"We have seen the most dramatic increase in the standard of living that has ever taken place in history." - This was the result of increased SOCIALISM amongst working people in the 20th century US, which is why the sudden decrease we see now is leading to a spreading wealth gap.
This is like an socio-economic version of VenomFangX .....
I feel that the video here on Youtube titled "Noam Chomsky: Is Capitalism Making Life Better?" offers the best critique of the argument made in this video. I believe he does a far better job of explaining the criticisms of this argument than I could, especially in this limited space.
@Thesterness What I advocate is for individuals to have the right to own themselves, the property they acquire through trade, and the property they acquire through mixing their labor with previously unowned resources. How is this slavery?
The problem is that you could make the same argument for serfs. They ostensibly own themselves and can acquire property. The problem is that their means of survival are controlled by another. In serfdom, it is the serf's lord. In capitalism, it is the capitalist. In both systems, the labour of the serf or worker is exploited, and the serf or worker has no say in the matter. He must either agree to the exploitation, or face starvation.
@Thesterness Let's say I picked an apple. I then offer to give you my apple if you tell a joke. Am I exploiting you? Am I making you my wage slave by only giving you just barely enough sustenance to survive for a day? You advocate that you should have the right to take my apple against my will, do you not?
The analogy has a weakness. In capitalism, it would be more like this; a worker picks an apple in a capitalist's orchard. The apple is automatically the property of the capitalist, who sells it back to the worker. The worker has done all the work in picking the apple, but the capitalist owns it merely because he owns the land. He need do no work, and yet he can still take the value of the worker's labor merely by virtue of his ownership.
Now, I feel that it would be better if the person who owned the land also worked the land, i.e. the workers control the means of production. That way, everyone would have to work, and no-one could make a living merely because they own capital and can take the surplus value made by the laborers.
Capital isn't just something that arises from nowhere. Someone had to invest into it. If I bought a bunch of land in the hopes I could grow an orchard, is it really fair for you to steal fruit from the land I paid for just because you did the work in picking it? Of course not.
@matako07 Did I say that we've experienced the smallest wealth gap in history? Or that we've experienced the largest increase in the standard of living in history? Of course, when I say everyone, I'm meaning everyone the industrial revolution has affected. I'm not meaning everyone who may have been killed by governments, etc. Are you really going to argue that you have a worse standard of living now than you would have had 100 years ago?
LeftPolitiko, Marx plainly failed at economics because he thought that humans have an intrinsic value tied to the currency, it is called the LTV, it is a failed idea that has never worked anywhere. A wage is decided by numerous factors not by the person's worth to the company.
Actually Marx has a term for the numerous factors. He calls them constant capital.
All he was saying is that capitalism isn't sustainable enough to be around. Very likely to the feodal society that had been before the industrial society.
And with that being said it would probably take as long for a socialist society to evolve from a capitalist as it took from feodal to industrial.
The Marxist theory of social change is centered around over-accumulation and systemic crisis rather than wages per se. I think many of your assumptions are false: E.g. more capital = higher wages. E.g. technological change/advance is the sole product of "inventors." E.g. that 20th century experiments necessarily exhaust the Marxist/socialist paradigm; even if Marx was wrong (or really wrong) about the exact end date of capitalism, that's no reason to support capitalism.
@Ilikenuman So Qwen Baby I see that the evil little Troll in you is still trying to appear clever whilst you threaten to block me AGAIN at the very same point in time at least you cannot block me or delete my indignation towards your cyberstalking of my family in other people's channels EH pervert?
@Ilikenuman BULLSHIT Qwen Baby YOU deleted every word of the spit and chew between the FED Francis X. O'Meara and I weeks ago. Hell you blocked me for a while over a month ago and suggested that all your sicko pals do the same after you deleted all your nasty videos about me when the RCMP shill Dirty Dicky Dean made you shit your pinko commie pampers. Once I ethically informed you as to who was making a fool out you reloaded you videos without the old comments and attacked my family AGAIN
@Ilikenuman YOU just made a a Grande Faux Pas N'esy Pas Qwen Baby aka DeathtotheOnesYouLove etc? You bullshit about Desert Eagles and fine sniping rifles but showed your arse bigyme when you forgot the ID you are using as you lament my trolling of you . Too funny EH Mr Baconfat?
WorshipSatan666s has posted a comment on your profile: Stop stalking me to other peoples channels. They don't care about you David. Next time you make an accusation bring some proof. I never threatend your life.
@Ilikenuman BTW I just had a very good talk with the personal assistant in the Private Office of Edward Garnier QC MP. Phone: 011 44 20 7271 2406. Email: privateoffice@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk Other Brit parliamentarians told me he was the goto guy within the Attorney General's office across the pond who does the same sort of job Vic Toews QC MP should be doing over here. The Brits welcomed my emails Seems everybody loves money and not many people other than Qwen Baby love Mr Baconfat EH?
after what i've seen, i think the healthcare debate is a circular argument that leads to one place, sitting there comatose waiting to die while some nurse cleans your ass on overtime and a doctor who knows you are toast making his "rounds" counting down the seconds until he gets to meet his hooker/girlfriend/mistress .
who pays for all this save the world ideology, not the politicians, the sucker taxpayers.
Another thing with the machines. If a capitalist has a choice between hiring 100 workers at $3 an hour, or using a machine at an equivalent cost of $4, he will choose the workers (assuming the product is identical).
However, if a minimum wage is set of $5 an hour, he will choose the machine, not only putting the workers out of a job, but also meaning that the less efficient option has been chosen, making everybody poorer in the long run.
If the socialist idea that capitalists simply benefit from their ownership of lots of things, and actually don't contribute to the productive process was true, then Marx would indeed be correct in saying that socialism is inevitable.
In order to stay afloat, businesses need to keep their prices as low as possible, since the capitalist adds nothing to the business, his wage would have to be reduced in order to compete effectively.
Anarcho-Free Market Capitalism for the win, its the only economic system, that works in the long term. The idea, that machines or 'cheap' labor will replace all work, its false, because labor will be required no matter how advanced society is, and the more technology, enables more quality, and cheaper prices. As we advance more, our money would buy more for the same value or less, unless you have a government involved in the currency market.
My speakers are horrid, I can barely understand what you are saying. I'm sure it was something logical and rational, something bigots like socialists just don't have.
and now for your closing point, Jacob. Consider a public library for a moment, if you would please. The government allocates the land, the funds to build it and the wages of the employees. late fees go directly towards acquiring more books, music, art, etc - and the community can still donate. Library grows, all the government did was start it up and make sure it is sustainable. what the society doesn't need, the market pushes forward. Jobs' innovation wouldn't have halted, you are wrong.
"what the society doesn't need, the market pushes forward"
You mean, the market sells us things that we "don't need"? Since anything the market sells is purchased voluntarily, by definition, anything that sells, is something people want and as such, is needed, one way or another. You and I may not like and/or want some of those things, but many other people certainly do.
@Akatam0t0ma again, a red herring. this time a semantical one. "want" and "need" have two different operational definitions - especially as it relates to a market. though it is possible to want something you need, it is also possible to need something you don't want or want something you don't need. when you realize this, get back to me and maybe you can bring up something relevant for a change.
One difference is that, whereas want can be objectively observed as a category of human action, need will forever remain in the twilit, Hegel-like mess of political metaphysics.
@PanzerDivisionBOM I think that's a good thing, though. Every society and culture has a different set of needs. So while I'd advocate democratic socialism, I would add that it would work best in smaller populations (norway, england, france) than on the scape of a large melting pot (the USA as a whole) - that way the "needs" are more definable and are relevant to the population itself.
So need is, in your reckoning, a property of certain, specific aggregates of individuals, which is causally unrelated to the preferences of the individuals making up that aggregate, and which is not observable in or implied by the actions of volitional human beings.
And you think that it's this lattermost quality, which makes it suitable as a basis of ethical prescriptions?
@PanzerDivisionBOM negative. I consider a need to be that which is a baseline requirement for success. education is a good example to use here - i could also argue health. it is tied to the individuals and the society - the government, as it does in Norway, should be the administrative branch of that society and nothing more.
The category of "baseline requirement" is profoundly anti-empirical, because there's no way to test whether a person or aggregate which does not meet your definition of success would have done so under different circumstances.
What constitutes success, and is it possible to distinguish with certitude what is or is not a baseline requirement for it, either before or after the fact?
@PanzerDivisionBOM well, perhaps i used the wrong word. allow me to give you a chain. To survive where I live, you need shelter and food - so we have homeless shelters and soup kitchens... but to afford this, you need a job - so we have public facilities that work exclusively on helping the unemployed get employed. to get a job for that, you need a grade 12 education, so we have public schools. it goes on and on like that so you have the means publicly, but your destiny is still your own.
Your latest example suggests a different usage of the word than your original prescription. Before, you were indicating need as a category analogous to but distinct from wants, but now you are using it in the traditional means-ends framework.
Is it the case that I "need" whatever means are necessary for me to attain some specific set of potential ends? If so, how do you determine which potential ends those are?
@PanzerDivisionBOM yes, but those potential ends are merely sufficiency and sustainability. in other words, you need the means to survive in the world. so we provide the means to enter the marketplace, in this example. once you're there, it's the same clusterfuck free-for-all as capitalism - the only difference is that we've prepared you and will ensure you will not literally die.
Most ethical prescriptions fail tests of internal consistency or justification, but yours is unique in my experience in being literally indescribable.
I'm no longer interested in understanding what you advocate. Thank you for your time.
Yes, I do know that "want" and "need" are not the same thing, even if they are strongly intertwined. So who's gonna decide what the market should produce in accordance with the people's need? Should a group of all-wise Platonic philosopher-rulers have the power to ban the production of things they deem as such that we "don't need"?
@Akatam0t0ma yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. word for word, taken straight out of my mouth. of course, though, because of this my body is comprised entirely of hay. either that or you're not interested in addressing what anyone is actually saying. we're done until you decide to address what i'm actually saying and not whatever the fuck you feel like.
Well, that's what I incurred from your post. If you think the market sells things we don't need, the logical conclusion that it should not sell them, right? So if you think it shouldn't sell them, the logical question that follows is whether the market should be coerced into not selling those things, even if some people may want(But not necessarily need them), or should people be allowed to sell them anyway? Feel free to clarify any misunderstanding I may have had.
@Akatam0t0ma I defined the terms and you refused to acknowledge, your flawed and binary aristotelian model does not coincide with reality, you are over-inflating quote-mines from my posts instead of addressing what i'm saying, you are assuming the position that i have and attempting to argue that instead of the position i've stated, you're wasting my time and, thanks to your insane ramblings, my comments for Jacob will probably not reach him. need I go on?
@jsh78mang probably not as much as i hate people replying to one comment of mine and assuming my personality based on my patience being brought to an end by a 2 page litany of assumption, misrepresentation and red herrings to my points. if people even want to remotely address what i'm saying, i'm more than happy to engage with others respectfully, but when i give my time to a discussion with someone only for the other party to piss on it and troll me, i tend to get irate. :P
@williamcardno Yeah I hate people like that to and this place is rife with them. It's the nature of the best. Do you really talk like that all the time C'mon.
Once again, YOU are the one who is dodging the issues I brought up, not me. You originally said that "what the society doesn't need, the market pushes forward". Unless there was some fail at reading comprehension on my part, my question and points about how to address this alleged problem of yours with the market still stands.
As for "binary aristotelian model", I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I will NOT make unnecessary complications of the issues here.
@williamcardno 'need' is the red herring here. Need implies that there are certain things that people have a categorically different relation to than other things that they value. This is not the case. There are simply things that people value more, and things that people value less. Talk of human 'needs' is empty, unless you really just mean 'things that people tend to value highly' (live, health etc).
@williamcardno Simply saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Everyone. Everyone thought computers would be nothing more than expensive game machines for rich people. Even IBM thought this. And the majority definitely didn't see any need for computers given the investment needed. If the capital qazvin the hands of the majority, he never would have gotten it. If the capital was in the hands of a board of experts, like IBM, he still wouldn't have gotten it.
@JacobSpinney you're approaching the equation wrong, though. in a socialist system, Steve Jobs could have become publicly educated, taken a public course on building a small company (and here, if you take that course, you get hefty relief for starting a company) and then gone on to make the APPLE 2. No need to appeal to anyone but investors. That's how that scenario plays out in democratic socialism, as the "socialist" part is about helping people get into the market.
@williamcardno If investors are able to own capital, then it is by definition not socialism. By definition, then collective must own the means of production.
@JacobSpinney but the collective owns the means of production for education, health, police and fire and roads in most socialist countries. it's not about ALL production in Socialism, it's about WHAT production. This is why Marx went a step beyond and created Communism, in which the collective owns ALL the means of production.
@williamcardno And those are precisely the areas I'm arguing against. In the socialized areas, innovation is disincentivized and there is no method of calculation so as to know how to most efficiently allocate resources. These are arguments that you simply haven't addressed. Instead of addressing the arguments, you merely point out that in your utopia, the collective wouldn't own the capital in electronics. But the points still stand in all the areas the collective does own the capital in.
@JacobSpinney I took your contention to referring to socialism as communism. so i once again tried pointing out the difference. and in socialism, the community owns some of the means of production when it comes to education, health, protections... but there's still a market where innovation can take place. I've pointed this out to your multiple times... I'm waiting for you to stop pretending I didn't point this out to you. :P
@williamcardno According to my dictionary, socialism is the collective ownership of capital and communism is the collective ownership of not just capital, but everything else. But that's just minor quibbling. Let's use your definition. The point I have already made before is that yes, in the areas you don't socialize, you will have innovation. But you won't have that equivalent innovation in the areas you do socialize (education, health, protection, etc.) for the reasons I've already given.
@williamcardno You seem to be holding the position that if there is a free market in electronics, then the innovation in that market would somehow bleed over into the socialized areas. That's simply not true. Some real world evidence of the innovative stagnation of socialized areas of the market is to compare the medical innovation in the US to socialized healthcare countries, and there's no comparison whatsoever. The US blows them all out of the water.
@JacobSpinney you have sources for that? most medical advancements come out of EUROPE where the science is taking place - and the science in America is publicly funded for the most part. I have yet to hear of americans doing anything in healthcare that doesn't involve not giving actual healthcare.
@williamcardno Since 1975, the nobel prize in medicine or physiology has been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Of the 10 most important medical innovations, 8 originated in the US. The closest runner up is the UK and Japan . . . which are tied at 2. Source: "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation", Page 192 - tinyurl/usmedicalinnovation
Public research led to 15 of the 21 drugs considered to have the highest therapeutic value introduced between 1965 and 1992
source: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997
60 percent of 32 innovative drugs would not have been discovered or would have taken much longer to discover without research contributions from government labs and noncommercial institutions.
source: Drug Discovery: A Casebook and Analysis - Maxwell/Eckhardt, 1990
@billburns2 This is exactly the problem with statistics and why I prefer backing up my positions with sound reasoning rather than statistics. Because you can always find statistics on either side. What these sources are neglecting is the stifling effect that the FDA has on drug innovation in the first place. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the FDA's arbitrary rules not only in direct expense, but also in money lost due to the FDA holding the drug off the market.
If you can find alternative statistics then you need to use them. Anyone that eschews statistical data in preference to the "it's just common sense" argument loses all credibility.
I mean of course the Earth is stationary, otherwise we'd all fly off the planet. Forget science, it's just common sense,right?
@billburns2 I am not appealing to common sense. I am appealing to deductive reasoning. If a businesses goal is profit, then it will pursue the courses of action it believes to be profitable. The government can and does indeed, through various means, make actions that were once profitable to become unprofitable. Therefore, the business seeking profits would no longer pursue the course it otherwise would have due to government intervention. There is no need for statistics. It is self evident.
No, you are defending faux "logic" that clashes with empirical evidence. It's more ridiculous to discard evidence over theory than the other way around. That's like ignoring Galileo's observations in favor of Ptolemy's deductive reasoning
@billburns2 Let's say the statistics we have cited are both valid. Both of them lead to opposing conclusions. Both conclusions cannot be correct. It can only be one or the other. Why then do you support this statistical model which can be used to support either side? Galileo's observations WERE a form of deductive reasoning!!!
They lead to opposing conclusions because your attempts at analysis fail.
You cite the number of US Nobel prize winners and drug innovations originating from the US, making the assumption that all the above are in private enterprise. They aren't. When your error is pointed out through some data you don't like, your response is "I prefer sound reasoning"
@billburns2 Excuse me, but I started with the sound reasoning. I explained exactly why a free market offers more innovation. THEN someone asked for statistics. THEN i offered them. What is your rationale behind why you think a socialistic system would have better innovation, even without any profit motive and far more restricted capital?
@billburns2 I was not meaning to imply that you are advocating for all out socialism. But in respect to healthcare, you are indeed advocating for socialistic healthcare, or at least government intervention in the field of healthcare, are you not?
Please, define the healthcare system you advocate and why it would have more innovation than a free market healthcare system. Would there be a profit motive? Would there be private ownership of capital in the healthcare field?
@billburns2 To add to that, I don't consider calling something socialism poisoning the well anymore than calling something capitalism. Socialism is merely the public ownership of capital, whereas capitalism is the private ownership of capital. Any stereotypes someone may have of these terms is not on my shoulders.
@billburns2 No. Your analysis fails, because you do not have any solid footing of reason by which to base your statistical conclusions. Let's assume your second statistic (appeal to authority) is correct and the US would have produced 60% less innovations if it weren't for government subsidization. If you take 60% off of the US from my statistics I cited, then EVEN THEN it's still number one in innovation.
But you'd have 60% less drugs on the market, right? Which is at odds with the Libby claim that Govt. kills people because it insists on regulating drugs that might actually kill people.
@billburns2 Red herring. The argument was that the US' corporatist model has more innovation than socialistic systems with or without government subsidization. To say "well government subsidization makes even more innovation" is to completely ignore the point.
Do you acknowledge that even if the US had 60% less innovation, it would still have more innovation the other countries? If yes, then your statistic does not back up the socialistic position like you claim it does. If no, then back it up.
No, I don't. Without any benchmarks you can't make that claim at all.
For example if 1000 new drugs originate in the US and 900 from publicly funded UHC systems, then taking 60% off leaves 400 new drugs, which is, um, less than 900, right?
Your quotes on "US Healthcare System" are also misleading as you conveniently overlook the innovations where the US is co-cited as being a country of origin. The US can only stake a full claim to 3 out of the top 10.
@billburns2 I'm more than happy talking to you about whether the government giving even more money for R&D is a good or bad thing. But that is a different subject.
Right now we are addressing the subject of whether a system based on a profit motive where capital is easily obtainable creates more or less innovation than a system that is not based on a profit motive where capital is less easily obtainable. Please stay on topic.
Like most Libby arguments that end with the predictable conclusion:
Market Good
Government Bad
You are required to over-simplify, ignore contrary data and make some pretty big leaps of faith in order to show that laissez faire is the One System To Rule Them All
@billburns2 It is ridiculous to base conclusions on statistics when you have deductive reasoning as an option. Are you really advocating that the way we tell if the earth is flat or not is take a statistical population poll? Rather than, say, plant two sticks in the ground in various places and measure if their shadows are in accordance with a flat earth or spherical one?
@billburns2 If the cost of producing the drug is less than the expected gross profit minus the FDA's costs, then that drug simply will not be produced. Also, due to no taxation in a free market, peoples incomes would be two or even three times as much, thus vastly increasing a drug companies profit motive for creating drugs than what it is currently.
So if a private company won't develop a drug if there is no profit, surely that's an argument for publicly funded drug R&D?
We all have two or three times as much money as we did in the 1970s - however prices have also risen by the same amount. That's how pricing works in the free market.
@billburns2 No. That's an argument for people to voluntarily decide if they would like to donate to such a cause or not. It is not an argument for mass theft, because some arbitrary person made the arbitrary decision that people should spend their money on this rather than something else.
No. Prices continually become cheaper in the free market. Who creates the money? Is it the free market or the federal reserve?
Ah - you mean voluntarily funded drug R&D. Plese let me know which charity has the financial clout to fork out the millions reuired to do that. My deductive reasoning suggests that there aren't any
@billburns2 St. Jude's Childrens Hospital. Cancer Research Institute. You name it, there's a charity for it. Charities would receive far more money to spend if it weren't due to government crowding out. I can use deductive reasoning to prove this too, if you'd like.
Not really. Drug companies have a very high profit margin of about 25%. They could spend far more on RandD but there is no need to when the Government provides such a significant proportion.
So either the drug industry is so lucrative that is can still turn a 25% margin even after spending millions on developing new product, more millions on FDA compliance and even more millions in marketing
or
They are downtrodden entrepreneurs who manadge to survive despite evil government erecting unreasonable barriers to entry in the form of FDA licensing.
@billburns2 But voluntary funding IS a profit motive. The fact that they are making money by selling a consumer product or that they are making money simply by researching makes no difference to them.
In the case of Big Pharma, it is probably more of the former than the latter. They also benefit from the huge amount of regulation, since it can drive out smaller competitors.
Drug companies defend their pricing strategies by pointing to the cost of developing new product and like to infer that FDA approval is a big chunk of it.
Trouble is, none of them want to make their finacial data public, so we just have to take their word for it.
Are they factoring in the cost of the thousands of drugs that don't make it to market?
Also, up to 70% of development costs for AIDS drugs are funded by the govt. Are they adding those figures to the total cost too?
Yes, I don't really buy the FDA stifles innovation argument. Drug Companies have spent in excess of 900 million on lobbying alone over the last 10 years so I doubt they are struggling to create the funds for such projects.
Though thousands of drugs don't make it to market, very few of those drugs rarely even make it onto human testing. That is where it becomes very expensive. Most are dropped at the animal testing stage. In fact, most are slight derivatives of old drugs.
@williamcardno The library is a wonderful example. How do we know that the money the government spent on the library Would have been spent on a better use by the individuals the goverent extorted the money from? This is a great example of focusing on the visible, but ignoring the unseen. Please look up the broken window fallacy.
@JacobSpinney Can you extort money from a voluntary group? the public says "we need a library, so here is the money - make it fucking happen. certainly, money could be spent on other things - but you are misreading the pecking order I am presenting. We've discussed this at great length aswell. The government does one thing well - administration. it should be there to execute the demands of the people and provide the expenses required as figures before the public "invests". nothing more.
@williamcardno government sucks at administration dude. You know how much more they spend than the private sector to accomplish things? Holy fuck talk about drinking the kool aid.
@williamcardno If it's a voluntary group, then why is taxation mandatory? If we want to have a library so bad, the TRUE voluntary way to create it would be donating to a charity that would start one up. The government does not do administration well whatsoever. It is a monopoly. Therefore, by its very nature, everything it does is expensive and wasteful.
@JacobSpinney the conversation would go down like such in regards to taxation:
PEOPLE: We want a fucking library
GOVERNMENT: It will cost x to hire the construction crew and y to staff it. This is what it would cost per individual. are you sure you want to do this?
i agree with this, who is it that says i should pay for something i may never use. if this system of taxation was fair, you wouldn't assume i will use that library, but i will willingly pay to frequent it if i need too. nope, taxation is mainly about assumption, they assume i will utilize that facility, so as to justify taking part of my income.
if i no longer go to school and i don;t have children that use that school, why should i pay to maintain it.
@williamcardno No. That is not how taxation works. In reality, you have 51% of these "people" saying yes and 49% of these "people" saying no, and that now means that the 51% get to decide how to spend the 49%'s money.
I'm all for the 51% deciding how to spend its money however it pleases. But leave the nonconsenting parties alone and stop stealing their money.
If you do advocate for the voluntary option, then having a government is meaningless, as a charity can easily do this task just as well.
@JacobSpinney "taking taxes at gunpoint", the common anarchist argument, does not have relevancy to Marxism or to the particular brand of socialism I subscribe to. :P
Yes, it is indeed the common "anarchist" argument, and it is very valid too, because in the system which you currently live in you probably WILL get shot if you resist going to prison for not paying the taxes the government demands from you, and no amount of sophistry and emotional appeals will change this fact of life.
So if this does not apply to the "particular brand of socialism" you claim to subscribe to, will people have the choice to not pay taxes in your system?
Well, instead of beating around the bush, you can always set me straight and explain what I didn't understand. I know statists tend to get very defensive when confronted with the rational conclusions of their worldview. I know that, because I had to go through that process too, which ultimately lead me to my current position.
@williamcardno Would a worker living in the territory claimed by a marxist state be free to use the entire product of his labour exactly as he saw fit? Or would part of it be taken from him under threat of force?
only 1:30 in so far, and can already see something i should point out to you. Currently, while wages are rising slowly, cost of living is rising quicker and quicker. I was just having this convo the other day where living expenses are too high for people to work for 9 dollars an hour full time. I would consider this what Marx was talking about. Watching rest of the vid now.
That's not a red-herring, that's a simple FACT which explains precisely the increase of prices, which is a direct result of inflation, which reduces the buying power of the currency.
@Akatam0t0ma you have yet to explain why that isn't affecting the wages - since capitalism has no traces of worker exploitation for greater profits. when you do that, i will know then that hell as frozen to an icy haze and Satan will be skating to work.
How do you expect the employers to pay more if the value of their currency decreases?
If you don't want the cost of living to rise faster than the wages, maybe you should consider complaining to the government(s) to stop inflating and devaluing the currency, instead of blaming the big bad kapitalists for all of our social ills. But even with that, the standards of living are continuously increasing, mostly thanks to capitalist competition, and NOT due to gov regulations.
@williamcardno Rising costs are due to inflation. Inflation is caused by governments. But as for the standard of living, I think you have forgotten the way in which we've lived for hundreds of thousands of years until now. We have toilets. We have electricity. We have running water. We have more food than we could ever eat. The poorest among us are living better than the kings of a few thousand years ago.
"The poorest among us are living better than the kings of a few thousand years ago"
Few thousands?! You're going way too far back, Jake. In the world history course I took, the example of King Louis the XIV was brought up as an example to how great people live today compared with the 18th century(Considering all the commodities he lacked back then which are so easily available to us all, even to many in the less developed parts of our world) when he died, lol.
Why you fail:
"[Marx] had no understanding of economics."
"Capitalism would inevitably lead to Marxism."
"We have seen the most dramatic increase in the standard of living that has ever taken place in history." - This was the result of increased SOCIALISM amongst working people in the 20th century US, which is why the sudden decrease we see now is leading to a spreading wealth gap.
This is like an socio-economic version of VenomFangX .....
michaelwuzthere 3 months ago
um Karl marx was an economics proffesor lol.
heylelshalem 1 year ago
@heylelshalem LOL
ProDCloud 8 months ago
@heylelshalem Economics historian.
noelsoong777 5 months ago
I feel that the video here on Youtube titled "Noam Chomsky: Is Capitalism Making Life Better?" offers the best critique of the argument made in this video. I believe he does a far better job of explaining the criticisms of this argument than I could, especially in this limited space.
Thesterness 1 year ago
@Thesterness What I advocate is for individuals to have the right to own themselves, the property they acquire through trade, and the property they acquire through mixing their labor with previously unowned resources. How is this slavery?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
The problem is that you could make the same argument for serfs. They ostensibly own themselves and can acquire property. The problem is that their means of survival are controlled by another. In serfdom, it is the serf's lord. In capitalism, it is the capitalist. In both systems, the labour of the serf or worker is exploited, and the serf or worker has no say in the matter. He must either agree to the exploitation, or face starvation.
Thesterness 1 year ago
@Thesterness Are you saying that you have a right to others labor? Is this not the very definition of slavery?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
Huh? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from reading my last post.
Thesterness 1 year ago
@Thesterness Let's say I picked an apple. I then offer to give you my apple if you tell a joke. Am I exploiting you? Am I making you my wage slave by only giving you just barely enough sustenance to survive for a day? You advocate that you should have the right to take my apple against my will, do you not?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
The analogy has a weakness. In capitalism, it would be more like this; a worker picks an apple in a capitalist's orchard. The apple is automatically the property of the capitalist, who sells it back to the worker. The worker has done all the work in picking the apple, but the capitalist owns it merely because he owns the land. He need do no work, and yet he can still take the value of the worker's labor merely by virtue of his ownership.
Thesterness 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
Now, I feel that it would be better if the person who owned the land also worked the land, i.e. the workers control the means of production. That way, everyone would have to work, and no-one could make a living merely because they own capital and can take the surplus value made by the laborers.
Thesterness 1 year ago
@Thesterness
Capital isn't just something that arises from nowhere. Someone had to invest into it. If I bought a bunch of land in the hopes I could grow an orchard, is it really fair for you to steal fruit from the land I paid for just because you did the work in picking it? Of course not.
HelplessVictim 1 year ago
one day all these delusions about "moving on to more productive jobs" will be formalized into a Mental Illness similar to schizophrenia.
It might be called Free (Market) Mentia or marketmentia.
The delusion that world wide,spiraling poverty and social decay is actually an improvement of living standards.
I'd like to drag this guys smug ass into the barios of City Soleil and take a close look into the eyes of these children.
matako07 1 year ago
"the most dramatic increase in the standard of living of EVERYONE-that has ever taken place in history" ?
What planet does this fuck live on?
The gap between the rich and the poor is a yawning black whole.
Did this retard not hear about the total collapse of the U.S. Economy?
the recent collapse made the quadrillion dollar disasters of the S&L scams of the 1980's look like small hiccup...and it'll only get worse.
What kind of GLUE are you sniffing?
matako07 1 year ago
@matako07 Did I say that we've experienced the smallest wealth gap in history? Or that we've experienced the largest increase in the standard of living in history? Of course, when I say everyone, I'm meaning everyone the industrial revolution has affected. I'm not meaning everyone who may have been killed by governments, etc. Are you really going to argue that you have a worse standard of living now than you would have had 100 years ago?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
LeftPolitiko, Marx plainly failed at economics because he thought that humans have an intrinsic value tied to the currency, it is called the LTV, it is a failed idea that has never worked anywhere. A wage is decided by numerous factors not by the person's worth to the company.
Und3ad666 1 year ago
@Und3ad666
Actually Marx has a term for the numerous factors. He calls them constant capital.
All he was saying is that capitalism isn't sustainable enough to be around. Very likely to the feodal society that had been before the industrial society.
And with that being said it would probably take as long for a socialist society to evolve from a capitalist as it took from feodal to industrial.
Bejdabi 1 year ago
The Marxist theory of social change is centered around over-accumulation and systemic crisis rather than wages per se. I think many of your assumptions are false: E.g. more capital = higher wages. E.g. technological change/advance is the sole product of "inventors." E.g. that 20th century experiments necessarily exhaust the Marxist/socialist paradigm; even if Marx was wrong (or really wrong) about the exact end date of capitalism, that's no reason to support capitalism.
mikem1234 1 year ago
Marx had no understanding of economics.
My mind has been blown.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Marx wrote many volumes on economics. What do you mean when you say that Marx didn't have any understanding on economics?
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago
marx was completely wrong about wages. he thought that they would always descrease. they often do, but not always.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman So Qwen Baby I see that the evil little Troll in you is still trying to appear clever whilst you threaten to block me AGAIN at the very same point in time at least you cannot block me or delete my indignation towards your cyberstalking of my family in other people's channels EH pervert?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos
ive not deleted your indignation.
and i didnt threaten to block you i just contemplated it.
and i never harassed your kids.
and im not trying to appear clever, im just more clever than you and that makes you feel intimidated.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman BULLSHIT Qwen Baby YOU deleted every word of the spit and chew between the FED Francis X. O'Meara and I weeks ago. Hell you blocked me for a while over a month ago and suggested that all your sicko pals do the same after you deleted all your nasty videos about me when the RCMP shill Dirty Dicky Dean made you shit your pinko commie pampers. Once I ethically informed you as to who was making a fool out you reloaded you videos without the old comments and attacked my family AGAIN
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman YOU just made a a Grande Faux Pas N'esy Pas Qwen Baby aka DeathtotheOnesYouLove etc? You bullshit about Desert Eagles and fine sniping rifles but showed your arse bigyme when you forgot the ID you are using as you lament my trolling of you . Too funny EH Mr Baconfat?
WorshipSatan666s has posted a comment on your profile: Stop stalking me to other peoples channels. They don't care about you David. Next time you make an accusation bring some proof. I never threatend your life.
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@DavidRaymondAmos
what are you talking about?
you think were the same person?
jesus christ
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman BTW I just had a very good talk with the personal assistant in the Private Office of Edward Garnier QC MP. Phone: 011 44 20 7271 2406. Email: privateoffice@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk Other Brit parliamentarians told me he was the goto guy within the Attorney General's office across the pond who does the same sort of job Vic Toews QC MP should be doing over here. The Brits welcomed my emails Seems everybody loves money and not many people other than Qwen Baby love Mr Baconfat EH?
DavidRaymondAmos 1 year ago
@Ilikenuman not true. where did he say this?
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago
Awful video. I'm going to make a response.
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago
Great video but you only scratched the surface.
spol07 1 year ago
after what i've seen, i think the healthcare debate is a circular argument that leads to one place, sitting there comatose waiting to die while some nurse cleans your ass on overtime and a doctor who knows you are toast making his "rounds" counting down the seconds until he gets to meet his hooker/girlfriend/mistress .
who pays for all this save the world ideology, not the politicians, the sucker taxpayers.
jvforever72 1 year ago
@WorshipSatan666s you're right. but i wanted to be purposefully vague to fuck with him. ;P
williamcardno 1 year ago
Another thing with the machines. If a capitalist has a choice between hiring 100 workers at $3 an hour, or using a machine at an equivalent cost of $4, he will choose the workers (assuming the product is identical).
However, if a minimum wage is set of $5 an hour, he will choose the machine, not only putting the workers out of a job, but also meaning that the less efficient option has been chosen, making everybody poorer in the long run.
sharperguy 1 year ago
If the socialist idea that capitalists simply benefit from their ownership of lots of things, and actually don't contribute to the productive process was true, then Marx would indeed be correct in saying that socialism is inevitable.
In order to stay afloat, businesses need to keep their prices as low as possible, since the capitalist adds nothing to the business, his wage would have to be reduced in order to compete effectively.
sharperguy 1 year ago
i wonder if dasamericantheist will change his mind
return135 1 year ago
Nice.
theowarner 1 year ago
Anarcho-Free Market Capitalism for the win, its the only economic system, that works in the long term. The idea, that machines or 'cheap' labor will replace all work, its false, because labor will be required no matter how advanced society is, and the more technology, enables more quality, and cheaper prices. As we advance more, our money would buy more for the same value or less, unless you have a government involved in the currency market.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
My speakers are horrid, I can barely understand what you are saying. I'm sure it was something logical and rational, something bigots like socialists just don't have.
reapfreak 1 year ago
Try enjoying your vacation jacob :D
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago
i think many poeple could argue that standard of living in America may have changed but not got better
kainniak1 1 year ago
and now for your closing point, Jacob. Consider a public library for a moment, if you would please. The government allocates the land, the funds to build it and the wages of the employees. late fees go directly towards acquiring more books, music, art, etc - and the community can still donate. Library grows, all the government did was start it up and make sure it is sustainable. what the society doesn't need, the market pushes forward. Jobs' innovation wouldn't have halted, you are wrong.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
"what the society doesn't need, the market pushes forward"
You mean, the market sells us things that we "don't need"? Since anything the market sells is purchased voluntarily, by definition, anything that sells, is something people want and as such, is needed, one way or another. You and I may not like and/or want some of those things, but many other people certainly do.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma again, a red herring. this time a semantical one. "want" and "need" have two different operational definitions - especially as it relates to a market. though it is possible to want something you need, it is also possible to need something you don't want or want something you don't need. when you realize this, get back to me and maybe you can bring up something relevant for a change.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno
So true.
One difference is that, whereas want can be objectively observed as a category of human action, need will forever remain in the twilit, Hegel-like mess of political metaphysics.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM I think that's a good thing, though. Every society and culture has a different set of needs. So while I'd advocate democratic socialism, I would add that it would work best in smaller populations (norway, england, france) than on the scape of a large melting pot (the USA as a whole) - that way the "needs" are more definable and are relevant to the population itself.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno
So need is, in your reckoning, a property of certain, specific aggregates of individuals, which is causally unrelated to the preferences of the individuals making up that aggregate, and which is not observable in or implied by the actions of volitional human beings.
And you think that it's this lattermost quality, which makes it suitable as a basis of ethical prescriptions?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM negative. I consider a need to be that which is a baseline requirement for success. education is a good example to use here - i could also argue health. it is tied to the individuals and the society - the government, as it does in Norway, should be the administrative branch of that society and nothing more.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno
Your definition only begs further questions.
The category of "baseline requirement" is profoundly anti-empirical, because there's no way to test whether a person or aggregate which does not meet your definition of success would have done so under different circumstances.
What constitutes success, and is it possible to distinguish with certitude what is or is not a baseline requirement for it, either before or after the fact?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM well, perhaps i used the wrong word. allow me to give you a chain. To survive where I live, you need shelter and food - so we have homeless shelters and soup kitchens... but to afford this, you need a job - so we have public facilities that work exclusively on helping the unemployed get employed. to get a job for that, you need a grade 12 education, so we have public schools. it goes on and on like that so you have the means publicly, but your destiny is still your own.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno *To afford this on your own (ie: be self-sufficient)
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno
Your latest example suggests a different usage of the word than your original prescription. Before, you were indicating need as a category analogous to but distinct from wants, but now you are using it in the traditional means-ends framework.
Is it the case that I "need" whatever means are necessary for me to attain some specific set of potential ends? If so, how do you determine which potential ends those are?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM yes, but those potential ends are merely sufficiency and sustainability. in other words, you need the means to survive in the world. so we provide the means to enter the marketplace, in this example. once you're there, it's the same clusterfuck free-for-all as capitalism - the only difference is that we've prepared you and will ensure you will not literally die.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno
Are you now saying that the category of need consists of all things which can be used to prolong the life processes of a human body?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM no, merely preventing death by being fucked by the system.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno
Most ethical prescriptions fail tests of internal consistency or justification, but yours is unique in my experience in being literally indescribable.
I'm no longer interested in understanding what you advocate. Thank you for your time.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
Yes, I do know that "want" and "need" are not the same thing, even if they are strongly intertwined. So who's gonna decide what the market should produce in accordance with the people's need? Should a group of all-wise Platonic philosopher-rulers have the power to ban the production of things they deem as such that we "don't need"?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. word for word, taken straight out of my mouth. of course, though, because of this my body is comprised entirely of hay. either that or you're not interested in addressing what anyone is actually saying. we're done until you decide to address what i'm actually saying and not whatever the fuck you feel like.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
Well, that's what I incurred from your post. If you think the market sells things we don't need, the logical conclusion that it should not sell them, right? So if you think it shouldn't sell them, the logical question that follows is whether the market should be coerced into not selling those things, even if some people may want(But not necessarily need them), or should people be allowed to sell them anyway? Feel free to clarify any misunderstanding I may have had.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma I defined the terms and you refused to acknowledge, your flawed and binary aristotelian model does not coincide with reality, you are over-inflating quote-mines from my posts instead of addressing what i'm saying, you are assuming the position that i have and attempting to argue that instead of the position i've stated, you're wasting my time and, thanks to your insane ramblings, my comments for Jacob will probably not reach him. need I go on?
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno I hate when people like you act like upity intellectual assholes. I go on? really ?
jsh78mang 1 year ago
@jsh78mang probably not as much as i hate people replying to one comment of mine and assuming my personality based on my patience being brought to an end by a 2 page litany of assumption, misrepresentation and red herrings to my points. if people even want to remotely address what i'm saying, i'm more than happy to engage with others respectfully, but when i give my time to a discussion with someone only for the other party to piss on it and troll me, i tend to get irate. :P
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno Yeah I hate people like that to and this place is rife with them. It's the nature of the best. Do you really talk like that all the time C'mon.
jsh78mang 1 year ago
@jsh78mang only when engaging in "debate" or conflict. - but i rarely do so. only really on Jacob's videos to get that out of my system. lol
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
Once again, YOU are the one who is dodging the issues I brought up, not me. You originally said that "what the society doesn't need, the market pushes forward". Unless there was some fail at reading comprehension on my part, my question and points about how to address this alleged problem of yours with the market still stands.
As for "binary aristotelian model", I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I will NOT make unnecessary complications of the issues here.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@williamcardno 'need' is the red herring here. Need implies that there are certain things that people have a categorically different relation to than other things that they value. This is not the case. There are simply things that people value more, and things that people value less. Talk of human 'needs' is empty, unless you really just mean 'things that people tend to value highly' (live, health etc).
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter "live" should read "life".
bitbutter 1 year ago
@williamcardno Simply saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Everyone. Everyone thought computers would be nothing more than expensive game machines for rich people. Even IBM thought this. And the majority definitely didn't see any need for computers given the investment needed. If the capital qazvin the hands of the majority, he never would have gotten it. If the capital was in the hands of a board of experts, like IBM, he still wouldn't have gotten it.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney you're approaching the equation wrong, though. in a socialist system, Steve Jobs could have become publicly educated, taken a public course on building a small company (and here, if you take that course, you get hefty relief for starting a company) and then gone on to make the APPLE 2. No need to appeal to anyone but investors. That's how that scenario plays out in democratic socialism, as the "socialist" part is about helping people get into the market.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno If investors are able to own capital, then it is by definition not socialism. By definition, then collective must own the means of production.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney but the collective owns the means of production for education, health, police and fire and roads in most socialist countries. it's not about ALL production in Socialism, it's about WHAT production. This is why Marx went a step beyond and created Communism, in which the collective owns ALL the means of production.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno So how has communism worked out the past 100 years? It just hasn't been done right, I assume?
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@williamcardno And those are precisely the areas I'm arguing against. In the socialized areas, innovation is disincentivized and there is no method of calculation so as to know how to most efficiently allocate resources. These are arguments that you simply haven't addressed. Instead of addressing the arguments, you merely point out that in your utopia, the collective wouldn't own the capital in electronics. But the points still stand in all the areas the collective does own the capital in.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I took your contention to referring to socialism as communism. so i once again tried pointing out the difference. and in socialism, the community owns some of the means of production when it comes to education, health, protections... but there's still a market where innovation can take place. I've pointed this out to your multiple times... I'm waiting for you to stop pretending I didn't point this out to you. :P
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno According to my dictionary, socialism is the collective ownership of capital and communism is the collective ownership of not just capital, but everything else. But that's just minor quibbling. Let's use your definition. The point I have already made before is that yes, in the areas you don't socialize, you will have innovation. But you won't have that equivalent innovation in the areas you do socialize (education, health, protection, etc.) for the reasons I've already given.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@williamcardno You seem to be holding the position that if there is a free market in electronics, then the innovation in that market would somehow bleed over into the socialized areas. That's simply not true. Some real world evidence of the innovative stagnation of socialized areas of the market is to compare the medical innovation in the US to socialized healthcare countries, and there's no comparison whatsoever. The US blows them all out of the water.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney you have sources for that? most medical advancements come out of EUROPE where the science is taking place - and the science in America is publicly funded for the most part. I have yet to hear of americans doing anything in healthcare that doesn't involve not giving actual healthcare.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno Since 1975, the nobel prize in medicine or physiology has been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Of the 10 most important medical innovations, 8 originated in the US. The closest runner up is the UK and Japan . . . which are tied at 2. Source: "The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation", Page 192 - tinyurl/usmedicalinnovation
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
Public research led to 15 of the 21 drugs considered to have the highest therapeutic value introduced between 1965 and 1992
source: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997
60 percent of 32 innovative drugs would not have been discovered or would have taken much longer to discover without research contributions from government labs and noncommercial institutions.
source: Drug Discovery: A Casebook and Analysis - Maxwell/Eckhardt, 1990
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 This is exactly the problem with statistics and why I prefer backing up my positions with sound reasoning rather than statistics. Because you can always find statistics on either side. What these sources are neglecting is the stifling effect that the FDA has on drug innovation in the first place. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the FDA's arbitrary rules not only in direct expense, but also in money lost due to the FDA holding the drug off the market.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
If you can find alternative statistics then you need to use them. Anyone that eschews statistical data in preference to the "it's just common sense" argument loses all credibility.
I mean of course the Earth is stationary, otherwise we'd all fly off the planet. Forget science, it's just common sense,right?
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I am not appealing to common sense. I am appealing to deductive reasoning. If a businesses goal is profit, then it will pursue the courses of action it believes to be profitable. The government can and does indeed, through various means, make actions that were once profitable to become unprofitable. Therefore, the business seeking profits would no longer pursue the course it otherwise would have due to government intervention. There is no need for statistics. It is self evident.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
No, you are defending faux "logic" that clashes with empirical evidence. It's more ridiculous to discard evidence over theory than the other way around. That's like ignoring Galileo's observations in favor of Ptolemy's deductive reasoning
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Let's say the statistics we have cited are both valid. Both of them lead to opposing conclusions. Both conclusions cannot be correct. It can only be one or the other. Why then do you support this statistical model which can be used to support either side? Galileo's observations WERE a form of deductive reasoning!!!
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
They lead to opposing conclusions because your attempts at analysis fail.
You cite the number of US Nobel prize winners and drug innovations originating from the US, making the assumption that all the above are in private enterprise. They aren't. When your error is pointed out through some data you don't like, your response is "I prefer sound reasoning"
WTF? Please explain what's "sound" about it
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Excuse me, but I started with the sound reasoning. I explained exactly why a free market offers more innovation. THEN someone asked for statistics. THEN i offered them. What is your rationale behind why you think a socialistic system would have better innovation, even without any profit motive and far more restricted capital?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
False dichotomy:
Free market and Socialism are not the only two choices. The succeses of the western world are due to having a mixed economy.
Your statistics are misleading, yet when faced with that evidence you prefer to poison the well. Take a look at my video "Libertarian Mistakes"
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I was not meaning to imply that you are advocating for all out socialism. But in respect to healthcare, you are indeed advocating for socialistic healthcare, or at least government intervention in the field of healthcare, are you not?
Please, define the healthcare system you advocate and why it would have more innovation than a free market healthcare system. Would there be a profit motive? Would there be private ownership of capital in the healthcare field?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
"you are indeed advocating for socialistic healthcare, or at least government intervention in the field of healthcare, are you not?"
I am indeed. Watch out for a new video on this topic
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 To add to that, I don't consider calling something socialism poisoning the well anymore than calling something capitalism. Socialism is merely the public ownership of capital, whereas capitalism is the private ownership of capital. Any stereotypes someone may have of these terms is not on my shoulders.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@billburns2 No. Your analysis fails, because you do not have any solid footing of reason by which to base your statistical conclusions. Let's assume your second statistic (appeal to authority) is correct and the US would have produced 60% less innovations if it weren't for government subsidization. If you take 60% off of the US from my statistics I cited, then EVEN THEN it's still number one in innovation.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
But you'd have 60% less drugs on the market, right? Which is at odds with the Libby claim that Govt. kills people because it insists on regulating drugs that might actually kill people.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Red herring. The argument was that the US' corporatist model has more innovation than socialistic systems with or without government subsidization. To say "well government subsidization makes even more innovation" is to completely ignore the point.
Do you acknowledge that even if the US had 60% less innovation, it would still have more innovation the other countries? If yes, then your statistic does not back up the socialistic position like you claim it does. If no, then back it up.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
No, I don't. Without any benchmarks you can't make that claim at all.
For example if 1000 new drugs originate in the US and 900 from publicly funded UHC systems, then taking 60% off leaves 400 new drugs, which is, um, less than 900, right?
Your quotes on "US Healthcare System" are also misleading as you conveniently overlook the innovations where the US is co-cited as being a country of origin. The US can only stake a full claim to 3 out of the top 10.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I'm more than happy talking to you about whether the government giving even more money for R&D is a good or bad thing. But that is a different subject.
Right now we are addressing the subject of whether a system based on a profit motive where capital is easily obtainable creates more or less innovation than a system that is not based on a profit motive where capital is less easily obtainable. Please stay on topic.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
Unfortunately the two topics are intertwined.
Like most Libby arguments that end with the predictable conclusion:
Market Good
Government Bad
You are required to over-simplify, ignore contrary data and make some pretty big leaps of faith in order to show that laissez faire is the One System To Rule Them All
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 It is ridiculous to base conclusions on statistics when you have deductive reasoning as an option. Are you really advocating that the way we tell if the earth is flat or not is take a statistical population poll? Rather than, say, plant two sticks in the ground in various places and measure if their shadows are in accordance with a flat earth or spherical one?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@billburns2 If the cost of producing the drug is less than the expected gross profit minus the FDA's costs, then that drug simply will not be produced. Also, due to no taxation in a free market, peoples incomes would be two or even three times as much, thus vastly increasing a drug companies profit motive for creating drugs than what it is currently.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
So if a private company won't develop a drug if there is no profit, surely that's an argument for publicly funded drug R&D?
We all have two or three times as much money as we did in the 1970s - however prices have also risen by the same amount. That's how pricing works in the free market.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 No. That's an argument for people to voluntarily decide if they would like to donate to such a cause or not. It is not an argument for mass theft, because some arbitrary person made the arbitrary decision that people should spend their money on this rather than something else.
No. Prices continually become cheaper in the free market. Who creates the money? Is it the free market or the federal reserve?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
Ah - you mean voluntarily funded drug R&D. Plese let me know which charity has the financial clout to fork out the millions reuired to do that. My deductive reasoning suggests that there aren't any
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 St. Jude's Childrens Hospital. Cancer Research Institute. You name it, there's a charity for it. Charities would receive far more money to spend if it weren't due to government crowding out. I can use deductive reasoning to prove this too, if you'd like.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@billburns2
Not really. Drug companies have a very high profit margin of about 25%. They could spend far more on RandD but there is no need to when the Government provides such a significant proportion.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism
So either the drug industry is so lucrative that is can still turn a 25% margin even after spending millions on developing new product, more millions on FDA compliance and even more millions in marketing
or
They are downtrodden entrepreneurs who manadge to survive despite evil government erecting unreasonable barriers to entry in the form of FDA licensing.
which is it?
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 False dichotomy. If it weren't for the government barriers to entry, they'd be making even higher margins.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
But that wasn't your argument - which was that a lack of profit motive meant that new drugs were not being developed
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 But voluntary funding IS a profit motive. The fact that they are making money by selling a consumer product or that they are making money simply by researching makes no difference to them.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@billburns2
I am not sure why it cannot be both.
In the case of Big Pharma, it is probably more of the former than the latter. They also benefit from the huge amount of regulation, since it can drive out smaller competitors.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism
Drug companies defend their pricing strategies by pointing to the cost of developing new product and like to infer that FDA approval is a big chunk of it.
Trouble is, none of them want to make their finacial data public, so we just have to take their word for it.
Are they factoring in the cost of the thousands of drugs that don't make it to market?
Also, up to 70% of development costs for AIDS drugs are funded by the govt. Are they adding those figures to the total cost too?
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2
Yes, I don't really buy the FDA stifles innovation argument. Drug Companies have spent in excess of 900 million on lobbying alone over the last 10 years so I doubt they are struggling to create the funds for such projects.
Though thousands of drugs don't make it to market, very few of those drugs rarely even make it onto human testing. That is where it becomes very expensive. Most are dropped at the animal testing stage. In fact, most are slight derivatives of old drugs.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@williamcardno Have I convinced you, or do you distrust the information I gave?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney neither. i will read it soon and get back to you when i have.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno The library is a wonderful example. How do we know that the money the government spent on the library Would have been spent on a better use by the individuals the goverent extorted the money from? This is a great example of focusing on the visible, but ignoring the unseen. Please look up the broken window fallacy.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney Can you extort money from a voluntary group? the public says "we need a library, so here is the money - make it fucking happen. certainly, money could be spent on other things - but you are misreading the pecking order I am presenting. We've discussed this at great length aswell. The government does one thing well - administration. it should be there to execute the demands of the people and provide the expenses required as figures before the public "invests". nothing more.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno government sucks at administration dude. You know how much more they spend than the private sector to accomplish things? Holy fuck talk about drinking the kool aid.
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@williamcardno If it's a voluntary group, then why is taxation mandatory? If we want to have a library so bad, the TRUE voluntary way to create it would be donating to a charity that would start one up. The government does not do administration well whatsoever. It is a monopoly. Therefore, by its very nature, everything it does is expensive and wasteful.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney the conversation would go down like such in regards to taxation:
PEOPLE: We want a fucking library
GOVERNMENT: It will cost x to hire the construction crew and y to staff it. This is what it would cost per individual. are you sure you want to do this?
if CONSENT = TRUE; collect MONEY; run LIBRARY
else; nothing
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno "PEOPLE: We want a fucking library"
Who, _exactly_ are 'PEOPLE' in this example? Is there unanimous agreement among all those who will be taxed, that the library should be built?
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter ofcourse - i maintain it should be voluntary, for any system where volunteerism is not the case is doomed for failure.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@bitbutter
i agree with this, who is it that says i should pay for something i may never use. if this system of taxation was fair, you wouldn't assume i will use that library, but i will willingly pay to frequent it if i need too. nope, taxation is mainly about assumption, they assume i will utilize that facility, so as to justify taking part of my income.
if i no longer go to school and i don;t have children that use that school, why should i pay to maintain it.
jvforever72 1 year ago
@jvforever72
If I go to a hotel and don't use the pool or the gym, do I get to trim part of the bill?
Why should I pay to maintain them?
It's not fair.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2
Don't go to a Hotel with a Gym and a Pool. It is fairly easy to find one without either.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism
So explain why that's not an acceptable alternative to Libertarians:
Don't live in a country that provides public education. They are fairly easy to find too
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2
You can do that.
It just isn't a very effective method to change a system which one believes is fundamentally flawed.
Neither do I believe that it is a practical solution. Moving country is a fairly arduous process when more there are more obvious solutions.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@williamcardno No. That is not how taxation works. In reality, you have 51% of these "people" saying yes and 49% of these "people" saying no, and that now means that the 51% get to decide how to spend the 49%'s money.
I'm all for the 51% deciding how to spend its money however it pleases. But leave the nonconsenting parties alone and stop stealing their money.
If you do advocate for the voluntary option, then having a government is meaningless, as a charity can easily do this task just as well.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney "taking taxes at gunpoint", the common anarchist argument, does not have relevancy to Marxism or to the particular brand of socialism I subscribe to. :P
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
Yes, it is indeed the common "anarchist" argument, and it is very valid too, because in the system which you currently live in you probably WILL get shot if you resist going to prison for not paying the taxes the government demands from you, and no amount of sophistry and emotional appeals will change this fact of life.
So if this does not apply to the "particular brand of socialism" you claim to subscribe to, will people have the choice to not pay taxes in your system?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma proof you either haven't read what i typed or understood it. quit trolling me, i don't care anymore.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
Well, instead of beating around the bush, you can always set me straight and explain what I didn't understand. I know statists tend to get very defensive when confronted with the rational conclusions of their worldview. I know that, because I had to go through that process too, which ultimately lead me to my current position.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma I tend to dislike repeating myself.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno Marxism: Taking your crops by gunpoint and giving it to the collective
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@williamcardno Would a worker living in the territory claimed by a marxist state be free to use the entire product of his labour exactly as he saw fit? Or would part of it be taken from him under threat of force?
bitbutter 1 year ago
only 1:30 in so far, and can already see something i should point out to you. Currently, while wages are rising slowly, cost of living is rising quicker and quicker. I was just having this convo the other day where living expenses are too high for people to work for 9 dollars an hour full time. I would consider this what Marx was talking about. Watching rest of the vid now.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
"Currently, while wages are rising slowly, cost of living is rising quicker and quicker"
Of course, when governments inflate the money by releasing more of it into circulation out of thin air, what would you expect?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma hello red herring. pleasure to meet you.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
That's not a red-herring, that's a simple FACT which explains precisely the increase of prices, which is a direct result of inflation, which reduces the buying power of the currency.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma you have yet to explain why that isn't affecting the wages - since capitalism has no traces of worker exploitation for greater profits. when you do that, i will know then that hell as frozen to an icy haze and Satan will be skating to work.
williamcardno 1 year ago
@williamcardno:
How do you expect the employers to pay more if the value of their currency decreases?
If you don't want the cost of living to rise faster than the wages, maybe you should consider complaining to the government(s) to stop inflating and devaluing the currency, instead of blaming the big bad kapitalists for all of our social ills. But even with that, the standards of living are continuously increasing, mostly thanks to capitalist competition, and NOT due to gov regulations.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@williamcardno Rising costs are due to inflation. Inflation is caused by governments. But as for the standard of living, I think you have forgotten the way in which we've lived for hundreds of thousands of years until now. We have toilets. We have electricity. We have running water. We have more food than we could ever eat. The poorest among us are living better than the kings of a few thousand years ago.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney:
"The poorest among us are living better than the kings of a few thousand years ago"
Few thousands?! You're going way too far back, Jake. In the world history course I took, the example of King Louis the XIV was brought up as an example to how great people live today compared with the 18th century(Considering all the commodities he lacked back then which are so easily available to us all, even to many in the less developed parts of our world) when he died, lol.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago