Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 11:35 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 6:01 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2024, 5:33 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2024, 7:17 amHowever COngrees and the Senate have a tiger by the tail. A tiger willing and able to bring down havoc on AMerica.

I remember when another anti-establishment leader, Milei, was voted in as leader of Argentina. The media were like you - predicting the most dire consequences. However, after a hard period, he has finally got inflation under control.

Biden inherited a raising inflation . Economic impacts can take 2 or more years to show in the inflation figures. Biden had a period of reconstruction in the early days.
It might have escaped your attention span , but the inflation caused by Trump and covid is now under control, thanks to Biden.
World economic experts are calling the US economy miraculous.
Trump is going to trash all the gains.

And BTW, Argentina. .. What cost to the poor? There are ways and means of tackling inflation. But if your only rubric is how good the rich feel then you are going to create misery, as we are seeing in Argentina, where the poor are once again paying for the mistakes of rampant capitalism.

The poor in Argentina have been plentiful and suffering under poor economic management for many years.

LOL.
Oh well that's okay then. Increasing their number and suffering does not matter??
If Trumps gets his tariff ideas through, its going to be disaster.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 6:22 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 11:35 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 6:01 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2024, 5:33 pm
I remember when another anti-establishment leader, Milei, was voted in as leader of Argentina. The media were like you - predicting the most dire consequences. However, after a hard period, he has finally got inflation under control.

Biden inherited a raising inflation . Economic impacts can take 2 or more years to show in the inflation figures. Biden had a period of reconstruction in the early days.
It might have escaped your attention span , but the inflation caused by Trump and covid is now under control, thanks to Biden.
World economic experts are calling the US economy miraculous.
Trump is going to trash all the gains.

And BTW, Argentina. .. What cost to the poor? There are ways and means of tackling inflation. But if your only rubric is how good the rich feel then you are going to create misery, as we are seeing in Argentina, where the poor are once again paying for the mistakes of rampant capitalism.

The poor in Argentina have been plentiful and suffering under poor economic management for many years.

LOL.
Oh well that's okay then. Increasing their number and suffering does not matter??
If Trumps gets his tariff ideas through, its going to be disaster.

If Milei gets it right, that will be temporary.

The poor are so mainly due to misguided socialist policies of many decades. Argentina, with its many advantages, should be an economic powerhouse rather than a basket case. Milei is trying to fix it, and the act of fixing economies is inherently painful, like the act of restructuring companies. Decades of mismanagement means there is no easy fix.

How often we hear capitalists blame poverty on failures of socialism. Most failures of socialism happen because they systems are run by capitalists. Capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor never works. Poverty occurs because of the wealth inequality that comes from unregulated capitalism.

Mo_reese wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 8:23 pm How often we hear capitalists blame poverty on failures of socialism. Most failures of socialism happen because they systems are run by capitalists. Capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor never works. Poverty occurs because of the wealth inequality that comes from unregulated capitalism.

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

Many decades ago I thought communism would be fairer than capitalism. I was speaking about it before class one time and a class mate who was a Vietnamese refugee became quite animated - and he was usually a very calm fellow. He drew column on the board representing the tiers of society, with a small upper class, large middle class and small lower class. He said that was capitalism. He drew another column with just two divisions - a very small upper class and a very large lower class. He said that that was communism. He had developed strong views based on his lived experience and first-hand observations.

I never forgot it. It's one thing to provide all sorts of services, it's another to be able to afford it without going into so much debt that painful austerity measures will be a matter of "when", not "if". These will disproportionately impact on the poor. I cannot see any ideal solutions to current societal problems, only least worst solutions applicable at a particular time.

Totalitarian Communism and radical Libertarian, laisses-faire Capitalism are not the only options. Neither work well in terms of looking after the majority of a nation's population. Whilst Capitalism is necessary, it can exist under a Democratic Socialist system on government which, whilst not able to make everyone equal, can redistribute wealth to the extent that everyone gets their basic needs looked after. It doesn't have to be either Capitalism or Communism. There is a moderate middle ground.

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑November 25th, 2024, 1:56 am There is a moderate middle ground.

Yes. It's not a binary choice - more of a spectrum.

It was explained to me once that every society has a market, and the question is what is decided within the market and what is decided outside the market.

For example, the administration of justice is within the market to the extent that whoever hires the most expensive lawyers wins.

Government corruption is the market deciding something that is ostensibly outside the market...

Mo_reese wrote:Poverty occurs because of the wealth inequality that comes from unregulated capitalism.

No. Poverty is a state of nature. We all come from (if you go back far enough) a subsistence farming economy in which everyone was poor. All the wealth there is has been built up over generations by an essentially-capitalist process.

Countries that are poor have not been "done down" by others so much as failed to progress out of poverty as much as their neighbours.

Which does not deny that some regulation of the market (e.g. to maintain competition and prevent monopoly) is a good thing which increases overall wealth.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 10:33 pm

Mo_reese wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 8:23 pm How often we hear capitalists blame poverty on failures of socialism. Most failures of socialism happen because they systems are run by capitalists. Capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor never works. Poverty occurs because of the wealth inequality that comes from unregulated capitalism.

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

Many decades ago I thought communism would be fairer than capitalism. I was speaking about it before class one time and a class mate who was a Vietnamese refugee became quite animated - and he was usually a very calm fellow. He drew column on the board representing the tiers of society, with a small upper class, large middle class and small lower class. He said that was capitalism. He drew another column with just two divisions - a very small upper class and a very large lower class. He said that that was communism. He had developed strong views based on his lived experience and first-hand observations.

I never forgot it. It's one thing to provide all sorts of services, it's another to be able to afford it without going into so much debt that painful austerity measures will be a matter of "when", not "if". These will disproportionately impact on the poor. I cannot see any ideal solutions to current societal problems, only least worst solutions applicable at a particular time.

But communism is not liberal socialism! The latter includes democracy and also a larger share of the cake for the poorer sorts of people: smaller share for the investors and owners of capital.

Communism for all its theoretical benefits does not make for equality, for the reasons you say. However we can adapt liberal socialism from the old communist feeling for rewarding the workers.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 10:33 pm Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

I have rarely seen such support for capitalism, expressed so clearly.

But what is a "better" standard of living? And what are its consequences?

And you end with a comment about socialism that would seem to apply equally, or more than that, to capitalism.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑November 25th, 2024, 5:34 am We all come from (if you go back far enough) a subsistence farming economy in which everyone was poor. All the wealth there is has been built up over generations by an essentially-capitalist process.

When you say everyone was "poor", I assume you mean to say that everybody had less 'wealth' than we all enjoy today. But is that only a way of supporting and recommending capitalism? When we were "poor", our world could more or less sustain our 'poverty', while today we are rich, and the world cannot sustain our demands...?

Is this really a recommendation for capitalism, or is it more of a warning?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 25th, 2024, 9:23 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 10:33 pm Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

I have rarely seen such support for capitalism, expressed so clearly.

But what is a "better" standard of living? And what are its consequences?

And you end with a comment about socialism that would seem to apply equally, or more than that, to capitalism. 🤔

If you have rarely seen such support for capitalism, you are living in a leftist bubble that does not permit "heretical" opinions.

It is easy to take for granted the income and lifestyle made possible by capitalism. Would you rather live in China, Cuba, Lao, NK or Vietnam? Can you name me a communist country you'd prefer to live in to a western nation?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 5:04 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 6:22 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 11:35 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 6:01 am
Biden inherited a raising inflation . Economic impacts can take 2 or more years to show in the inflation figures. Biden had a period of reconstruction in the early days.
It might have escaped your attention span , but the inflation caused by Trump and covid is now under control, thanks to Biden.
World economic experts are calling the US economy miraculous.
Trump is going to trash all the gains.

And BTW, Argentina. .. What cost to the poor? There are ways and means of tackling inflation. But if your only rubric is how good the rich feel then you are going to create misery, as we are seeing in Argentina, where the poor are once again paying for the mistakes of rampant capitalism.

The poor in Argentina have been plentiful and suffering under poor economic management for many years.

LOL.
Oh well that's okay then. Increasing their number and suffering does not matter??
If Trumps gets his tariff ideas through, its going to be disaster.

If Milei gets it right, that will be temporary.

The poor are so mainly due to misguided socialist policies of many decades. Argentina, with its many advantages, should be an economic powerhouse rather than a basket case. Milei is trying to fix it, and the act of fixing economies is inherently painful, like the act of restructuring companies. Decades of mismanagement means there is no easy fix.

There are no discernable socailist polices On the contrary.
Argentina is owned by outside interests and its resources are sucked out by mostly American business.
It is doubtful is the world financial system is going to allow Argentina to begin to look after its masses, and start paying them for the work they do and the resources they provide on the world stage.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 25th, 2024, 4:41 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 5:04 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 6:22 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2024, 11:35 pm

The poor in Argentina have been plentiful and suffering under poor economic management for many years.

LOL.
Oh well that's okay then. Increasing their number and suffering does not matter??
If Trumps gets his tariff ideas through, its going to be disaster.

If Milei gets it right, that will be temporary.

The poor are so mainly due to misguided socialist policies of many decades. Argentina, with its many advantages, should be an economic powerhouse rather than a basket case. Milei is trying to fix it, and the act of fixing economies is inherently painful, like the act of restructuring companies. Decades of mismanagement means there is no easy fix.

There are no discernable socailist polices On the contrary.
Argentina is owned by outside interests and its resources are sucked out by mostly American business.
It is doubtful is the world financial system is going to allow Argentina to begin to look after its masses, and start paying them for the work they do and the resources they provide on the world stage.

Okay, let's call it Kirchnerism. The trouble with unsustainable welfare programs is that the money runs out. There is no perfect solution, but ever-growing debt can only make things worse unless that debt is an investment for greater productivity.

Mo_reese wrote: ↑November 7th, 2024, 1:07 pm Oligarchies (like the US has had under the neo-liberal Democratic elite) are inherently unstable. This was stated by Aristotle but should be self-evident by now.
Author Thomas Frank points out that populist movements arise to challenge unstable oligarchies. He warned that while populist movements from the progressive Left aim to support the needs of the People, those from the Right deflect from the economic and social problems of the People and tend toward nationalism, racism and bigotry.
Sen Sanders tried to build a progressive populist movement from the Left to challenge the neo-liberal Democratic establishment and the Right Wing nationalistic populism but was soundly defeated by the billionaires of the oligarchy.
However, the Right Wing populist movement, lead by Trump, has handed the Democratic oligarchy a major defeat and taken control of the US government.
It appears that the Democratic oligarchy and their backers would rather see the extreme Right in power than the progressive Left.

If the Dems don't learn after this, which they show little sign of doing from what I've seen, then America is **** imo. But not alone, it's the way things are trending across the wealthy 'western' neo-liberal democracies.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 2:03 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 25th, 2024, 4:41 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 5:04 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 6:22 am

LOL.
Oh well that's okay then. Increasing their number and suffering does not matter??
If Trumps gets his tariff ideas through, its going to be disaster.

If Milei gets it right, that will be temporary.

The poor are so mainly due to misguided socialist policies of many decades. Argentina, with its many advantages, should be an economic powerhouse rather than a basket case. Milei is trying to fix it, and the act of fixing economies is inherently painful, like the act of restructuring companies. Decades of mismanagement means there is no easy fix.

There are no discernable socailist polices On the contrary.
Argentina is owned by outside interests and its resources are sucked out by mostly American business.
It is doubtful is the world financial system is going to allow Argentina to begin to look after its masses, and start paying them for the work they do and the resources they provide on the world stage.

Okay, let's call it Kirchnerism. The trouble with unsustainable welfare programs is that the money runs out. There is no perfect solution, but ever-growing debt can only make things worse unless that debt is an investment for greater productivity.

No the money does not "run out". The source of all money is government. And there is a bottomless pit. The trick is to control how much comes back into the exchequer through taxation. If you allow too much money to sit in offshore accounts, as financial instruments; as crypto; in schemes of r rent seeking behaviour in which money is "earned" through not work it is then that the economy stagnates. People are priced out of housing, they have no ob security; there is lower incentive to build and grow for the people.
The trouble is that it is the people with all the money and power that formulate buxzz phrases like "When you spedn other peoples money it eventually runs out"; or "welfare makes people lazy". None of which is true. It is those with the money and power who earn without working; who are parasitic on society; not the unemployed whom they have created.
This section of the population who have bought the government and control the media rely on poor people to swallow their sound bites and repeat phrases, paricipating in their own oppression. The worst of these is the "middle class" who think they have a chance at the bigtime, admire people who earn through money but do not work. And they can be relied on to say stuff like "Make America Great", or " The trouble with welfare programs is that the money runs out." Both US parties do this. Put the focus on the must vulnerable; be that gay, trans, immigrants, foreigners. The Democrats can't even bring themselves to say the phrase "working class", when it is this class that actally creates all the wealth for those that they have to pay rent/mortgage to.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 6:04 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 26th, 2024, 2:03 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 25th, 2024, 4:41 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 24th, 2024, 5:04 pm

If Milei gets it right, that will be temporary.

The poor are so mainly due to misguided socialist policies of many decades. Argentina, with its many advantages, should be an economic powerhouse rather than a basket case. Milei is trying to fix it, and the act of fixing economies is inherently painful, like the act of restructuring companies. Decades of mismanagement means there is no easy fix.

There are no discernable socailist polices On the contrary.
Argentina is owned by outside interests and its resources are sucked out by mostly American business.
It is doubtful is the world financial system is going to allow Argentina to begin to look after its masses, and start paying them for the work they do and the resources they provide on the world stage.

Okay, let's call it Kirchnerism. The trouble with unsustainable welfare programs is that the money runs out. There is no perfect solution, but ever-growing debt can only make things worse unless that debt is an investment for greater productivity.

No the money does not "run out". The source of all money is government. And there is a bottomless pit. The trick is to control how much comes back into the exchequer through taxation. If you allow too much money to sit in offshore accounts, as financial instruments; as crypto; in schemes of r rent seeking behaviour in which money is "earned" through not work it is then that the economy stagnates. People are priced out of housing, they have no ob security; there is lower incentive to build and grow for the people.
The trouble is that it is the people with all the money and power that formulate buxzz phrases like "When you spedn other peoples money it eventually runs out"; or "welfare makes people lazy". None of which is true. It is those with the money and power who earn without working; who are parasitic on society; not the unemployed whom they have created.
This section of the population who have bought the government and control the media rely on poor people to swallow their sound bites and repeat phrases, paricipating in their own oppression. The worst of these is the "middle class" who think they have a chance at the bigtime, admire people who earn through money but do not work. And they can be relied on to say stuff like "Make America Great", or " The trouble with welfare programs is that the money runs out." Both US parties do this. Put the focus on the must vulnerable; be that gay, trans, immigrants, foreigners. The Democrats can't even bring themselves to say the phrase "working class", when it is this class that actally creates all the wealth for those that they have to pay rent/mortgage to.

No, the money pit is not bottomless. When you print more money, it degrades people's savings and ultimately redistributes income upwards, because those at the top can better protect their assets from the resultant inflation.

Note that the money has indeed run out in Argentina. In fact, Argentina has defaulted on its debts four times since 1982.

Economic management is ideally a matter of pragmatically getting the policy balance right to suit the times rather than operating on rigid ideology.