Socialism Vs Capitalism

While BA students may be imbecilic in voting, Im pretty sure you will find a higher than normal level of actual thinking about the parties and their policies from the BSci, BEng, and BCom people, because we know that bad voting will seriously disadvantage us in the long run. And what about people who work while at uni? paying taxes, so should be allowed to vote, but receiving loans, due to the fact that going to uni, to better myself and the country for the future requires the loan be one and half times the median salary? which will take 12+ years to pay off, so if your proposal required no voting until thats paid off, wouldnt let me vote until 35.

.

namelessfly wrote:This is precisely what I want to do.

Feel free to get an education at taxpayer expense. It will delay you getting the francnise for a few years. This is good because college students vote like imbeciles. If you get a good paying job, you then pay taxes and vote for the rest of your life. If voting is important to you, that will motivate you to learn useful skills.

Spacekiwi wrote:The requirement for no voting after receipt of govt money would also reject all nz tertiary students as our government loans us our student loans. so you are suggesting that around a quarter to a third of nz's population between 18 and 26 (4 year degree, 4 years unable to vote) be disenfranchised for attempting to better themselves. this will do the opposite of what you are trying to prevent, namely discourage people from getting uni education, and stifle progress, increasing the population relying on the government.

Just thinking about the nature of capitalism. It seems to me that capitalism works the best in conditions where there is a modest labor shortage.

Capitalism is STRONGLY dependent on the middle class in the long term. So for capitalism to work long term conditions have to exists that lead to a strong vibrant middle class.

Modest labor shortage conditions

1. The employers are incentivized to provide good wages and benefits in order to keep employees and attract new ones.

2. Employers are incentivized to treat their employees well and not to exploit them or they will vote with their feet and work for someone else. Bad employers will have high staff turnover and will suffer from the associated disruptions, leading to a competitive advantage for good employers.

3. No need to worry about minimum wage issues. No one but entry level teenagers will be earning it.

4. The good wages will build / strengthen the middle class that capitalism is absolutely dependent on.

Labor surplus conditions

1. The capitalist response to a bad employer or low wages is simple. "Get another job." However, for that to be a solution, getting another job has to be a realistic possibility. In conditions of labor surplus that is not the case.

2. Employers are incentivized to pay low wages. The employees aren't going to leave anyway so why reduce profits? Long term this is bad, low wage employees can't buy as much of your products but few employer think that way. Most are focused on the short term.

3. There is no disincentive for sociopathic, tyrannical individuals to not abuse employees. The employees aren't going to quit they can't.

4. In the long run as the economy drifts away from a middle class and toward a two class haves/have nots situation; the market for their products disappears and employers start doing badly.

5. On the other hand, there is an upside here as desperate creative types often come up with marketable new ideas under these conditions, which tend to benefit humanity as a whole.

Extreme labor shortage

OK this is too much of a good thing.

1. High turnover with the associated disruptions involved as employees job hop from one employer to the next in an ever increasing wage spiral.

2. Employers lack the predictable labor forecasts necessary to develop effective long term plans.

3. Employer's have to keep bad employees because they are desperate.

4. On the bright side desperate creative employers come up with unique solutions to the problem, that benefit society in the long term.




Note because we are in a global economy labor shortage / labor surplus tends to play out on a global scale. Currently there is a labor surplus in China, India etc and that is drawing the entire global economy toward a labor surplus state. No one really noticed when it was the low wage manufacturing jobs affected by the labor surplus. But now it is the STEM jobs. And of course the jobless recovery from the current recession has led to a USA surplus as well.

Capitalism is STRONGLY dependent on the middle class in the long term. So for capitalism to work long term conditions have to exists that lead to a strong vibrant middle class.

Worth reading:
"The Mystery of Capitalism" by Hernando de Soto
"Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson

The best definition found of the difference between an extractive economy and an inclusive one, which is the main point of this, whatever the label:

There are practical entrepreneurs who compete by price and product. If encouraged, they strengthen the economy.

There are political entrepreneurs who compete by gaming the system. If encouraged they are a drag on the economy.

The problem is that in an extractive economy, the big shots exceedingly prosper, no matter what happens to the rest of us. Remember Isaac Asimov's reply to the lady who longed for the "good old days" when it was possible to get plenty of servants? "Madame, we would be the servants."

Note because we are in a global economy labor shortage/ labor surplus tends to play out on a global scale. Currently there is a labor surplus in China, India etc and that is drawing the entire global economy toward a labor surplus state. No one really noticed when it was the low wage manufacturing jobs affected by the labor surplus. But now it is the STEM jobs. And of course the jobless recovery from the current recession has led to a USA surplus as well.

There is also the factor of more automation. I remember a science fiction story called "The Darfstellar" because of its key line: "The only job that can't be automated is the job of inventing new jobs." A small industrial robot can be bought for U$22,000 the last I read.

Today this is not possible anymore. Any Land is privatized. Every piece of Land is owned, you cant withdraw and live for yourself.

The development of intensive gardening and like things allows those willing to use much smaller pieces of land. When laid off in '03, the first thing I did was enlarge the back yard garden. Why wait for someone else to hand you a job when there is anywhere you can work for yourself? When I was a kid, Dad would get empty boxes, locate fruit trees in season, and offer to pick the trees for half the fruit. Of course, he had practice in finding things to do, his dad died when he was ten. Grandma always said that there was enough for today, and made a game out of seeing how many ways they could get ready for the future. There were three older brothers also.

They stayed off welfare, and our whole family seems to have the attitude that welfare is accepting bribes to stay poor.

Worth Reading:

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentarie ... MjgzNTM2S0

In looking up things, look at Jerry Pournelle's 2D political chart, and his iron law of bureaucracy.

There are practical entrepreneurs who compete by price and product. If encouraged, they strengthen the economy.

There are political entrepreneurs who compete by gaming the system. If encouraged they are a drag on the economy.

Unfortunately the trend now is the latter.

They stayed off welfare, and our whole family seems to have the attitude that welfare is accepting bribes to stay poor.

Welfare as currently implemented certainly seems to be having that effect.

Arol wrote:…and they both end up shafting the poor slobs in the middle.

Yes but with Capitalism you can complain to the government (& some have succeeded) with Socialism the Company IS the Government so when you try to complain, it's off to the Gulag as an "Enemy of the State!!!" (if your lucky)

BrightSoul wrote:Your argument does nothing to remove the corruption from the process. You're simple replacing one corrupt bunch with another.

That's all Socialism/Communism ever did.

Michael Riddell wrote:Perhaps, but let's just say that the UK has taken it's eye off the ball when it comes to scientific research.

And sea power as well (since 1918 anyway)

PeterZ wrote:I actually prefer private funding for higher education. I actually prefer private funding for all education. Making the recipient of education funding directly responsible to those receiving the education (and paying for it) would make the entire process much more efficient. More efficient and cheaper.

then I (or any other poor person without a rich benefactor) couldn’t afford it and education is restricted to the rich elite. Education funding should be based on intelligence/aptitude.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I actually prefer private funding for higher education. I actually prefer private funding for all education. Making the recipient of education funding directly responsible to those receiving the education (and paying for it) would make the entire process much more efficient. More efficient and cheaper.

then I (or any other poor person without a rich benefactor) couldn’t afford it and education is restricted to the rich elite. Education funding should be based on intelligence/aptitude.

I think the idea is that a person is more likely to apply himself to something he pays for. This may not be accurate. It might be an assumption that if education were private, it would be easier to fire incompetent teachers or administration. There is some private education now, one of the ways someone who learns well in a given subject can finance it is by going slower and earning his own way. Another is to find someone to cover him based on his proven ability.

Note that academic education is not best for everyone. I have a friend who did very poorly in school, but now that he is out doing practical things, he is doing very well. The thing I don't understand is that he enjoys reading He seems to learn best by having real life experiences with someone to mentor him.

My own best pattern is to study something on my own using the library (and now the net), with someone to go to if I get stuck.

I read once that there are about 20 known learning patterns, and the usual school uses less than half a dozen in their teaching. No idea whether this is fact or hyperbole on someone' part.

MAD-4A wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I actually prefer private funding for higher education. I actually prefer private funding for all education. Making the recipient of education funding directly responsible to those receiving the education (and paying for it) would make the entire process much more efficient. More efficient and cheaper.

then I (or any other poor person without a rich benefactor) couldn’t afford it and education is restricted to the rich elite. Education funding should be based on intelligence/aptitude.

And who measures that aptitude? Whoever does will find their associates have an advantage. There will always be folks on the outside looking in. Better to have a system where costs are low enough for anyone to afford with effort.

Private funding of education keeps costs down so that more people both can afford it and keeps down those that don't want it enough to work for it.