The Fascist Dilemma

Post Reply New Topic

Corporatizzle fo shizzle. The whole point of pcapitalims is to not have the government intervene too much cuz this is exactly what corproeratism is: the govenrment owrking with big business to rip epioeple off. But yeah totlatitarianism doesn't necessarily mean no ownership of prigvate proeprty. China turned into having a capitalist economy but it is still totoalritierian.

It's easier for government to create jobs as populations can demand it of politicians and elect new ones if they fail to do so. Whereas in business there is a pressure against job creation, as that means paying someone a salary and therefore less profit for shareholders.

If job creation goes up and wealth production goes down what will the wages buy?

ruveyn

Ever stop to think that putting an unreasonable burden on the middle and upper classes through excessive taxing and regulations serve as disincentives for hiring? They have less money after operating costs and they can't afford to hire as many people. And how exactly have the rich created unemployment? If the rich are as exclusively greedy as you say they are, then with that in mind why would they want people being unemployed and having their taxes pay for em rather than having these people work for em or buy their products?

If something like this ever happens, they might as well set fire to the bill of rights. I would not take employment, I would gather some like minded atheists and form the resistance.

That might depend on what exactly you mean when you say fascism.

Hint: Fascism means whatever is too far to the right for his liking. This is nothing but a cheap excuse to rant about the right. What thoughts does the question provoke other than caricatures? And how is this even supposed to be a dilemma? If you want a job with high job security then change your major, problem solved. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?



@ jamieboy: Finland is going broke and its high taxation + regulations are disincentives for hiring. You haven't said anything to disprove that statement, and standard of living is irrelevant to it. But anyways I'll address this first and then move on to the standard of living issue:
http://mises.org/daily/4655

Now on to the standard of living. Denmark's percentage of the world's total number of immigrants is even less than South Korea's, where over 99% of its citizens are of Korean descent. Of course the US is going to have lower income per capita since it has the most relaxed immigration policies as well as the highest percentage of the world's total number of immigrants. Denmark can hardly even handle the little influx of immigrants it has, yet the US is pretty much flooded with immigrants and it is still able to sustain itself. Looks like this provides even more proof that a big welfare state is economically impotent:
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-new ... onomy.html




Another thing to keep in mind is that income inequality =/= lack of social mobility so "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is BS:

http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/mobility.htm

Replace "right" with "left" and "fascism" with "socialism" and you have a much more common and pervasive pattern of rant/polemic that doesn't seem to bother you as much. Why rail against one strawman and ignore an identical one?


I would think that eventually there has to come a breaking point. Can the economy grow forever? Given that resources are finite and technological progress (to more efficiently exploit those resources) is probably as susceptible to diminishing returns as anything else, at some point the economies of the world must stop growing. Our current economic system seems predicated on continuous growth.


Social mobility exists to some degree, but not to the point where you can realistically argue that the US is a true meritocracy. The rich do get richer, and the poor and middle class mostly stay where they are. That has been the trend in America since at least the 1970s.


Phrased otherwise, nearly 65% of the wealthy are in the top quintile because they have always been there.


I'm not sure how this math works. Quintiles are just percentages of the population. How can most of the turnover from, say, the 2nd quintile reflect upward progress? By definition of the term, an equal number of people moved into it as out of it. If you are looking at household income as a percentile rank, changes upwards mathematically have to be exactly balanced by changes downwards, unless we are living in the fantasy world where everyone is above average.

OK, just checked the sources and I think I've figured out how they managed to get everyone moving up in percentiles. It's a longitudinal study, so all they have really established is that people who have been in the job market longer tend to rise somewhat in economic standing. In short, these people rose in percentile rank because there were new people below them.


Um... it makes complete sense. There are still people in the bottom quintile, and stating that it is worse to be poor in one time compared to another time does not rely on having the exact same people occupying that role.


An ideological hack job by Dick Armey using ridiculous sophistry to try to deflect attention away from real issues by pretending that they can't be studied.

I'm specifically talking about the OP not addressing the general issue. His post specifically was a cheap excuse for a rant since it didn't provoke any thought or present any real dilemma, I wasn't saying this is exclusively something left wingers do. And why do you assume that the absence of a redundant disclaimer means I'm okay with double standards? I've said about a million times that calling Bush fascist is as stupid as calling Obama a commie. And didn't I call Inuyasha out when he said Obama is far left as well as him calling you far left? How about not resorting to unfounded accusations since I've clearly proven time and time again I'm not with the us and them BS?

Well this is just as complicated as the health care debate. But generally the 8.5% unemployment rate in Finland as of 2010 compared to the 8.9% in the US as of 2011 tells me something is awfully BS about big welfare states.

Not everyone is trying to be the top dog. There are people who are satisfied with where they are. A lot of people take job security over the potential for higher gain. Also having the desire to be the top dog isn't going to guarantee it. Even having the right attitude doesn't happen overnight or from reading enough self-help books. Developing the mentality required for hard work is hard work itself. The human mind is very stubborn and there's a shedload of inertia. Anyways academic knowledge is useless without being able to apply it as well, so doing well in school is no guarantee you'll do well in the workforce in case you're thinking "Well why doesn't intelligence guarantee a high income?". Heuristic knowledge is the biggest factor to success:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153543.htm

btw aren't the majority of millionaires and billionaires self-made?

There is no simple answer to this. Are the vast majority of people really willing to make it to the very top quintile? Seeing that most people would rather stick to a job with high security and one that they're familiar with, I do think connections play a role to some extent but judging from how risk averse and complacent people in general tend to be I doubt most people have what it takes.

So in order to rise up you have to step on someone else? This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that being in the job market longer means you have more experience and are therefore able to do better in it?

...And your point is? Because the previous generation moved up, the next generation isn't supposed to start from square one? I'm talking about cultural generations btw just to avoid any confusion.

Dick Armey is a real person? I thought he was a character from Family Guy . Anyways can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I dunno what this is supposed to distract from or what he's trying to pretend can't be studied.

America really is not a welfare state, certainly not compared to any other Western nation.


OK? The point is, wealth in this country is not solely determined by a combination of your abilities and your drive. It is determined in very large part by where and to whom you are born.


When you're talking about percentile ranks, then yes, by definition. This study wasn't comparing absolute wages or standard of living; it was comparing how wealthy people were compared to others. Percentile ranks are a zero-sum game.


The article you linked tried to refute the claim that the poor people today are poorer than the poor people of previous times. This is talking about the next generation starting at square -2.


Dick Armey is a major political figure in this country. He was one of the leaders of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994.
What I mean is that the article you linked is clearly cooked to try to support a false conclusion. The economist tries to use a longitudinal study to claim that everyone has wonderful upward mobility as an argument that growing wealth disparities aren't a problem, drawing attention away from the more fundamental problems of poverty and inequality. There is also some hand-waving and arguments that no claims can be made about a category because that category isn't completely static, which is a completely absurd thing to say.

True. It is more of a f*cked up by government state.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 28 Mar 2011, 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And that's my point. Finland is a ridiculously huge welfare state, yet its unemployment rate is only a little better than the US.

What would be the sole determinant of this? The name of the schools you went to? Connections?

Percentile ranks are zero-sum as in it both groups have to sum up to 100%, not that one group had to take exclusively from another group to get ahead. Let's say we're talking about the 2nd quintile. If the group that moved up went from 30% to 50%, it doesn't mean they screwed 20% of the people within their own quintile to move up.


The article you linked tried to refute the claim that the poor people today are poorer than the poor people of previous times. This is talking about the next generation starting at square -2.[/quote]Huh? I didn't get any of that from the article. What I got was that it was debunking the underlying assumption of low social mobility.

It isn't trying to say that cuz social mobility isn't completely static that it's perfect. But that it is more dynamic than the myth of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer might lead you to believe. And what exactly are the "fundamental problems of poverty and inequality" and what are the solutions to em? We already talked about education and the culture of poverty from another thread, so I would like to know what else you think are holding em down. I think "education" is useless without values essential to succeeding in it which are self-restraint, emotional control, impulse control, forethought, etc. So what else is there?

Oh, and the majority of the poor in North America don't have it that bad:


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ert-rector

I don't see how that bolsters your point about the ills of welfare states. If the poster boy of welfare states is doing as well as or slightly better than the poster boy of laissez-faire capitalism on unemployment, that would seem to be an argument in favor of Finland's system.


Not sole determinant, but both of those factors play a role. As does inherited wealth.


No, percentiles are a zero-sum game, period. The composition of any given quintile can (and does) change, but that quintile is still there by definition. People who rise up from one quintile are exactly balanced by people moving down from another.


My point is, it went about "debunking" that assumption in an extremely dishonest manner.


You don't seem to be familiar with Dick Armey... that is exactly the impression he wanted to give.


Perhaps, but it is considerably less dynamic than Horatio Alger would lead you to believe.


You really expect me to have instant solutions? I am objecting to a grotesque attempt at sweeping the problem under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist.

The problem of inequality is that income inequality has been steadily increasing for decades now. We have not had such stark divisions of wealth since 1929.


On the long historical scale, correct. But the real issue is economic insecurity, not just standard of living. The poor are always on the brink of losing everything. In particular, even most middle-class families are just one large medical bill away from financial ruin. The lower and middle classes in this country do not have any stability in their position.


Given that those are dense urban areas and many of America's poor are sprawled out across vast, virtually uninhabited tracts of cheap land in the interior of the country, this isn't surprising, or really indicative of anything.

The problem of poverty can be solved by poor individuals having more money. The problem of inequality can be solved through progressive taxation and a serious internationally agreed policy on tackling tax avoidance.

How is that an argument in favour of welfare states? The whole point of a welfare state is to have everything provided to you so if their unemployment rate is almost the same then it hasn't helped much in that regard. Also the Danish economy is being threatened by the miniscule influx of immigrants they have which is even less than South Korea so this is one of the things that build a strong case towards the fact that welfare states are unstable. There are countries with freer economies than the states but I chose it cuz it tends to often be a target of demonization.

It is true that 90% of the enterprises in the states are controlled by families, but the percentage is 80% in Germany so it doesn't reflect a flaw in the system. The value of connections are inherent in any dynamic dealing with social beings.

Yeah that's right. Sorry man I forgot to take into account that the quintiles are relative to the richest and poorest rather than two defined highest and lowest incomes. I suck at math so it took me a while to figure out where I went wrong. It still stands though that social mobility isn't extremely static or erratic.

I'll have to take a much closer look at it.

No I'm not familiar with him at all. I've seen him on a Family Guy episode and that's it. I'll do my research and get back to you on him.

Well I don't believe it's as simple as Horatio Alger makes it out to be either. There is no simple formula to becoming rich and practical intelligence (which is noted to be a big factor to entrepreneurial success in that study I posted) is heuristic so simplifying it into a formula makes a cat out to be a dog. So it's probably somewhere between those two extremes, but resourcefulness, effort, and practical intelligence are still major factors.

No I don't want instant solutions, I just wanted you to elaborate on it. By solutions I don't mean like a magic pill, but more like something that addresses the issues that go deeper than the tip of the iceberg and has some sort of effect in the long run.

I agree on the fact that they aren't financially secure but the fact that a lot of em have things they don't need reflects on the culture of poverty. Getting your financial priorities straight definitely helps your financial stability. I grew up in impoverished neighbourhoods and I have seen a lot of irresponsibility so I don't have much faith in social welfare. I used to see people going to stores with food stamps buying pop or candy all the time so anything that goes towards helping em should be to teach a man to fish rather than giving a fish a day (unless you absolutely need to be sustained for a while). Educational programs should be geared towards fiscal responsibility and how hard work in any area of life will get you far (GSP isn't an excellent MMA fighter for no reason, and there's a reason Mike Tyson slacking off in training and spending recklessly lead to his downfall and bankruptcy). Yes I said there is no magic formula to getting rich, and developing an attitude geared toward hard work is hard work itself, but it's a good road to get em on.

True but the majority of the poor aren't living in a one room shack or sh*****g in mud so it is still somewhat indicative.

So throw money at the poor? This is not only really vague but it's built on a something for nothing philosophy which only serves to sustain the poor rather than help em move up. Are social programs gonna help those who need to get their financial priorities straight and perhaps save money instead of buying a satellite or a big screen TV? Social programs are designed to sustain people not elevate em, and I think most of this should go towards the mentally ill or those who are functionally impaired in some way.