Rudd calls for era of "social capitalism" (3 Viewers)

[Lentern]

You see we should all put our money into this big machine in Canberra, which can optimise our lifestyle decisions. Having Jews around was suboptimal because they worked harder than anybody else, thus creating an unequal distribution of wealth.

You make it sound as though it's a bad thing.

 

[withoutaface]

You make it sound as though it's a bad thing.

An economist in Canberra doesn't know what I want for breakfast better than I do. Do you accept this premise?

 

[sdent40]

Until we're banned from holding gold or silver which could happen at ANY time.

Yea if/when that happens, we're pretty screwed

Governments should indeed be able to confiscate the money and place it in the control of economic experts who can then steer it round the economy in the most effective way.

Even if we were to leave aside the moral issues involved with stealing, the "economic experts" in Canberra would not be able to steer the money around more effectively because price signals are needed to be able to efficiently apportion resources where they are needed most. Prices arise because of different and necessarily subjective opinions of each individual person (based on how much they like/dislike some goods in comparison to others), so unless your central planner is superhuman, rational economic calculation under central planning is impossible.

If you'd like to know more about this, google the socialist calculation problem.

 

[Lentern]

An economist in Canberra doesn't know what I want for breakfast better than I do. Do you accept this premise?

No but he knows what you should be eating, again another problem with letting ordinary people decide for themselves, they aren't clever enough. He might think he'd be happier eating bacon and sausage for breakfast, but he'll be better off if he has weetbix with milk and chopped banana.

 

[Lentern]

Yea if/when that happens, we're pretty screwed

Even if we were to leave aside the moral issues involved with stealing, the "economic experts" in Canberra would not be able to steer the money around more effectively because price signals are needed to be able to efficiently apportion resources where they are needed most. Prices arise because of different and necessarily subjective opinions of each individual person (based on how much they like/dislike some goods in comparison to others), so unless your central planner is superhuman, rational economic calculation under central planning is impossible.

If you'd like to know more about this, google the socialist calculation problem.

It's not stealing the money goes back into the economy for the individual to benefit from it. It's called taxation and it is neccessary. Now I wouldn't advocate so higher taxes as to deprive the individual of any choice, that would be be silly, just alot higher than they are now. As for HQ doesn't know best, I'm not talking about a couple of first year eco students using an abacus.

 

[sdent40]

No but he knows what you should be eating, again another problem with letting ordinary people decide for themselves, they aren't clever enough. He might think he'd be happier eating bacon and sausage for breakfast, but he'll be better off if he has weetbix with milk and chopped banana.

If this is really true, then how can the "ordinary man" be trusted to vote for a leader who will force him to eat weetbix over bacon + sausages? This is the paradox of democracy, people will just vote for their own preferences anyway.

 

[sdent40]

It's not stealing the money goes back into the economy for the individual to benefit from it.

So if I had a $100 hot dog club, where I automatically deduct the money out of your account, and gave you a hot dog in return, would that be legitimate? It seems if your argument is that "you benefit from it", such an argument would also justify doing many other things. So... enjoy being a member of my $100 hot dog club.

It's called taxation and it is neccessary.

Your statement is a statement of what exists now, what I'm discussing is normative (as in, how should things be).

FYI, I am well aware that it is called taxation, I don't need you to tell me that. I am calling the legitimacy of taxation into question, not it's existence.

As for HQ doesn't know best, I'm not talking about a couple of first year eco students using an abacus.

Are you missing the point? I just explained how rational economic calculation is impossible under central planning. You don't get away from that by just saying "oh well it's not going to be some first year student, it'll be a REAL professional". Do you understand what the word impossible means?

 

[Lentern]

If this is really true, then how can the "ordinary man" be trusted to vote for a leader who will force him to eat weetbix over bacon + sausages? This is the paradox of democracy, people will just vote for their own preferences anyway.

I agree, Bernard Shaw sums it up best when he says democracy is a device designed to ensure we are governed no better than we deserve.

I guess the way I think about it is the individual can lapse, it requires very little for them to temporarilly surrender to their inner demons. Government though is dense, complex, immense, nigh impregnable, it would require a planets alligning for the whole government to succomb to lethargy or instinct at the same time, even though some individuals within will, they will be corrected by the beautiful machine. I believe most people will vote how they believe they should, not how their irrational instincts implore them to, only a small minority will be defeated by their inner demons on election day.

 

[Lentern]

So if I had a $100 hot dog club, where I automatically deduct the money out of your account, and gave you a hot dog in return, would that be legitimate? It seems if your argument is that "you benefit from it", such an argument would also justify doing many other things. So... enjoy being a member of my $100 hot dog club.

I have no objections with the premise or your example. I don't believe that you should be deducting the money, rather government acts as a third party and organises the transfer. I don't agree with the price or the product, but the premise of mandatory purchasing of essential products is nothing more than benevolent, effective, positive government.

Your statement is a statement of what exists now, what I'm discussing is normative (as in, how should things be).
FYI, I am well aware that it is called taxation, I don't need you to tell me that. I am calling the legitimacy of taxation into question, not it's existence.

We need taxation, Karma is bullshit, just because you work hard, are good to your neighbours and don't commit crimes it doesn't mean you aren't going to get hit hard by events beyond your circumstances and thats where in a compassionate society the government is there to assist those who have been unfortunate. And the money for that comes from and should come from taxation.

Are you missing the point? I just explained how rational economic calculation is impossible under central planning. You don't get away from that by just saying "oh well it's not going to be some first year student, it'll be a REAL professional". Do you understand what the word impossible means?

I understand what you mean and believe you are using the word incorrectly. It is possible, it is difficult and can not be absolute, but it can certainly be used to a very great extent to improve society and those who dissagree are for the large part dellusional dreamers who believe they will one day strike it rich or upper middle class hacks who are concerned only with feathering their own nest.

 

[sdent40]

Government though is dense, complex, immense, nigh impregnable, it would require a planets alligning for the whole government to succomb to lethargy or instinct at the same time

Not at all, all it requires for the government (or its agencies and workers) to perform poorly, is the guarantee of payment for nothing. Oh wait, they already do get paid even when they fail. In fact, when government businesses fail, they often get given more money, not less.

When a private business fails, they don't get to just "tax" everyone more to make up for it, the owners and investors lose out! This is a necessary as a sort of signal that resources are not being used well and that they are better off used somewhere else.

When the government circumvents this process of resource reallocation (by stealing the cash and redirecting it elsewhere), everybody is worse off for it.

 

[Lentern]

Not at all, all it requires for the government (or its agencies and workers) to perform poorly, is the guarantee of payment for nothing. Oh wait, they already do get paid even when they fail. In fact, when government businesses fail, they often get given more money, not less.

When a private business fails, they don't get to just "tax" everyone more to make up for it, the owners and investors lose out! This is a necessary as a sort of signal that resources are not being used well and that they are better off used somewhere else.

When the government circumvents this process of resource reallocation (by stealing the cash and redirecting it elsewhere), everybody is worse off for it.

I will not debate the issue whilst you continue refering to revenue raising as a crime. Retract and I shall debate it respectfully and thoughtfully.

 

[sdent40]

I don't agree with the price or the product, but the premise of mandatory purchasing of essential products is nothing more than benevolent, effective, positive government.

That's my very point, you don't get the right to 'disagree with the price or the product' under government.

We need taxation, Karma is bullshit, just because you work hard, are good to your neighbours and don't commit crimes it doesn't mean you aren't going to get hit hard by events beyond your circumstances and thats where in a compassionate society the government is there to assist those who have been unfortunate. And the money for that comes from and should come from taxation.

Not only does the government fail in helping the poor, much of what it does actually makes their lives harder.

It is possible, it is difficult and can not be absolute

It's not possible to centrally plan things because not only does the government have no way of getting information from each individual (and no such computer with the processing power required exists), it has no way of mathematically representing those preferences vs one another.

those who dissagree are for the large part dellusional dreamers who believe they will one day strike it rich or upper middle class hacks who are concerned only with feathering their own nest.

The "If you disagree with socialism you're just selfish" fallacy. I don't want poor people to be worse off, I believe poor people are better off under free markets, since all the government does is either fail to help, or actively stops poor people from improving their own lot. For more info on why, see the link above.

 

[sdent40]

I will not debate the issue whilst you continue refering to revenue raising as a crime. Retract and I shall debate it respectfully and thoughtfully.

That is the very issue we're talking about. So what's the point in having a discussion, if in order to have it, I have to 'retract' the statement?

Besides, if you look at what I wrote, I wrote "even setting that aside", and spoke about the impossibility of rational economic calculation under central planning.

 

[Lentern]

That is the very issue we're talking about. So what's the point in having a discussion, if in order to have it, I have to 'retract' the statement?

Besides, if you look at what I wrote, I wrote "even setting that aside", and spoke about the impossibility of rational economic calculation under central planning.

"by stealing the cash" thats what I really object to.

 

[Lentern]

Trolling is sweet, isn't it

I dunno, more like addictive, you don't get any real pleasent feeling from it but there is this compulsion to keep doing it.

 

[bwendan]

haha "social capitalism" more like socialism

 

[katie tully]

Social capitalism is at odds with government hand outs, yes?

 

[katie tully]

I will not debate the issue whilst you continue refering to revenue raising as a crime. Retract and I shall debate it respectfully and thoughtfully.

Revenue raising. Yes. The only problem with socialists like Rudd is that people who are irresponsible with their money get hand outs, whilst those who have strived to achieve good incomes are taxed to the eye balls, because there is apparently something wrong with earning a lot of money.

It's not stealing the money goes back into the economy for the individual to benefit from it. It's called taxation and it is neccessary. Now I wouldn't advocate so higher taxes as to deprive the individual of any choice, that would be be silly, just alot higher than they are now. As for HQ doesn't know best, I'm not talking about a couple of first year eco students using an abacus.

How do individuals who get taxed a lot, benefit from the hand outs given to those who pay proportionately less or no tax at all?

How you spend your money, or how anyone spends their money comes back to effect me as indeed it does the entire community. Governments should indeed be able to confiscate the money and place it in the control of economic experts who can then steer it round the economy in the most effective way.

Explain. I work for x hours a week and earn y money. What I spend my money on should have no bearing on you at all, and I sure as shit shouldn't have a government intervene and tell me what I can do with my money, let alone 'confiscate'.

 

[Lentern]

Revenue raising. Yes. The only problem with socialists like Rudd is that people who are irresponsible with their money get hand outs, whilst those who have strived to achieve good incomes are taxed to the eye balls, because there is apparently something wrong with earning a lot of money.

Strived to achieve god incomes? Yes James Packer really climbed that greasy poll he deserves every cent. Unfortunately my dear lady much of ones financial positions can be attributed to events beyond their control and whilst there are many wonderful, benevolent rich people who do much to level the playing field on their own accord, their are many disgusting pieces of work like yourself who will not. And that is why governments should take the decision of whether or not to be charitable, away from you.

Explain. I work for x hours a week and earn y money. What I spend my money on should have no bearing on you at all, and I sure as shit shouldn't have a government intervene and tell me what I can do with my money, let alone 'confiscate'.

Multiplier effect? duh

 

[Will Shakespear]

i see

so all people who decide to go out and work instead of being scum == James Packer

and must therefore be punished