, this means corporations are government created entities with gov't granted privileges that would not, and could not exist in a free market (e.g. Immunity, unlimited debt shield).
vspqbd 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "If one means something like a supermarket or a local farmer's market, then it involves us. I'm talking about a market in free market capitalism."
And just what in your mind could the difference POSSIBLY be???
"What do you mean by "fixing" the economy?"
Like, taking our money or saddling our children with debt to bail out losers.
And corporations ARE A CREATION OF GOVERNMENT! They are NOT a part of a free market.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Capitalism cannot survive without a government.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka I'm not an anarchist. Stop evading.
shanedk 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "Social security is to help the protect and improve the economic status of disadvantaged and at-risk populations." Then it's an absolute failure, because it's nothing but a Ponzi scheme.
"Stuff like unemployment benefits, medicare and disability." Likewise. They just EXTEND unemployment, and saddle our children with tens of trillions of dollars in debt!
See my video on Social Security. It IS a Ponzi scheme.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Actually, no. Social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. No-ones being misled in Social Security. In fact, Social security is the moral opposite of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go insurance program and it does exactly what it's supposed to do by using benefits paid by today's workers to pay for today's retirees. This is not the same as an investment scam where victims are told their money is making money.
But in seriously, this talking point was repeated for decades
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka Why don't you watch my video on the subject and THEN try to explain what the difference is? So far, the only "difference" you've cooked up is intention--which is completely, 100% irrelevant.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Ah, the usual "Social policies are for lazy people". Honestly, I've heard this far too many times. Aren't there anymore talking points that have been created since then?
Also, private insurance plans are NOT universal, they don't help everyone. How exactly would it be better?
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka
"Ah, the usual 'Social policies are for lazy people.'"
I read all of Shane's replies to you. He never once referred to those people as lazy.
vspqbd 8 months ago
@vspqbd
Yes, buts its the usual tirade of how Social policies somehow make them have no incentive to succeed in life or have accountability.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka
OK, but then how do you explain his emphasis on voluntary charities & mutual aid societies?
If he really believed what you seem to think he does, wouldn't he be against non-government charity, old age pensions, health-care, unemployment, etc?
vspqbd 8 months ago
@vspqbd Good question!
shanedk 8 months ago
@Cookaloka No, I said the incentives of GOVERNMENT are screwed up, not those they are trying to help.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Of course. How exactly?
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka I already explained it! Government has incentives to expand the program (i.e., get more people unemployed for longer) and no accountability when they screw up.
It's Rule #1: if you subsidize something, you get more of it!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Why would the government want to make people unemployed? Private corporations cut their work-forces to save money and to increase profit. A government should not run based on the profit motive.
Really now? By your logic, a country such as Germany would have higher unemployment. but it does not. In fact, it has a lower unemployment compared to the United States.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "Why would the government want to make people unemployed?" Because they're incentivized to! The more unemployed people they have on the rolls the more money they get from the taxpayers.
"Private corporations cut their work-forces to save money and to increase profit." Complete economic bullshit! Cutbacks HARM productivity! Companies only do that when they have to.
Germany has much more strict requirements on unemployment. Look at France for a better example.
shanedk 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "Ah, the usual "Social policies are for lazy people". " No one said that, LIAR.
And why don't you see my video "How to Fix Health Care Without Spending a Dime"? If anything else, educate yourself PROPERLY instead of revealing yourself to be an ignorant cultist with every post!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Have we reached the part where we throw insults at each other? Wonderful!
How exactly would you do that? Surrender what's left of the public healthcare system to the private corporations?
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka I only called you a liar BECAUSE YOU LIED. I NEVER said the thing you quoted me of saying.
And why don't you watch the video to find out? But that sentence makes it clear that you're just a dogmatist who will never be swayed by reason, so what's the point?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
I have. Could we get back to civil debate?
Right, the one using dis-proven 60's talking points is calling me a dogmatist. I don't have a dogma.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka You have done NOTHING to show they have been disproven. Can you answer the question posed in the video or not?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
I have. I have just told you how social security is not in any way, a ponzi scheme. It is in fact a pay-as-you-go insurance system. The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days.
Get it? Also, the US taxes are at an all time low.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "I have just told you how social security is not in any way, a ponzi scheme."
No, you've just made it clear you have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is or what makes it fail.
"It is in fact a pay-as-you-go insurance system."
It's not insurance! It's an annuity! Why do people not get that?
The ONLY reason Social Security lasts longer than other Ponzi schemes is because government can take the money by force. Let us opt out and watch it crash!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Actually I have.
Because it's not?
The biggest lie being told about Social Security is that it is going broke and that Social Security is in crisis. The fact is, there is no crisis. Social Security will have a 4.3 trillion dollar surplus by 2023 and can pay out all scheduled payments for decades without any changes at all. By 2037, the trust fund could still make 75% of pay outs without any changes to the system.
How? Taxes?
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "The fact is, there is no crisis."
Tell that to the GAO. Tell that to every accounting expert who's studied it.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Don't you just love it when the cultists don't even watch the videos they attempt to refute?
vspqbd 8 months ago
@vspqbd And then claim to have watched them, while not being able to say the first thing about them.
I really, really don't understand the cultist mentality.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
I actually have watched the video. Thanks for the needless assumption making.
Nice move, but I'm not the one worshiping the free market as the answer to all problems and pointing the finger of blame to the government and that somehow everything government does is "wrong". The Wall Street fatcats love you too.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "I actually have watched the video. Thanks for the needless assumption making."
I reached the CONCLUSION (NOT the assumption) that you hadn't watched it because you cannot speak intelligently about the content the video provides, nor can you answer the central question running throughout. If you have watched it, you're an even bigger dogmatist than I thought you were! I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt there!
Can you answer the question or not?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk
Unfortunately, your conclusion was off. I did watch your video and it was nothing more than a tirade against social security and how its a "ponzi scheme" when it most certainly is not. I have actually. I have engaged in civil debate without resorting to childish name calling ("cultist", "dogmatist") or making stupid assumptions. You have not shown me how privatization would make anyone better off other than the wealthy.
What was the question? There is no question in the video.
Cookaloka 8 months ago
@Cookaloka "and how its a "ponzi scheme" when it most certainly is not."
I explained in detail how it is! Can you refute that or not?
"You have not shown me how privatization would make anyone better off other than the wealthy."
Yes, I have, you just continually ignore the facts. That's why you're a dogmatist!
"What was the question? There is no question in the video."
Then you're a LIAR. The question was asked THROUGHOUT BOTH PARTS. Watch it or STFU.
shanedk 8 months ago <