Bozo Wrote:Interesting take on the matter in hand, A.
My opinion is that employment matters, therefore being apathetic about jobs when you have one or don't need one strikes me as an " I'm alright Jack, stuff the rest of you " attitude which I wouldn't expect from you. Maybe you don't mean it that way.

I mean to say that it is easier to not care when one is not affected.

'Enjoy' was used sarcastically.

Socialism and capitalism are not exclusive... in the US we use both to a high degree. Fairness in a workplace according to current skill level cannot include any other judgement. Color of a person's skin scarcely enters into it, and sexual orientation certainly does not. Fairness cannot be assured, let alone be assured by making even more unfairness.

A minimum wage is not needed so much as a mandatory comfortable living wage. Maximum wage is to suggest that one stop making new things when they are at the top.

A stoner is a marijuana druggie.

(July 30, 2011 at 5:07 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

Bozo Wrote:Interesting take on the matter in hand, A.
My opinion is that employment matters, therefore being apathetic about jobs when you have one or don't need one strikes me as an " I'm alright Jack, stuff the rest of you " attitude which I wouldn't expect from you. Maybe you don't mean it that way.

I mean to say that it is easier to not care when one is not affected.

'Enjoy' was used sarcastically.

Socialism and capitalism are not exclusive... in the US we use both to a high degree. Fairness in a workplace according to current skill level cannot include any other judgement. Color of a person's skin scarcely enters into it, and sexual orientation certainly does not. Fairness cannot be assured, let alone be assured by making even more unfairness.

A minimum wage is not needed so much as a mandatory comfortable living wage. Maximum wage is to suggest that one stop making new things when they are at the top.

A stoner is a marijuana druggie.

I think it is beyond debate that socialism is fundamentally different to capitalism.
The idea of a maximium wage is to put a limit on what the top earns at the expense of the bottom. In a word, exploitation.

Thanks for letting me know what theVoid is

(July 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm)bozo Wrote: Thanks for letting me know what theVoid is

I am also a stoner, an Ent I profess, but a stoner nonetheless.

And there really is nothing wrong with stoners either

Bozo Wrote:I think it is beyond debate that socialism is fundamentally different to capitalism.

Not at all. At the base they together state the same goal: to gain. Their singular difference is that one of them explicitly states that if you don't succeed you fail (hard). The other one hides this fact beneath idealogical banter that prevents anyone from getting ahead.

"Russia is such a great country, we are all equal! Equally poor."

(July 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Last I checked, right wing means both social and economic decisions. Here, let's take a look at definitions, using Google as Adrian has:

Define:
right wing
Noun: The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.
Adjective: Conservative or reactionary: "a right-wing Republican".

By your statement Void, it looks like socially, they are not "right wing".

By that definition then sure, they aren't. What I was intending to mean by "right wing" was more referring to the 1 dimensional political spectrum where ideas that are fiscally conservative or more free market are considered to the right, regardless of their social position, in that sense general libertarian parties are right wing, as are the centre-right parties such as the National or ACT parties here, but by that definition of right wing neither of them would qualify either, a notion that the majority of political pundits would reject. South Korea's system of government is very similar to that of our current ruling party both socially and economically, it was by that notion that I considered them "right wing".

Quote:Look at the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Korea

Hmm, it appears that they are moving away from being conservative with regards to such. That's not right wing, that's defined as left wing. Or progressive.

Then North Korea are not Left Wing? They are after all as socially conservative they come. I also disagree that progressives are left-wing, they are as I understand it much more centrists, some kind of democratic capitalism with socially liberal attitudes. You would likely consider our government "progressive" by that standard, yet they are very clearly a centre-right party in my view.

I'm ultimately not too concerned about definitions, as long as we understand what each other mean it wouldn't matter if we called it 'floob'.

Quote:Let's look at the libertarian wankfest topic -- drug freedom. Oops, there isn't. In fact, Korean laws regarding personal usage of drugs are quite strict, a model more strict than the US (they based their policy on the DEA's policies and decided to dial it to 11).

Yeah, they are strict on drugs. I did say they were "right wing" and not libertarian, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote:Yep, that is soo right wing.

So wait, when they are socially liberal on one issue you say they're necessarily not "right wing" but when you raise an issue on which they are conservative you ignore it?

So far you've raised one issue in which they are liberal and one issue which they are conservative, and this to you seems a good enough argument to ridicule me for calling them "right wing"?

Quote:A casual glance around only convinced me, that in attempting to beat up Minimalist for his bigotry, you made a fool of yourself.

He said that a Korean company shouldn't be allowed to operate a chicken plant because Koreans eat dog meat! That is blatant bigotry. Are you saying you're also going to judge all Koreans because of what a few of them have done, something that isn't necessarily any worse than eating pork from an ethical perspective? What if you were in charge of their ability to run a business? Would you prohibit them for something present in their culture, even when it is minority participation? From what Min has said I'd assume he'd do exactly that and that's something I take issue with.

And yet I bet you'd still happily buy a Korean cellphone, right?

Quote:Finally, with money, comes the ability to subvert existing laws. So this "right wing" paradise has managed to ban things for the little people, but there is little doubt that the richer folks can get whatever they want.

And do you think a "progressive" system with more laws and bureaucrats will be less subvertable? I genuinely don't buy it, it's nothing more than wishful thinking that you can elect a bunch of experts free from greed and temptation to have more authority over the resources of the people, in practice the politicians are often incompetent, power hungry, greedy or self-righteous, so much so that the ones who are genuinely capable, humble and caring can't make a dent - In reality you end up with endless laws, licenses and regulations that drag down small business while their corporate counterparts get given massive advantages ensuring that there is a disproportionate allocation of capital and thus wealth.

Quote:Congratu-fucking-lations, you outlined my idea of a hell -- a place where things are backwards enough to restrict your personal liberty and ability to buy/gain protection restricted to whatever sexual orientation you profess but forward enough to gain money!

You should already know by now that I am against any restriction in personal liberty exercised without thwarting the liberties of others, so there is no excuse for that straw man. I am also a strong advocate of tougher sentencing and a police system focused on victims, that includes crimes committed via markets and the environment or any action where another person is forced/coerced into an action - Strong deterrents, tough sentences and a focus on victims of crime will be a much more effective system in my view. Put as succinctly as possible; Any person should be free to do anything they like with their mind, body or property so long as they force no others to do that which they do not wish to. People aren't cogs in a machine, they aren't a resource at the disposal of some strategist, they are individuals who should be free to pursue whatever pleasures in life they wish so long as it is consensual.

Quote:Did it ever occur to you that money is justice-agnostic? It will flow into a hell hole or paradise, depending only if demand and supply can be met (with the usual dependent variables of quality, quantity et al).

Money is a measure of purchasing power, nothing more.

---

(July 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm)bozo Wrote: I think it is beyond debate that socialism is fundamentally different to capitalism.

It depends on your definitions evidently, some would say they can co-exist, the idea of "social capitalism" comes to mind. The private ownership of the means of production is I think the most important consideration in calling something "capitalist".

Wikipedia Wrote:Social capitalism (Socio-capitalism), as a theory or political or philosophical stance, challenges the idea that the goals of socialism and the existing system of capitalism are inherently antagonistic.[1] The essence of social capitalism is that markets work best and output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy. Social capitalism posits that a strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged. Social capitalism also posits that government regulation, and even sponsorship of markets, can lead to superior economic outcomes, as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet or basic securities regulation

Quote:The idea of a maximium wage is to put a limit on what the top earns at the expense of the bottom. In a word, exploitation.

What authority do you have to tell someone how much they can earn from their business?

Quote:Thanks for letting me know what theVoid is

Letting you know what I am? Well aren't you self righteous! What I do to relax doesn't affect anyone else, it's nobodies business but my own.

In my experience, the only real 1 dimensional political line that can be used is one where you have "Individualism" on one end, and "Collectivism" on the other end. Libertarianism is obviously at the "Individualism" end; socialism / communism are at the "Collectivism" end, with the actual political parties in play today at various points between them.

@bozo

My definition also appears in the Oxford English Dictionary:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

It mentions prejudice / antagonism, but not as part of the actual definition; more as part of an example.

(July 30, 2011 at 7:11 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: And there really is nothing wrong with stoners either

Bozo Wrote:I think it is beyond debate that socialism is fundamentally different to capitalism.

Not at all. At the base they together state the same goal: to gain. Their singular difference is that one of them explicitly states that if you don't succeed you fail (hard). The other one hides this fact beneath idealogical banter that prevents anyone from getting ahead.

"Russia is such a great country, we are all equal! Equally poor."

I'm sorry but capitalism is an economic system based on competition, whereas socialism is based on co-operation.Fundamental difference.

Russia is interesting in that its form of communism gave way to gangster capitalism and over the last 20 years the rich have doubled their wealth, 2/3rds are no better off and the poor were better off under the old system.( source Moscow School of Economics ).

---

theVoid,
I don't have any right at all to limit what someone takes from a business. I do have a right to express an opinion as to why a maximum wage might make more sense than a minimum wage. That's what I express.

As to your habits, frankly I don't care a jot. It was another who described you as a stoner, a term unknown to me. So are you?

---

(July 30, 2011 at 7:04 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(July 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm)bozo Wrote: Thanks for letting me know what theVoid is

I am also a stoner, an Ent I profess, but a stoner nonetheless.

OK, showing my ignorance of modernity again, what's an " Ent "?

(July 31, 2011 at 7:05 am)bozo Wrote: I'm sorry but capitalism is an economic system based on competition, whereas socialism is based on co-operation.Fundamental difference.

That's not true, capitalism has both competition and cooperation, what is known as mutual self-interest, I cooperate with people in the economy because it's valuable to me, I cooperate by offering my labour at a cost to someone who is willing to pay for a service, we both get what we want - I compete with other people with the same skills, we both want the work, the person hiring wants the best value for money - the price I can charge is a function of the demand for my services relative to the supply of said services.


What I take issue with is coerced or compulsory cooperation, telling someone that they must do something because it is in the interest of others.

Quote:Russia is interesting in that its form of communism gave way to gangster capitalism and over the last 20 years the rich have doubled their wealth, 2/3rds are no better off and the poor were better off under the old system.( source Moscow School of Economics ).

Sure, Crony capitalism is a terrible system;

wikipedia Wrote:Crony capitalism is a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

We both agree that tyrannies are the problem and Crony Capitalism is the capitalist equivalent of a totalitarian socialist state - The problem in both circumstances is not whether the economy works from mutual self interest and private ownership or coerced cooperation, but that people who are greedy have the force of government working to serve their interests.

The thing I think we will agree on is that the use of government to support special interests is pretty much the worst thing that can happen, regardless of whether the special interests are corporate entities or the whim of an idealogical dictator.

---

(July 31, 2011 at 7:05 am)bozo Wrote: theVoid,
I don't have any right at all to limit what someone takes from a business. I do have a right to express an opinion as to why a maximum wage might make more sense than a minimum wage. That's what I express.

Of course, expression is fine, I would even support public condemnation of rich people who pay their employees as little as possible while making massive profits, but the important question is would you legislate it?. That is where my concern with authority lies, while I may condemn someone who does such a thing I have no business coercing them with threats of imprisonment. Someone who is willing to work for a low wage, your typical unskilled worker for instance, then they are free to do so and a business is free to employ them, despite how much money they make.

Also, out of curiosity, how would the numbers work on a maximum wage? Would you say that no person can make x% more than their lowest paid employee or something along those lines?

Quote:As to your habits, frankly I don't care a jot. It was another who described you as a stoner, a term unknown to me. So are you?

Well, given my forum title is "Administoner" I'd say that's a safe bet

(July 31, 2011 at 7:25 am)theVOID Wrote: Well, given my forum title is "Administoner" I'd say that's a safe bet

That, and your avatar has a marijuana leaf in the middle of it. XD

(July 31, 2011 at 7:25 am)theVOID Wrote:

(July 31, 2011 at 7:05 am)bozo Wrote: I'm sorry but capitalism is an economic system based on competition, whereas socialism is based on co-operation.Fundamental difference.

That's not true, capitalism has both competition and cooperation, what is known as mutual self-interest, I cooperate with people in the economy because it's valuable to me, I cooperate by offering my labour at a cost to someone who is willing to pay for a service, we both get what we want - I compete with other people with the same skills, we both want the work, the person hiring wants the best value for money - the price I can charge is a function of the demand for my services relative to the supply of said services.


What I take issue with is coerced or compulsory cooperation, telling someone that they must do something because it is in the interest of others.

Quote:Russia is interesting in that its form of communism gave way to gangster capitalism and over the last 20 years the rich have doubled their wealth, 2/3rds are no better off and the poor were better off under the old system.( source Moscow School of Economics ).

Sure, Crony capitalism is a terrible system;

wikipedia Wrote:Crony capitalism is a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

We both agree that tyrannies are the problem and Crony Capitalism is the capitalist equivalent of a totalitarian socialist state - The problem in both circumstances is not whether the economy works from mutual self interest and private ownership or coerced cooperation, but that people who are greedy have the force of government working to serve their interests.

The thing I think we will agree on is that the use of government to support special interests is pretty much the worst thing that can happen, regardless of whether the special interests are corporate entities or the whim of an idealogical dictator.

---

(July 31, 2011 at 7:05 am)bozo Wrote: theVoid,
I don't have any right at all to limit what someone takes from a business. I do have a right to express an opinion as to why a maximum wage might make more sense than a minimum wage. That's what I express.

Of course, expression is fine, I would even support public condemnation of rich people who pay their employees as little as possible while making massive profits, but the important question is would you legislate it?. That is where my concern with authority lies, while I may condemn someone who does such a thing I have no business coercing them with threats of imprisonment. Someone who is willing to work for a low wage, your typical unskilled worker for instance, then they are free to do so and a business is free to employ them, despite how much money they make.

Also, out of curiosity, how would the numbers work on a maximum wage? Would you say that no person can make x% more than their lowest paid employee or something along those lines?

Quote:As to your habits, frankly I don't care a jot. It was another who described you as a stoner, a term unknown to me. So are you?

Well, given my forum title is "Administoner" I'd say that's a safe bet

Capitalism is about maximizing profit for the organisation and wiping out the competitor if possible. Co-operation may exist in a cartel situation, where greedy capitalist exploiters decide it best to work together in their own common selfish interest. That is mutual interest among the exploiting class. Mutual interest doesn't stretch to the working and under classes, who simply have to get a living by either selling their labour or accepting whatever handout exists under the capitalist system. In the job scenario, the worker wants as much for his labour as he can get. The employer wants to hire as cheaply as he can so as to maximise his own and any shareholders' profit. It is a competition loaded in favour of the employer 99% of the time, the exception coming very rarely when labour is hard to come by.....rare as rocking-horse shit nowadays. And what is worse is that the workers are in competition against fellow workers for the work available! Work can take many forms, some being quite attractive, most being just a necessity and some being very unpleasant indeed. Whatever it is the man hires when he needs workers and the man fires when he no longer has the need for them. Capitalism is not worker-friendly.

Gangter/crony capitalism, call it what you like, any description that has the c word in it indicates the thirst for profit. That thirst inevitably leads to unfairness, exploitation, greed, dodgy dealings, corruption at the highest levels of business and government, obscene wealth in the hands of the few....and the third world.
I won't have capitalism, even diluted capitalism put forward as the best option for the human race.

Of course I would legislate a maximum wage, just as a minimum wage has been. That minimum wage in the UK is derisory and yet the so-called left-wing government that brought it in considers it a great achievement! I don't have a figure in mind, but it would be set so as to drastically reduce the massive difference in the pay packets of the ordinary workers and the M.D , Chief Execs etc.etc. A business isn't a business without the worker.

I'll tell you Void, one thing we can agree on.....god doesn't exist, in all probability!!