The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[PureX]

The link you provided was most convincing.
Oh....there was no link.

And your skepticism is most authentic ... oh wait, no it wasn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

And your skepticism is most authentic ... oh wait, no it wasn't.

I authentically believe that you had no links.
Just an invented claim.

 

[Kfox]

But they're not. Land and retail space (neither of which you listed earlier) are,

News flash; Brick and mortar is another word for structure/building.

but things like tools, grills and refrigerators CAN be privately owned.


I have already given you a definition.

No you did not. You said “land, retail space, base resources to make a product, etc.) Those were your exact words which are very vague. When I listed what those things are in my scenario, you said they are not and refused to give examples of what land, retail space, and base resources to make a product consist of in my scenario.

I have already explained what the means of production are. They are left with literally everything else that isn't the land or the base resources needed for production. I have explicitly said that, under market socialism, people can OWN A BUSINESS AND THE PROFITS OF THAT BUSINESS. This question is about as daft as asking someone who operates a business out of a factory they rent and with resources that are, say, charitably donated, "But... What do you own if you don't own those two things?". They own the business. They own the profits from the business. They own the things they privately purchased for that business. The only things they don't own are the building/land they run it in (the same as if it were rented) and the means by which the base resources are produced (literally no different to someone having to get their wood from a forest they don't own).

In my scenario of a restaurant, what would be the means by which the base resources are produced? Please be specific.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

News flash; Brick and mortar is another word for structure/building.

Then they're covered by what I said, aren't they.

No you did not. You said “land, retail space, base resources to make a product, etc.) Those were your exact words which are very vague.

How is it vague?

When I listed what those things are in my scenario, you said they are not and refused to give examples of what land, retail space, and base resources to make a product consist of in my scenario.

The land, retail space and base resources.

How is this ambiguous? And how come you keep insisting that, under a socialist system, someone cannot own a business or its profits when I explicitly stated multiple times that they could?

In my scenario of a restaurant, what would be the means by which the base resources are produced? Please be specific.

Presumably food, so the base resources would likely be produced by farms.

 

[Stevicus]

I’m not talking about citizenship rights; I’m talking about rights concerning a business Jim and Jane started.

But since they're involving three other people, then it's no longer just a concern of Jim's and Jane's business. Those three citizens they're presuming to hire also have rights. (Likewise, their potential customers also have rights, although we haven't really addressed that angle in this scenario.)

Jim and Jane are only making decisions concerning their lives when it comes to something Jim and Jane own. Citizenship rights do not give you the right to someone else’s property

No, but the state can override property rights when deemed necessary. That's something that capitalists have balked against for quite a long time, since they hold the view that property rights are "sacrosanct," ostensibly believing that their property becomes their own personal kingdom where they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

The standard capitalist refrain is that "if the employees don't like working there, they can quit." Same for the customers, since no one is forcing anyone to work there or to buy anything. The idea being that, as long as everyone has choices, workers can find better jobs with better pay, and customers can seek out better businesses to patronize.

Theoretically, the bad, unethical, and/or unscrupulous businesses would be put out of business because the people would refuse to do business with them, much in the same way the people vote against bad, unethical, and/or unscrupulous politicians. But it doesn't seem to work that way in practice. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

I disagree; it is different. The manager has a boss as well; under Socialism the boss is the government, under capitalism the boss is the person who started the business.

If it's an individual proprietorship, sure.

Nearly all big businesses started as small mom and pop small businesses. When the McDonalds brothers started their first restaurant, they ran it themselves; eventually they grew, and grew, now McDonalds is a huge corporation known worldwide. They always start small, they just don’t usually end up that way.

There are plenty of rags-to-riches stories in capitalism, and they're generally woven into the fabric of Americana and our association with free enterprise, where part of the mantra says that "with a bit of luck and pluck, anyone can make their fortune in America." This also carries the implied suggestion that those who can't do the same thing must be nothing more than "bums" or "losers." Much of that isn't necessarily related to the actual mechanics or working of capitalism on a mundane, generic level as you're presenting, but it's more a part of popular culture which has become reflected in the political and legal system.

So how is your idea of Socialism different from the Mixed/Market economy such as what is found in the United States?

It might differ by degrees. I've heard some right-wingers refer to FDR as a "socialist," although I think FDR did a lot of good things for the US economy, and as a result, America experienced the greatest economic boom in its history in the decades which followed him. It's been mostly capitalists and conservatives who have been wanting to undo all the reforms from the FDR and post-war era, including both economic and social reforms.

 

[Kfox]

Presumably food, so the base resources would likely be produced by farms.

Thanks for being specific. So in this scenario, they don’t own the raw materials used to create the product; in this case the uncooked food, used to make the cooked food they serve. So if they never own the uncooked food, do they pay for it anyway? If so, how is not owning the uncooked food different than owning it if it’s gonna be sold and consumed by the public? If they don’t pay for it, is it fair for them to be given the uncooked food for free, cook it and sell it to the public and keep all the profits for themselves? Shouldn’t the person providing the uncooked food get something for what they gave?

 

[Kfox]

But since they're involving three other people, then it's no longer just a concern of Jim's and Jane's business. Those three citizens they're presuming to hire also have rights. (Likewise, their potential customers also have rights, although we haven't really addressed that angle in this scenario.)

No. They don’t have rights concerning things that do not belong to them; the business. They only have their citizenship rights.

No, but the state can override property rights when deemed necessary. That's something that capitalists have balked against for quite a long time, since they hold the view that property rights are "sacrosanct," ostensibly believing that their property becomes their own personal kingdom where they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

No they don’t. Capitalists do not live in an island, they have to compete against other capitalist, so fair play is very important to them.

It might differ by degrees. I've heard some right-wingers refer to FDR as a "socialist," although I think FDR did a lot of good things for the US economy, and as a result, America experienced the greatest economic boom in its history in the decades which followed him. It's been mostly capitalists and conservatives who have been wanting to undo all the reforms from the FDR and post-war era, including both economic and social reforms.

I find it absurd to suggest the extreme growth during FDR’s reign was the result of his policies. That growth was the result of the world war resulting in Europe and Asia being completely destroyed, and the only country open for business was USA because the war never came to our shores.

 

[Stevicus]

I find it absurd to suggest the extreme growth during FDR’s reign was the result of his policies. That growth was the result of the world war resulting in Europe and Asia being completely destroyed, and the only country open for business was USA because the war never came to our shores.

"The war never came to our shores."

Well, isn't that the mark of a great leader? Or was it just plain old dumb luck?

 

[Kfox]

"The war never came to our shores."

Well, isn't that the mark of a great leader? Or was it just plain old dumb luck?

I was talking about economic policies; not how the war was fought.

 

[Nakosis]

In socialism, were the community jointly control the means of production, when there is a scarcity of resources, who gets to decide the allocation of land, labor and capital?

One group wants to make pencils. Another group wants to make glass jars but there is only enough resources to allow one group to produce product. Who decides which group gets to produce product?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In socialism, were the community jointly control the means of production, when there is a scarcity of resources, who gets to decide the allocation of land, labor and capital?

One group wants to make pencils. Another group wants to make glass jars but there is only enough resources to allow one group to produce product. Who decides which group gets to produce product?

Can you spot how you in a sense made a false dichotomy?

 

[Stevicus]

I was talking about economic policies; not how the war was fought.

His economic leadership made the US far more productive and supplied the Allied cause. His economic policies and how the war was fought were tied together. Of course, it required some changes to make the U.S. a temporary command economy. Leaving capitalists to their own devices to organize the war on their own would have been a major botch and could have led to an Allied defeat.

That's why capitalism is mostly a fair-weather, luxurious ideology, but when the chips are down, a command economy is necessary. It's just like when they declared martial law after Hurricane Katrina. During a crisis, sometimes it's necessary to do such things. If the crisis is economic, it might be necessary to declare martial law on capitalists, such as imposing wage/price controls, in order to bring order out of chaos.

 

[Kfox]

Can you spot how you in a sense made a false dichotomy?

I think he made an excellent point. How about if you explain why it is a false dichotomy.

 

[Kfox]

His economic leadership made the US far more productive and supplied the Allied cause. His economic policies and how the war was fought were tied together.

His economic policies consisted of selling weapons to our allies. That is the epitome of capitalism.

Of course, it required some changes to make the U.S. a temporary command economy. Leaving capitalists to their own devices to organize the war on their own would have been a major botch and could have led to an Allied defeat. That's why capitalism is mostly a fair-weather, luxurious ideology, but when the chips are down, a command economy is necessary. It's just like when they declared martial law after Hurricane Katrina. During a crisis, sometimes it's necessary to do such things. If the crisis is economic, it might be necessary to declare martial law on capitalists, such as imposing wage/price controls, in order to bring order out of chaos.

The claim was that his policies lead to the best peace time growth the country ever experienced after the war. That is what I objected to; not whether or not his war/crisis policies were good.

 

[Kfox]

I think he made an excellent point. How about if you explain why it is a false dichotomy. IMO socialism will only work when everybody has the same goal, which is why it will only work with small groups; the bigger the group, the more diverse ideas you will have and things fall apart from there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think he made an excellent point. How about if you explain why it is a false dichotomy.

What if they decide to share the limited resources and both adapt?

 

[PureX]

What if they decide to share the limited resources and both adapt?

Or the community decides which it prefers.

 

[Stevicus]

His economic policies consisted of selling weapons to our allies. That is the epitome of capitalism.

The claim was that his policies lead to the best peace time growth the country ever experienced after the war. That is what I objected to; not whether or not his war/crisis policies were good.

You don't see a connection between the policies during the war and how it benefited us in the aftermath?

 

[Nakosis]

Can you spot how you in a sense made a false dichotomy?

So which part is false?
That there could be a scarcity of resources or that people might have different interests?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks for being specific. So in this scenario, they don’t own the raw materials used to create the product;

No, they don't own the MEANS to create the food. Once the food is theirs, it's theirs. But the farm that it comes from is neither owned by them nor does it belong to private owners.

in this case the uncooked food, used to make the cooked food they serve. So if they never own the uncooked food, do they pay for it anyway? If so, how is not owning the uncooked food different than owning it if it’s gonna be sold and consumed by the public?

The difference would be that the money used to buy the food from a private owner... goes to the private owner. Depending on the socialist system, either food has been decommodified - in which case the food is free - or the food is allocated to them by some authority, such as a local government, and paid for via taxes.

If they don’t pay for it, is it fair for them to be given the uncooked food for free, cook it and sell it to the public and keep all the profits for themselves?

Depends on what means is used to provide for those who produced the food, doesn't it? If they are paid separately for their labour, what is the issue?

Shouldn’t the person providing the uncooked food get something for what they gave?

They would.