Socialism

[Mr D]

There's certainly a lot to be said for getting rid of the minimum wage, if you believe what the likes of Peter Schiff says about it.

Combine that with removal of limit on working hours...

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Willing to spend money on infrastructure. As do many places with more snow than UK.

Yeah but what I was getting at is that UK might not be able to justify the kind of spend required to upgrade all roads and all rail...because some years we don't even get snow.
Not saying that's the right approach but that's what it seems to me is the challenge.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Combine that with removal of limit on working hours...

Indeed! Then there really would be an uproar.

But SME owners/directors often don't earn minimum wage, and often work unlimited hours....all so that we can pay people minimum wage for set hours....

 

[NickGrogan]

Our nature as a hierarchical species better fits a meritocracy than socialism which seeks to replaces individual freedoms with control from the centre.

The problem we face now is that our implementation of Capitalism with an eroding social conscience and shoddy rules based framework is causing untold harm and driving huge divisions in society.

Is Capitalism the problem or a symptom? Is our nature the problem.

History shows that the entrepeneurs were not dis-incentivised during periods of much higher taxation than now. In fact if you remove tax altogether from the rich they stop being productive altogether, just look at the rentier class before the French Revolution.

So if you reduce rich peoples income they work harder/smarter/more to make up the difference. And if you give rich people money for "nothing" they become unproductive.

If we know it works for rich people, why do we pretend it doesn't work for poor people too? - despite the evidence that it does.

We've tried Capitalism and it has failed. we haven't tried real socialism so you cannot say that iy cannot reverse that trend

Ignoring the claim about capitalism, why aren't you trying real socialism? What is holding you back, if it is something you believe in?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

So if you reduce rich peoples income they work harder/smarter/more to make up the difference. And if you give rich people money for "nothing" they become unproductive.

In times of high upper income taxation, for reasons unexplained, high earners did not pursue huge differentials above their lowest paid workers, as they do now with relatively low taxation.

The French use the word "rentier" for the rich-non-working class. Just what does Cherie in Colette's novel actually do? Yet his character is common throughout literature and according to Pickety reflects what society was like.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

now with relatively low taxation

Relative to what?

I would say that the tax on high earners (40%) is relatively high, compared with the tax on low earners (20%).

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Relative to what?

I would say that the tax on high earners (40%) is relatively high, compared with the tax on low earners (20%).

From wikipedia.......In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.[18] In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£191,279 as of 2016),

 

[Jeff FV]

I don’t think the two (Socialism And Capitalism) are necessarily mutual exclusive.

I think it better to think of a spectrum, with socialism on one side, merging into and becoming capitalism on the other.

Another way (but not perfect) is to think of it as capitalism is how we generate wealth and socialism is how we spend that wealth.

Capitalism may not be broken, but it is no longer working as it should for most. Capitalism has been hugely successful in lifting the living the standards of all in the developed and developing world, and continues to do so.

However, the “capital” part of capitalism has broken down: it is now increasingly difficult for the “young” (anyone under 40!) to buy a house (capital). It is not enough now to work hard and save up, you won’t get onto the bottom rung of the housing ladder- you can’t become a capitalist, so capitalism isn’t working.

We could shift our emphasis from home ownership, to lifelong renting, shifting us along the spectrum towards socialism, or we can try and find some way to redress the housing market. Currently, under our capitalist model, we see houses as a means to make money, rather than as homes for people to live in (a more socialist view)


But if we don’t do something about the housing market, it will break society & could be the downfall of capitalism in this country

 

[TODonnell]

Some thoughts:

- Socialism is a heresy of Communism.

- Both have failed wherever they have been tried, to the great cost of those experimented upon.

- Both tends towards tyranny and inefficiency.

- They are based on a false premise: that if the state takes control of wealth, there will still be upper and middle-class people and industries to tax.

- One common factor for poor life chances is that a country was previously communist.

- Pick any self-declared socialist state and you will find a tyranny, nationwide poverty, or both.

- Socialism was tried in a small way in these islands in the 70s/80's and the effect was to depress general wealth generation.

If someone realises that 80% of the fruits of their industry will be taken from them, they will tend to either a) Stop their industry or b) Become duplicitous or c) Both, if they can't d) leave the country.

- No one is logically and morally entitled to a share of my wealth, just because they exist, yet that is the premise of socialism.

- Kampuchea.

- Romania.

As an Irishman, I say "Jeremy Corbyn, ha ha ha". Growing up in the Republic, I was aware as a lad that All Was Not Well in the land of the Sassenach.

But, hey kids, knock yerselves out

 

[MBE2017]

However humans are not birds.

It could be argued almost 50% are or have been, or will be at some point.

 

[Mr D]

It could be argued almost 50% are or have been, or will be at some point.

While I have met people that others say 'eat like a bird' I've not noticed it myself. What with the lack of worms, lack of bugs being eaten and few seeds eaten raw.

I like having cats, any of them bring any of yous birds in then I'm not responsible for the consequences. Though will perhaps save me buying cat food for a month or so.
Any dead bodies left on my doorstep it wasn't me. I'd leave them next door.

 

[Cobby]

My humble opinion is that Capitalism is really the only thing we've found so far that more or less works.
Fortunately, we're all different though, and others will have a different opinion to me.

I think capitalism is fair and equal (all sacrifice the same), but many would consider socialism to be more fair and equal (all have the same).
I tend to think that effort should produce more return, and also that socialism strives to bring everyone towards equality of outcome, which I think is totally wrong. Equality of opportunity is good, and should be striven for, but equality of outcome is usually confused as the same thing.

Question: the hundreds of thousands relying on Universal Credit and food banks and second and third jobs - do you think they believe Capitalism works?

When looking at income and wealth inequality (a long-term functional outcome of Capitalism), do you think it honestly results in a relatable effort/reward ratio? Capitalism rewards capital ahead of all else, and generated wealth is largely generated by large centres of existing wealth rather than work or individual effort.

Capitalism (and its Free Market variations) have been most effective for raising living standards when the playing field was mostly level and income inequality was small. It no longer functions as such and effort/hard work is absolutely not rewarded appropriately.

Indeed. How does socialism look to fund the support? Tax the rich more and after a point they lose the marginal benefit for earning, so they are no longer incentivised to earn to fund that system. Does that mean that people are inherently selfish? Probably yes.
I seem to remember from my time studying economics that one of the key principles in basic economics is that rational people are motivated only by economic and financial gain.

Capitalism defines "rational" as motivated only by economic and financial gain since morality plays no part in accumulation of wealth (modern life proves literally the opposite).

Is capitalism fit for purpose if its only interest in The People is as units of wealth generating labour?

 

[Cobby]

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Churchill, 1945

Churchill also stated that Capitalism was the least worst option.

Churchill's quote was about "democracy" being the "worst form of government except for all others that have been tried". But he was also a white supremacist, so let's not take his word as gospel.

The Tories want the status quo, Labour would turn us into some kind of pacifist irrelevance bankrupting the Country within a term and the Lib Dems would make offending someone a crime punishable by public flogging.

Nah.
Given the evidence available, the Tories want the poor, vulnerable and minorities to all die or just "learn their place", Labour are currently more concerned with creating an imaginary socialist paradise than being pragmatic about a functioning economy and if the Lib Dems ever got power they'd be caught like a rabbit in headlights and the country would suffer before they could hope to pull themselves together.

 

[Newchodge]

Has capitalism failed?

I was responding to the comment from quikshop about the harm Capitalism is causing, and my comment was that Capitalism has failed to reverse the trend. In that way it has failed.

 

[Newchodge]

So if you reduce rich peoples income they work harder/smarter/more to make up the difference. And if you give rich people money for "nothing" they become unproductive.

That is the theory applied to the poor at the moment.

 

[Cobby]

I don’t think the two (Socialism And Capitalism) are necessarily mutual exclusive.

I think it better to think of a spectrum, with socialism on one side, merging into and becoming capitalism on the other.

Another way (but not perfect) is to think of it as capitalism is how we generate wealth and socialism is how we spend that wealth.

Capitalism may not be broken, but it is no longer working as it should for most. Capitalism has been hugely successful in lifting the living the standards of all in the developed and developing world, and continues to do so.

However, the “capital” part of capitalism has broken down: it is now increasingly difficult for the “young” (anyone under 40!) to buy a house (capital). It is not enough now to work hard and save up, you won’t get onto the bottom rung of the housing ladder- you can’t become a capitalist, so capitalism isn’t working.

We could shift our emphasis from home ownership, to lifelong renting, shifting us along the spectrum towards socialism, or we can try and find some way to redress the housing market. Currently, under our capitalist model, we see houses as a means to make money, rather than as homes for people to live in (a more socialist view)


But if we don’t do something about the housing market, it will break society & could be the downfall of capitalism in this country

Great assessment. Society (certainly over a certain size) will only function in the long term with a mixed ideology; both Capitalism and Socialism in their pure forms fail due to human nature.

Western Capitalism is in desperate need of regulation and further taxation to withdraw wealth from its hoards (e.g. Apple have a cash hoard of a 1/4 TRILLION dollars, many individuals hoard billions) and there is no reasonable argument - rational or moral - for any one person to need what is essentially uncountable wealth.

However its also an absolute essential for functioning trade across differing global regions and cultures.

It's nice (if a bit tiring) watching starry-eyed idealists talk about their socialist paradise but it's straight up sad watching smug 'capitalists' with even less grasp of the facts try and rebut those ideas with nonsensical absurdities like "well why don't you give up all your possessions and try socialism" or "move to Venezuela and let us know how it goes, fnar, fnar".

The answer is that there is no easy answer; neither system works on its own and large societies require a mix of both.

 

[Mr D]

That is the theory applied to the poor at the moment.

Its been applied to the poor by all UK governments.

Be poor and unemployed and the state will look after you to a point. Subject to administrative punishments and benefit delays (both of which can cause foodbank use).
Get a job and get punished by the state by having some of your hard earned money nicked (taxes) and the state no longer supports you like they did.

Unless you happen to find a kind employer who sticks to socialist principles and pays people according to their circumstances (rather than equality) and passes on the subsidy the employer receives from the state to the employee.

 

[Paul Norman]

Great assessment. Society (certainly over a certain size) will only function in the long term with a mixed ideology; both Capitalism and Socialism in their pure forms fail due to human nature.

Western Capitalism is in desperate need of regulation and further taxation to withdraw wealth from its hoards (e.g. Apple have a cash hoard of a 1/4 TRILLION dollars, many individuals hoard billions) and there is no reasonable argument - rational or moral - for any one person to need what is essentially uncountable wealth.

However its also an absolute essential for functioning trade across differing global regions and cultures.

It's nice (if a bit tiring) watching starry-eyed idealists talk about their socialist paradise but it's straight up sad watching smug 'capitalists' with even less grasp of the facts try and rebut those ideas with nonsensical absurdities like "well why don't you give up all your possessions and try socialism" or "move to Venezuela and let us know how it goes, fnar, fnar".

The answer is that there is no easy answer; neither system works on its own and large societies require a mix of both.

This. Exactly this.

Whilst we are wedded to either doctrine as being exclusively the answer, we are headed into a cul de sac.

We need sound fiscal management. We also need compassion, and a realistic approach to those who for a whole range of reasons do not, or perhaps cannot, work the capitalist system.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Apple have a cash hoard of a 1/4 TRILLION dollars, many individuals hoard billions) and there is no reasonable argument - rational or moral - for any one person to need what is essentially uncountable wealth.

Apple are not one person, they are the biggest company in the world. And I don't think there's any one individual person who hoards billions in cash. If anyone is smart enough to have gathered up billions, they're not going to do something quite as stupid as just hanging on to it in cash.

 

[Newchodge]

This. Exactly this.

Whilst we are wedded to either doctrine as being exclusively the answer, we are headed into a cul de sac.

We need sound fiscal management. We also need compassion, and a realistic approach to those who for a whole range of reasons do not, or perhaps cannot, work the capitalist system.

Perhaps the answer is for business to deal with the capitalism side of things and for government to ensure that compassion and the welfare of all people is properly included. While we have a government, as we currently have, that sees itself only as supporting capitalism, even at the expense of the welfare of the people, we have a problem. The answer to which is not to destroy capitalism but to regulate and tax it appropriately

 

[Newchodge]

Apple are not one person, they are the biggest company in the world. And I don't think there's any one individual person who hoards billions in cash. If anyone is smart enough to have gathered up billions, they're not going to do something quite as stupid as just hanging on to it in cash.

They don't hang on to it in cash, but they decide which Caribbean island to buy or whether their 5th yacht should be the same colour as the other 4 they already own.

 

[Paul Norman]

Perhaps the answer is for business to deal with the capitalism side of things and for government to ensure that compassion and the welfare of all people is properly included. While we have a government, as we currently have, that sees itself only as supporting capitalism, even at the expense of the welfare of the people, we have a problem. The answer to which is not to destroy capitalism but to regulate and tax it appropriately

It is certainly a poor compromise when, as at the moment, you have the government doing the capitalism and expecting the private sector to do the nice social stuff.

But yes. When I try to evaluate my thoughts, I end up running a fairly right wing economy with a very left wing stance on many issues.

I recognise that, based on that, I am unlikely to be the next Prime Minister.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

They don't hang on to it in cash, but they decide which Caribbean island to buy or whether their 5th yacht should be the same colour as the other 4 they already own.

Ohhh lovely think of all the VAT that the gov will receive on 5 boats!

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

I recognise that, based on that, I am unlikely to be the next Prime Minister.

Based only on that?

 

[quikshop]

But yes. When I try to evaluate my thoughts, I end up running a fairly right wing economy with a very left wing stance on many issues.

I tend to arrive at the same conclusion and end up looking at Nordic capitalism or as some call it social democracy as a potential answer. But who in this country would sign up to massive tax rises in order to tick all of the social conscience boxes?

And the Nordic model is not perfect, it suffered massively in the 2008 crash and is struggling with the huge influx of migrants who do not share their very liberal World views.

 

[Newchodge]

Ohhh lovely think of all the VAT that the gov will receive on 5 boats!

But only the government of the country where the boats are built, and only if the bent accountants (and I don't mean all, or even many accountants) haven't found a way to avoid the tax, perhaps because the item is being exported?

 

[Paul Norman]

Based only on that?

You make a fair, if harsh, point!!!

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

But only the government of the country where the boats are built, and only if the bent accountants (and I don't mean all, or even many accountants) haven't found a way to avoid the tax, perhaps because the item is being exported?

I think its something to do with where the boat is registered, or if its registered to an EU national or something. I've never bought a boat and I have no intention of ever doing so I'm not exactly sure to be honest.

 

[Newchodge]

I think its something to do with where the boat is registered, or if its registered to an EU national or something. I've never bought a boat and I have no intention of ever doing so I'm not exactly sure to be honest.

I registered my first 3 in Panama, as I didn't have to pay any tax or pay the crew minimum wage, or give them time off or anything. Oh, no, that wasn't me. Is this Kansas?

 

[Mr D]

Perhaps the answer is for business to deal with the capitalism side of things and for government to ensure that compassion and the welfare of all people is properly included. While we have a government, as we currently have, that sees itself only as supporting capitalism, even at the expense of the welfare of the people, we have a problem. The answer to which is not to destroy capitalism but to regulate and tax it appropriately

Really?
When did we get this government that you describe? Was it the people voted into power by the voters who decided those who held these views should be in power then?

For a government that you say only supports capitalism we have had many budgets that appear to not support capitalism.
4.8% pay rise announced yesterday.
Or how about more money for universal credit (which we agree is a problem benefit even if we disagree about who is subsidised).
Or how about the rise in tax allowances?

 

[Mr D]

They don't hang on to it in cash, but they decide which Caribbean island to buy or whether their 5th yacht should be the same colour as the other 4 they already own.

So in other words spend the money. Enabling others to benefit from the cashflow and profits elsewhere.

 

[Mr D]

But only the government of the country where the boats are built, and only if the bent accountants (and I don't mean all, or even many accountants) haven't found a way to avoid the tax, perhaps because the item is being exported?

Would the fact its being imported somewhere enable the local tax authorities to make money on the import?

 

[Mr D]

I registered my first 3 in Panama, as I didn't have to pay any tax or pay the crew minimum wage, or give them time off or anything. Oh, no, that wasn't me. Is this Kansas?

Well we could go in and invade Panama, putting the British tax system and minimum wages into place there.
Not sure the locals would want that. And play heck with the shipping.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

For a government that you say only supports capitalism we have had many budgets that appear to not support capitalism.

No government will ever implement major tax reform, because democracy is a popularity contest, and so we are stuck with a very socialist-leaning tax system forever. Income tax that is.

 

[Mr D]

No government will ever implement major tax reform, because democracy is a popularity contest, and so we are stuck with a very socialist-leaning tax system forever. Income tax that is.

We had the companies act come in, that was probably the biggest tax change I can recall. I have heard it increased the size of Tolleys tax guide by a considerable amount.
And under a Labour government.

Anyone remember Gordon Brown's attack on the poor? The abolition of the 10% tax rate. My net wage went down after that.

 

[Cobby]

Apple are not one person, they are the biggest company in the world. And I don't think there's any one individual person who hoards billions in cash. If anyone is smart enough to have gathered up billions, they're not going to do something quite as stupid as just hanging on to it in cash.

Okay cool, but this is a detail about anecdotally trying to interpret the motivations of the super wealthy and no matter which way it goes we can't extrapolate that out into a "Capitalism is Great" argument.

Wealth accumulated in unnaturally (and unusably) large amounts inhibits Capitalism's ability to improve society. We are very much in that situation now.

 

[Cobby]

I tend to arrive at the same conclusion and end up looking at Nordic capitalism or as some call it social democracy as a potential answer. But who in this country would sign up to massive tax rises in order to tick all of the social conscience boxes?

And the Nordic model is not perfect, it suffered massively in the 2008 crash and is struggling with the huge influx of migrants who do not share their very liberal World views.

Um, Norway was pretty much the only Western industrial state to muddle through the crash without the kind of huge disruption and losses we saw in the UK. I mean, liquidity rates and whatnot are a bit beyond my casual interests, but still.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "struggling with a huge influx of migrants"?
Perhaps you mean the refugees and asylum seekers that Norway has historically been quite open to accepting and helping? I think the current figures put them at 4% of the population with many of those being refugees from Bosnia in the 90s.

Anyway, you're right, structural reform requires that the Overton Window is moved and moving it in the necessary direction requires either high levels of education or a less capitalism-centred free press (neither of which the UK can claim). We can't even get our population to vote in their own interests at present (e.g. Proportional Representation, Brexit, etc).

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

we can't extrapolate that out into a "Capitalism is Great" argument.

No one is trying to do that. No one even suggested that capitalism was good. I think we have all agreed so far that neither capitalism nor socialism is really perfect, but us on the cap side reckon capitalism is the best of a bad bunch...

 

[a1mee]

Socialism is great, until you run out of other people’s money.

 

[Mr D]

Socialism is great, until you run out of other people’s money.

And apparently we haven't yet seen 'real' socialism despite the number of governments who have declared themselves to be socialist.