I forgot my numbers...but on the compass I was in the pink.

-Chris

Quoted from Chris_MacGuffin Economic Left/Right: -6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41 I have no idea what that means. Am I left wing or something?

Extremely left wing. I guess I should call you Comrad from now on, LOL.

Just kidding. In all seriousness, the results are basic x/y coordinates. Take a look at a couple of the posted charts. You'll get the idea.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films For me the greatest political thinker remains Karl Marx. I think turbo-captalism's effect on all levels of society, with people valuing money above all human considerations shows how right he was when he said that the inevitable outcome of Capitalism is to enslave humanity. Global Corporations can now decide World wide policies with the strength of their money and can even control everything that the general populaces sees, reads and hence thinks. It's galling to me that, in a time like no other, when we have the ability to communicate with each other and to learn new ideas, educational standards, artistic standards and standards of behaviour are dropping to a deplorable level. We treat news of corruption and murder as disposable entertainment and allow grave injustices that we all know about to happen on a daily basis. It's time that all the decent people across the world came together under a single political movement and put an end to the mess once and for all.

That's interesting. But imagine a world without capitalism. Without free markets. Without supply and demand. Even though Marx may be right that unchecked capitalism may lead to monopolies, corporation-states and eventually enslavement, Marx's idea of combatting this eventual enslavement was immediate enslavement.

The free market is fundamentally an agent of democracy in its truest form. Is the market not the will of the people? If you like something you can support it by investing your money in it, and if you dislike something or somebody you can boycott them. That'd first hand democracy. One can only be allowed to become a successful corporation if willed by the people.

Your argument seems to be that capitalism has failed because people are basically morons and can't control their own destiny, right? If this is true, then we are doomed no matter what system we employ.

The bottomline is if the majority of the people were against these big bad corporations, then they wouldn't be able to survive. And if we can't afford to let people decide how to spend their money, how can we entrust them to choosing who they want to represent them?

Turbo-capitalism is a bad thing, and I think we should check ourselves against monopolies, but like democracy capitalism is the worst form of economic system. Except for all the others that have been tried.

In the Australian Football League they capped the amount of money football clubs could pay their players, so basically every playing roster has to operate on the same budget. Now we don't have the same clubs buying success year after year like they do in the English Premier League and clubs that have struggled for years have finally experienced success, because it's now a level playing field.  

I think one the reasons socialism and communism has failed in some countries is because there wasn’t enough incentive for people to work hard, because everybody would pretty much get the same wage regardless. In fact I used to work with a guy who lived in Communist China and said that very thing.

So what if, the state controlled all businesses and capped the maximum annual income at say $500,000 a year? This would be enough to motivate the ambitious, whilst also making sure there was still enough revenue to fully fund essential public services like: health, education, housing, welfare etc  

Could this work?  

Chris,

If everyone made $500K/year there would be no one interested in cleaning my house, give me pedicures, take care of my horses and deliver pizzas!




PS. I hope you realized I was joking.

I know your joking, Pia.


But I'm not saying that everybody should get paid that much, I'm saying the maximum anybody could get would be 500K.

Quoted from Takeshi In the Australian Football League they capped the amount of money football clubs could pay their players, so basically every playing roster has to operate on the same budget. Now we don't have the same clubs buying success year after year like they do in the English Premier League and clubs that have struggled for years have finally experienced success, because it's now a level playing field.   I think one the reasons socialism and communism has failed in some countries is because there wasn’t enough incentive for people to work hard, because everybody would pretty much get the same wage regardless. In fact I used to work with a guy who lived in Communist China and said that very thing. So what if, the state controlled all businesses and capped the maximum annual income at say $500,000 a year? This would be enough to motivate the ambitious, whilst also making sure there was still enough revenue to fully fund essential public services like: health, education, housing, welfare etc   Could this work?

I think the reason why socialism and communism failed was because these are systems that are dependent on everybody in the country being ardent communists. If just 1% of the people don't believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" the system fails. Which is why every commnist state that has ever been has cracked down hard on those who dissent.

Beyond that, if there were no privately owned business that would mean the supply would be controlled by the state, not by the people who demand it. That's not very democratic. Which is why in communist states the literature you could read, the music you could listen to and the movies you could see were closely scrutinized and never opposing the state. Even if the people wanted to be exposed to it.

Basically, I believe communism fosters censorship, oppression and uniformity. Even if it means well.

Human beings are individuals with different tempers, desires, needs, abilities and dreams. Communism basically says: "Well, you shouldn't be."

But we are. And that's why socialism will always fail, IMO. And capitalism is the reason why socialism will always survive.

Quoted from Death Monkey Beyond that, if there were no privately owned business that would mean the supply would be controlled by the state, not by the people who demand it. That's not very democratic. Which is why in communist states the literature you could read, the music you could listen to and the movies you could see were closely scrutinized and never opposing the state. Even if the people wanted to be exposed to it.

Why couldn’t the state just supply the people with what they wanted?

Anyway, I’d put it to you that the people don’t control demand, the corporations do, by convincing people that they need to buy their products.

I’m not advocating a return to communism or socialism. I'm just floating the idea of capping individual salaries at 500K.      

Quoted from Takeshi Why couldn’t the state just supply the people with what they wanted? Anyway, I’d put it to you that the people don’t control demand, the corporations do, by convincing people that they need to buy their products. I’m not advocating a return to communism or socialism. I'm just floating the idea of capping individual salaries at 500K.

Because I think there is an inevitable downwardspiral when we entrust one singular entity with the control of what is traded and what isn't. I think history supports me in making the assertion that the state controlling demand leads to oppresion a whole lot faster than big bad corporations controlling it, should we concede that to be true.

Well, then your argument seems to be that people are brainwashed and can't decide for themselves what they need. And if this is true then how can we possible advocate democracy? The politicans control what we vote by convincing us that we need to vote for them or the country will collapse.

If it were true that the corporations controlled demand, how do we explain that some products fail to sell? How do we explain boycotts? People have freedom of choice, and if they decide to buy something, who are we to question whether they really want it or not?

Another problem is your definition of "need". Is need just the bare minimum to survive or is it a 32 inch flatscreen TV (but not 40", no one NEEDS that) and an SUV? So who decides what we need? I would argue the most democratic thing would be to let people decide for themselves what they need instead of the state.

To me it seems like the socialist view of the human being is that of a helpless animal that can't be trusted with any significant aspect of their own lives.

Quoted from Death Monkey Well, then your argument seems to be that people are brainwashed and can't decide for themselves what they need. And if this is true then how can we possible advocate democracy? The politicans control what we vote by convincing us that we need to vote for them or the country will collapse. If it were true that the corporations controlled demand, how do we explain that some products fail to sell? How do we explain boycotts? People have freedom of choice, and if they decide to buy something, who are we to question whether they really want it or not?

I have no doubt they want it, but usually it’s because they’ve been convinced that they need it.  Why else would coca-cola spend the majority of it's budget on advertising when people already know that the product exists?

Quoted from Death Monkey To me it seems like the socialist view of the human being is that of a helpless animal that can't be trusted with any significant aspect of their own lives.

If that belief is exclusive to the socialist view, why do the capitalists go to such great lengths to influence people’s thinking, rather than letting them make up their own minds about who they want to vote for or what they’d like to buy?  

Quoted from Takeshi I have no doubt they want it, but usually it's because they've been convinced that they need it.  Why else would coca-cola spend the majority of it's budget on advertising when people already know that the product exists?

So you distinguish between a 'natural desire' for something and then a 'convinced desire'? So how do know when someone is only needing something because they've been convinced, and when it's genuine?

There is an important distinction between convincing someone that they need the product and then that they need YOUR specific brand. People want cola because they like the taste. People want Coca Cola because Coca Cola spends billions in advertising.

But they're not creating a need for the product, just influencing people's inclination towards their brand. That's not controlling demand.

Quoted Text If that belief is exclusive to the socialist view, why do the capitalists go to such great lengths to influence people's thinking, rather than letting them make up their own minds about who they want to vote for or what they'd like to buy?

Well, if people couldn't make up their own minds then advertising would be redundant. Advertising is in essence an argument for buying a specific product or brand. Some advertisements appeal to logic, some to more basic urges like hunger or thirst, some to our sexual drive. But the choice IS left up to the consumer to decide which argument is the best one. Thus 'capitalists' (obsolete term, really, because we are all capitalists now) do work within a framework that entrusts every decision to the consumer, unlike socialism.

Again, your argument seems to entail that we are somehow brainwashed by advertisements and when we make a choice to buy something, it's not really our choice because we've been influenced by advertising. So when I decide to buy a pair of converse shoes, how do you know if it's actually me wanting them or if I'm just buying them because Will Smith wore them in I, Robot?

And if I only bought them because of Will Smith, isn't that my choice? And my money?

The question is, how do you know?

But getting back to my original question. Do you think it would work if society capped individual salaries at 500K?  

Quoted from Takeshi The question is, how do you know? But getting back to my original question. Do you think it would work if society capped individual salaries at 500K?

Actually, the question, why does it matter? If I buy a hamburger simply because a hot girl is holding it on a billboard, that's my choice and my money.

I don't think so, no, because it works against independent human entrepreneuring, which I think is a good thing. If an individual gets a great idea he or she should be able to pursue it and start a business around it. And if it's a really great idea and you work really hard for it, you should be able to make whatever amount people will pay you. This is the way society moves forward, IMO.

"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."
        Publilius Syrus
        (~100 BC)

Bad example TJ.

Coca-Cola uses very specific things in it's drinks to create an actual NEED to have the drink.

It's like cigarettes.

I think people are a lot more influenced by advertising than you think. They spend fortunes on creating subliminal associations. They use celebrity to give the products a veneer of sophistication etc and make you think that you are making a choice when in a lot of instances the choice you are making has been informed by all the subconscious images that you have built up over time.

People in general rarely make choices in the truest sense of the word. They just go along with whatever they are told to do. This is true of all levels of commerce and politics as well.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Bad example TJ. Coca-Cola uses very specific things in it's drinks to create an actual NEED to have the drink. It's like cigarettes. I think people are a lot more influenced by advertising than you think. They spend fortunes on creating subliminal associations. They use celebrity to give the products a veneer of sophistication etc and make you think that you are making a choice when in a lot of instances the choice you are making has been informed by all the subconscious images that you have built up over time. People in general rarely make choices in the truest sense of the word. They just go along with whatever they are told to do. This is true of all levels of commerce and politics as well.

Well that's not advertising then, but chemical dependency and is a completely different discussion. But even people decide for themselves to smoke, mind you.

I'm not saying people aren't influenced by advertising. But you seem to suggest that when I buy Pepsi because I saw Tiger Woods drink it in a commercial I'm somehow making a less informed purchase, or worse, I'm not even making a choice. But if I wanna spend money on feeling I'm associated with Tiger Woods, then that's my business. Why can't I spend money on that?
And again, this only pertains to brand preference not the demand of a product. They can't subliminally make me want to eat haggis.

And again, how can those of you who say that people can't really make choices for themselves at all support a system of government where the people are actually  entrusted to elect their leaders? Surely that must be lunacy if they can't even choose a soft-drink for themselves?