Languish.org

So, I was just thinking that the perception of my views on the issue of socialism in politics and economics is relaly out whack with what I actually think. So I thought I would start a topic dedicated to something I've been thinking about a bit lately, which is the basic idea of human socialism.


First, lets define the term.


I do not want to use the term socialism as the knee-jerk pejorative that it is typically used as in US politics. Rather, I want to use the term to more generally describe the basic idea that human societies engage in a process of ensuring that everyone has some level of their needs met as a responsibility of society in general.


Now, the dispute comes not from whether or not we should do this, but at what level it ought to be done. Modern liberal democracy is a socialist society, lets make no bones about that. We do in fact re-allocate vsat resources towards the poor, or even the not so poor. We make sure people get enough to eat, we subsidize schooling, we subsidize health care. And I don't just mean by means of the government, but by many different means we do these things.


So for me, the debate is not at all some kind of Randian theoretical bullshit about how humans perform best out of self interest - that ship sailed a long time ago.


In fact, my basic thesis is not just that that ship already sailed, but that if you really look at human history in the broad sweeps, that ship has never even been in the dock.


Here is what I mean:


I contend that human history can broadly be summed up (as it relates to this issue) as follows:


Throughout, humans have through advancs in societal organizational structures, technology, political structures, etc., etc., almost continuouly enganged in a rather long, steady process of increasing our ability to produce "stuff". All the things we produce - food, clothing, shelter, remote control cars, clock radios, whatever. Overall, we have managed to keep increasing our ability to make the stuff we need and want in a more and more efficient manner. Through most of the early human history, this advance was pretty slow.


However - even at the earliest human times, as we as humans got better at making stuff, we have always taken some of that increased productivity and allocated it towards not just increasing the standard of living of those who actually produce more stuff, but to increasing the standard of living of the society as a whole, whether they are directly involved in that increase or not. This is socialism. We figured out how to domesticate crops, and we stored our food to protect the group against famine. That is socialism. We got to the point where we could have people who don't spend all their time creating food, and we took some of them and said "You will be a teacher, here is shitty room and a bucket of coal to keep it warm - we will send the kids to you to teach". That is socialism.


Human history has always been a continuing increase in the amount and kind of things we as a society deem appropriate to make sure everyone gets. A hundred years ago, nobody ever even argued about whether the poor should have equal access to health care. 200 years ago, I doubt anyone argued that the poor should be taught to read, or that reading ina nd of itself  ought to be a basic need that should be met for everyone.


Obviously the particulars of any specific level of socialism varied greatly across different societies, but I think it is reasonable to say that if you pick any particular point in time, and compare it to some point in time significantly earlier, you would find that there is more "socialism" as time progresses.


I think this is largely driven not by increasing human kindness, or anything of the sort. I think that is mostly rather consistent.


Rather I think it is driven strictly by economics and increased human labor productivity. We get better and better over time at making stuff, and that gives us more and more ability, over time, to allocate some of that production to socialism - the desire to equalize to some extent the wealth of society by defining more and more services as "basic" to be guaranteed at some level.


My point here is not that socialism is good or bad - I think it is, in fact, self evidently good, since the only way to assume it is otherwise is to assume that all of human history is some kind of mistake, that we have been doing the wrong thing basically forever. That makes no sense to me.


The problem I do have however, is the idea behind what I see as an unwillingness to be honest about this process. The unwillingness to recognize that the drive for great social distribution of resources is not, in the end, driven by what we want, but rather by what we can afford.


People did not give the poor excellent health care 100 years ago because they were all assholes who didn't care - rather, IMO, it was because society simply did not create enough excess "stuff" to be able to afford to do so. So the poor were, relatively, fucked. On the other hand, the poor 100 years ago did get to send their kids to school, so compared to the poor 100 years before them, they were a hell of a lot better off.


Overall, human society is largely consistent in the broad strokes about how much of the excess "stuff" we are willing and able to allocate to socialism. We are talking about giving the poor universal health care now not because we are ever so much more enlightened than we were, but rather because we simply are enjoying the fact that we produce enough excess stuff that the subject can even be contemplated. However, that doesn't mean we can actually afford it at the level that can be contemplated.


So there is where I stand - I think the arc of human history is pretty clear. In another hundred years, they will be talking about socialism in a context we would find incredible, and what we argue about now will be taken as a matter of course. I am fine with that.


What I am not ok with, however, is the argument that we ought to give the poor awesome health care because they deserve it, and damn the costs. I think we should have an honest and rational discussion about what society can afford, and then decide what should be done with that level of resources. Maybe that is more health care, maybe it is more education, maybe it is more welfare. But it should never be divorced from the realization that it must be paid for.

You have an odd definition of socialism. 

It's like watching a man trying to hang himself with a lawnmower and a ball of yarn.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 12:14:06 AM
You have an odd definition of socialism.

Yeah. What he describes is social democracy, which is exactly what Western liberal capitalism developed in response to socialism.

Today's Cuba is socialist, same as Poland was between 1945 and 1989.

TL;DR

social democracy is only better than socialism because it lets people rise above poverty, so their ultimately hopeless efforts to cling to middle class keeps the system alive longer.

Also the not starving part.  Really Berkut has described an Industrial society. Even 1840's Britain, hardly a socialist paradise, the government tried to keep people from starving.  They weren't good at it, but they made an effort.  Hell, it describes a lot of pre-industrial societies as well. 

Defining Socialism as having welfare policies is silly. The modern welfare state was NOT invented by socialists, it was invented by the paleo-conservatives of Bismarck's Prussia to prevent the pressure among the dis-enfranchised working classes of Germany to cause them to revolt and create a communist state. It worked. It worked so well that the Bismarckian welfare state was adopted by the SPD creating what today is known as Social Democracy. Since then all the world's Labour and Social Democratic parties have pretended the welfare state was their idea.

QuoteYeah. What he describes is social democracy, which is exactly what Western liberal capitalism developed in response to socialism.

Today's Cuba is socialist, same as Poland was between 1945 and 1989.

:huh:
Social democracy has just as much right to the socialist name as social dictatorships. More in fact.

QuoteNow, the dispute comes not from whether or not we should do this, but at what level it ought to be done. Modern liberal democracy is a socialist society, lets make no bones about that. We do in fact re-allocate vsat resources towards the poor, or even the not so poor. We make sure people get enough to eat, we subsidize schooling, we subsidize health care. And I don't just mean by means of the government, but by many different means we do these things.

:yes:

Its funny how often the right doesn't get this.
Yesterday's left is todays right.

Quote from: Tyr on June 03, 2013, 03:44:37 AM
Social democracy has just as much right to the socialist name as social dictatorships. More in fact.

Socialism is a system characterised by planned economy and state ownership of means of production, but (unlike communism) allowing limited private ownership of smaller businesses and private property in general.

Berkut just doesn't like the word "social".

Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

You start a thread to define a term, define it contrary to most people's understanding and then get mad that they disagree with you definition? Lol classic languish.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

I don't think you know what "fuckers" means.

You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

I did define my terms. That is the point.

Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2013, 08:26:58 AM
You start a thread to define a term, define it contrary to most people's understanding and then get mad that they disagree with you definition? Lol classic languish.

No, what is classic Languish is that I start a thread to talk about a concept, define my terms appropriately, then the people who care more about scoring points turn it into an argument about what a rather general term like "socialism" means (when we all know it can mean a LOT of different things), and then the discussion turns into a pissing contest about who said what, instead of just talking about the issue at hand.

That is, in fact, very typical Languish, and mores the pity.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:35:46 AM
I did define my terms. That is the point.

No you didn't you just rambled on stream of consciousnesses like about the topic for 5 paragraphs. Part of defining your terms means expanding on their consequences.

Is charity socialism? Is socialism voluntary? Is socialism selective and discriminating? Who controls the purse strings? Your definition includes every single human society at every point in time. That is not a definition.

QuoteFirst, lets define the term.


I do not want to use the term socialism as the knee-jerk pejorative that it is typically used as in US politics. Rather, I want to use the term to more generally describe the basic idea that human societies engage in a process of ensuring that everyone has some level of their needs met as a responsibility of society in general.

You don't have to like the definition, but it is hardly so far out of bounds as to warrant everyone getting their panties all bunched up like this.

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 08:43:51 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:35:46 AM
I did define my terms. That is the point.

No you didn't you just rambled on stream of consciousnesses like about the topic for 5 paragraphs. Part of defining your terms means expanding on their consequences.

Is charity socialism? Is socialism voluntary? Is socialism selective and discriminating? Who controls the purse strings? Your definition includes every single human society at every point in time. That is not a definition.

My definition is intended to define the scope of my rambling, not include or exclude human societies. In fact, the entire point is that all societies have in fact engaged in this behavior. If you want to replace the tmer with "welfare state" (although I think that is too constraining since it implicitly denotes actions strictly by a state actor) go right ahead.

But I get it - it is me posting, so it is so much more fun to turn it into a pissing contest rather than actually discuss anything. Whatever.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

Yeah. Unfortunate but thats the way this forum is. It hides under a pretence of intellectualism, but really it's just one big circle jerk.

Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2013, 09:00:16 AM
Yeah. Unfortunate but thats the way this forum is. It hides under a pretence of intellectualism, but really it's just one big circle jerk.

I was not aware we even had a pretence of intellectualism.

Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2013, 09:02:26 AM

Quote from: Josephus on June 03, 2013, 09:00:16 AM
Yeah. Unfortunate but thats the way this forum is. It hides under a pretence of intellectualism, but really it's just one big circle jerk.

I was not aware we even had a pretence of intellectualism.

And to be honest, I don't think we're that good at making circles either.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:48:01 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 08:43:51 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:35:46 AM
I did define my terms. That is the point.

No you didn't you just rambled on stream of consciousnesses like about the topic for 5 paragraphs. Part of defining your terms means expanding on their consequences.

Is charity socialism? Is socialism voluntary? Is socialism selective and discriminating? Who controls the purse strings? Your definition includes every single human society at every point in time. That is not a definition.

My definition is intended to define the scope of my rambling, not include or exclude human societies. In fact, the entire point is that all societies have in fact engaged in this behavior. If you want to replace the tmer with "welfare state" (although I think that is too constraining since it implicitly denotes actions strictly by a state actor) go right ahead.

But I get it - it is me posting, so it is so much more fun to turn it into a pissing contest rather than actually discuss anything. Whatever.

Okay Berkut.  I will not argue definitions.

I read through your post.  I had no idea where you were going with this, since you completely buried your lead.  It was only in your last paragraph that you come to your thesis statement.

Quote from: BerkutWhat I am not ok with, however, is the argument that we ought to give the poor awesome health care because they deserve it, and damn the costs. I think we should have an honest and rational discussion about what society can afford, and then decide what should be done with that level of resources. Maybe that is more health care, maybe it is more education, maybe it is more welfare. But it should never be divorced from the realization that it must be paid for.

You have to be either a complete Austrian-school libertarian, or a full-blown communist, to disagree with this statement.  So I'm not quite sure where the conversation can go. :mellow:

I think you also need to define "Awesome" health care. I think most social welfare societies believe the poor, again "poor" needs a definition, should have basic health care. Not sure that private hospital rooms with personal attendants is something most people think they need.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2013, 09:12:10 AM
You have to be either a complete Austrian-school libertarian, or a full-blown communist, to disagree with this statement.  So I'm not quite sure where the conversation can go. :mellow:

I don't think either of those would disagree with the statement as presented.

It's pretty clear to me that America can afford more than it currently provides, considering that other poorer nations already do.

I am not sure that it is clear that other "poorer" nations can in fact afford the levels of <insert languish acceptable name for the process of funding socialism/welfare/transfer payments/whatever here>.

Oh, I was talking about health care.

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 03:12:57 AM
Defining Socialism as having welfare policies is silly. The modern welfare state was NOT invented by socialists, it was invented by the paleo-conservatives of Bismarck's Prussia to prevent the pressure among the dis-enfranchised working classes of Germany to cause them to revolt and create a communist state. It worked. It worked so well that the Bismarckian welfare state was adopted by the SPD creating what today is known as Social Democracy. Since then all the world's Labour and Social Democratic parties have pretended the welfare state was their idea.

I think this also highlights want I think is wrong with Berk's want vs. can afford dichotomy.  It is true that general societies are not enacting these social changes out of kindness,there is still a want there...and that want can be as simple as it is better for the state to provide those services than have people agitated because they don't have them. On the flipside, I think it'd be inaccurate to say that we couldn't afford universal healthcare in the mid-90s - but rather the driving factor in not adopting was a lack of significant "want".

Unlike Berk I don't think Socialism is the answer. Unless he defines it as cheese.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 01:02:21 AM
Yeah. What he describes is social democracy, which is exactly what Western liberal capitalism developed in response to socialism.

social democracy is what socialists started calling their option when it became synonymous with USSR.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 08:19:54 AM
Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

Its not semantics.  You set up a definition which includes all welfare reform policies of governments from the far left to the far right and called it socialism.  Not sure where the discussion goes form there.  Which is why I said your definition is rather odd. 

Quote from: viper37 on June 03, 2013, 10:54:38 AMsocial democracy is what socialists started calling their option when it became synonymous with USSR.

True enough... well, that and when they stopped pushing for revolution and instead bought into the democratic process.

Social Democracy is Communism with a vote?

Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2013, 11:43:19 AM

Quote from: viper37 on June 03, 2013, 10:54:38 AMsocial democracy is what socialists started calling their option when it became synonymous with USSR.

True enough... well, that and when they stopped pushing for revolution and instead bought into the democratic process.

the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2013, 11:44:39 AM
Social Democracy is Communism with a vote?

That is the part Jacob was missing and which I tried to fill in for him.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 11:46:04 AM
the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Except that various self-proclaimed Communist states have allowed some degree of private ownership of the means of production, and various self-proclaimed Social Democratic states have had some degree of state ownership.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2013, 11:49:18 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 11:46:04 AM
the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Except that various self-proclaimed Communist states have allowed some degree of private ownership of the means of production, and various self-proclaimed Social Democratic states have had some degree of state ownership.

That's true for states of pretty much any ideological description - from Fascist to Monarchist to Liberal Democracies (including ones with very Conservative governments), so I'm not sure how that observation helps us.

What sort of definition are you looking for?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2013, 11:49:18 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 11:46:04 AM
the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Except that various self-proclaimed Communist states have allowed some degree of private ownership of the means of production, and various self-proclaimed Social Democratic states have had some degree of state ownership.

What you are describing is the period of transition to mixed economies from total government control.  That never occurred in social democratic countries because there was never total government control of the means of production.  It is true that in some countries some industries did come under state control but those were largely exceptions which proved the rule.

Certainly nothing like communism with a vote - your term.

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 08:32:58 AM
You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

He defined his terms, and then the lot of you started quibbling over how he defined them.

Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2013, 11:53:43 AM
What sort of definition are you looking for?

Not sure I was really looking for a definition.  Throwing out an idea and seeing what happens.

Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2013, 11:56:04 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 08:32:58 AM
You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

He defined his terms, and then the lot of you started quibbling over how he defined them.

Yes he defined them.  But in a really quite meaningless way as his definition incorporates most every political stripe I can think of in the modern age and perhaps most forms of government in all other ages.

...which is why I intentionally defined the term in a very general sense.

I am not talking about the state owning the means of production, to any greater OR lesser extent. That is simply one means by which what I am talking about has been achieved. That is in the details.

I am talking about the general overall trend through human history to continually add more and more to the basket of goods/services/products that society decides should be allocated to those who do not necessarily earn them directly.

And this isn't about welfare either - because that has a connotation that is very much about the poor receiving that which they could not afford. But this goes well beyond that - public schooling, for example, is not just for those who cannot afford private schooling.

I get the objection to the term "socialism" since it has a historical context that is largely negative when used specifically in its most common usage as referencing a political system where the state controls some elements of the means of production. But I don't know of a better term to reference what I am talking about, which is the general concept of the society allocating some percentage of production for the common good, in contrast to that production being allocated to those who produce it/fund it/own the capital/etc.,etc.

I think this is a critically important issue that is largely lost in the details of partisan fighting. I don't even think there is a "right" answer (although there are certainly plenty of wrong ones) per se - I think there is a range though of *possible* answers that all will pretty much work.

Examples of clearly wrong answers: Communism (simply doesn't work in any practical sense, since it ignores some critical factors of human nature that drive behavior). Randian Libertarianism (fails for the exact same reason as Communism - it ignores some basic factors of human social nature that drive human behavior). Both if these had their chances, IMO, and both proved to be unworkable. Ironically enough, both of them still have their proponents who argue that their chances didn't really work out because they were not actually implemented thoroughly enough.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2013, 11:56:36 AMNot sure I was really looking for a definition.  Throwing out an idea and seeing what happens.

OK :)

Then I'd say that social democracy is not communism with a vote. I'd say that social democracy is an attempt to achieve communist goals* within the framework of a liberal democratic state, with various doses of pragmatic compromise along the way.

*and I don't mean the "intermediate" revolutionary communist goal of a dictatorship of the proletariat (which tended to become permanent), but the part that was supposed to evolve out of that state - from each according to ability, to each according to need, equality, solidarity, lack of material want, and so on.

I think the "social minimum" in the "civilized West" is this:

1. We should prevent people from dying from starvation, exposure or other form of failure to meet their basic biological needs.
2. We should prevent people from dying (including through health deterioration) of commonly curable diseases.
3. We should prevent minors from dying or suffering health deterioration from curable diseases or deprivation, irrespective of the financial position of their parents.
4. We should allow minors to get education that would allow them, subject to their personal talents, to perform any type of job they would like, irrespective of the financial position of their parents.
5. We should allow minors, to the extent possible, and subject to the overriding principle of minor's interest, to benefit from the above while raised by their biological parents.
6. We should allow people after their productive age to live their autumn years in dignity.

Agree/disagree?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 11:59:59 AM

Quote from: Neil on June 03, 2013, 11:56:04 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 08:32:58 AM
You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

He defined his terms, and then the lot of you started quibbling over how he defined them.

Yes he defined them.  But in a really quite meaningless way as his definition incorporates most every political stripe I can think of in the modern age and perhaps most forms of government in all other ages.

So what? I am specifically NOT trying to contrast various forms of government, hence my definition makes perfect sense for what I AM trying to discuss.

Hell, the fact that what I am talking about is intrinsic to humans as tribal animals is pretty much my point, if my definition did NOT include pretty much every form of government over all ages, the point would not even make any sense.

The fact that my definition includes just about every human society ever is the point!

Berk, then all you are really doing is describing in very general terms the political process by which each society decides how best to allocate its resources.  Again I am not sure where we go from here.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 12:03:41 PM

The fact that my definition includes just about every human society ever is the point!

I believe in anthropology that's called a "Empty Universal".

Besides the empty definition of Socialism, was there some kind of point?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 12:07:57 PM
Berk, then all you are really doing is describing in very general terms the political process by which each society decides how best to allocate its resources.  Again I am not sure where we go from here.

Well, that is what I described. My point is that I think the US does a piss poor job of this allocation  because we basically have two sides that are fighting over it, and they are both idiots about it.

One side thinks it is all bad, and the state should not be involved in it at all, and equates what every single society has done for all time as some kind of aberration to be avoided. Moreover, there is this idea that the level of "socialism" that the state should be engaged in should be no more than (at most) what it does right now, or even better yet, less. This is foolish, and that is my primary point. Human history has been a basically uninterrupted increase in the amount that we as human societies allocate towards social redistribution (still want a better word/phrase for this) for the standpoint of what actually is included in the social goods. Meaning we consistently provide more and more over time.

But the other side is screwed because they seem to think that since we provide more and more, we should decide how much more based strictly on what is desired. So we see posts like Marty's, where he lists all the things that society ought to provide, without even bothering to mention what we can afford, and what is a reasonable way to decide what the right amount is. So they focus only on what they want, but not how to actually get it in a sustainable manner. Their argument is based on emotion only, as if the issue is just a matter of convincing others what "ought to be".

My point is that both of them get it wrong, IMO, for different reasons. One refuses to acknowledge that "socialism" is a basic part of the human psyche and society, and the other thinks that just because something ought to be true, it therefore must be true, and couches the entire debate in terms of emotion.

Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2013, 10:35:56 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 03:12:57 AM
Defining Socialism as having welfare policies is silly. The modern welfare state was NOT invented by socialists, it was invented by the paleo-conservatives of Bismarck's Prussia to prevent the pressure among the dis-enfranchised working classes of Germany to cause them to revolt and create a communist state. It worked. It worked so well that the Bismarckian welfare state was adopted by the SPD creating what today is known as Social Democracy. Since then all the world's Labour and Social Democratic parties have pretended the welfare state was their idea.

I think this also highlights want I think is wrong with Berk's want vs. can afford dichotomy.  It is true that general societies are not enacting these social changes out of kindness,there is still a want there...and that want can be as simple as it is better for the state to provide those services than have people agitated because they don't have them. On the flipside, I think it'd be inaccurate to say that we couldn't afford universal healthcare in the mid-90s - but rather the driving factor in not adopting was a lack of significant "want".

And I didn't even focus on the definition. <_<

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 12:18:27 PM

My point is that both of them get it wrong, IMO, for different reasons. One refuses to acknowledge that "socialism" is a basic part of the human psyche and society, and the other thinks that just because something ought to be true, it therefore must be true, and couches the entire debate in terms of emotion.

Fecal matter is a basic part of the human experience. We still expel it at the first convenient opportunity.

The thing is, I think what I listed is the minimum of what we should be able to afford - and if we can't, we should raise taxes or reduce spending on other things, such as, say, military or business subsidies. I don't think anything I listed is extraordinary or unusual - I just don't think that, outside of extraordinary circumstances (e.g. a country devastated by a recent war, Poland-in-1945-style) we can call ourselves civilized and fail to provide any of these things (e.g. live in a society where children are routinely dying of diseases we could cure, only because their parents cannot afford the cure).

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 12:18:27 PM
So we see posts like Marty's, where he lists all the things that society ought to provide, without even bothering to mention what we can afford, and what is a reasonable way to decide what the right amount is.

We can afford all the things on his list. Well, maybe not "dignity" as that is priceless.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 12:02:52 PM
I think the "social minimum" in the "civilized West" is this:

1. We should prevent people from dying from starvation, exposure or other form of failure to meet their basic biological needs.
2. We should prevent people from dying (including through health deterioration) of commonly curable diseases.
3. We should prevent minors from dying or suffering health deterioration from curable diseases or deprivation, irrespective of the financial position of their parents.
4. We should allow minors to get education that would allow them, subject to their personal talents, to perform any type of job they would like, irrespective of the financial position of their parents.
5. We should allow minors, to the extent possible, and subject to the overriding principle of minor's interest, to benefit from the above while raised by their biological parents.
6. We should allow people after their productive age to live their autumn years in dignity.

Agree/disagree?

This is exactly what I mean by the mistake of the left.

They base their argument on what ought to be, and completely ignore what out economic reality can sustain.

We should not be making decisions starting from what we emotionally think everyone has some kind of fundamental right to. Humans have no fundamtental right to retire "after their productive age to live their autumn years in dignity.", for example, so saying we should provide that without the context of how we can pay for it is largely meaningless.

If we can in fact afford to allow people to do so, then I am all for it. If we can wave a magic wand and make humans twice as productive tomorrow as they are today, then I would be very interested in a plan to allocate some of that increase in gross productivity to increasing the basic amount of retirement sustenance we can provide everyone, as an example.

But I don't buy the idea that this is something that we MUST provide. If we can do so without harming our overall economy to the extent that we retard long term growth, AND we decide that this is more desirable than other alternatives, then great.

Note that my stance is basically humanist in nature - I think it is better to let some people NOT be able to "retire in dignity" today if it means we can provide for many more people able to do so at some point in the future. Of course finding the right allocation is the hard part.

I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 12:28:13 PM
I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I think Berkut is arguing that "affording it" isn't a function of government tax policy, but the overall productive ability of society itself.  200 years ago the productivity of society as a whole was lower, so attempting to provide a comfortable retirement and health care for everyone wasn't possible without crippling society as a whole, not just a particular government.  At the present time some of this is achievable, but it shouldn't by default be assumed that we can or that it is some fundamental right.

Berk, I understand your point now.  :)

As an outsider looking in it seems to me there is broad support within the US for certain spending priorities.  Take for example the military.  The disputes in your country relate to social programs over which there is much disagreement.

Where our two countries differ is that in Canada the broad agreement is that certain social policies should be given priority. For example most all Canadians firmly support a single payor health system.  We recognize that it takes a lot of resources to fund it but as a society we are deeply committed to it and we are willing to make other sacrifices to fund it in the form of higher taxation and lower spending in other areas.

Doesnt it all come back to the values each society has as reflected in the priorities it sets for itself through the political process?

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 12:28:13 PM
I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I very much disagree.

You cannot say that by definition we can afford these things - that is exactly the problem with the left. You demand that we be able to afford them not based on any actual evaluation, but because you insist that we are "not civilized" if we cannot.

I don't define "afford" in the sense of whether we can raise taxes enough to cover the cost. Of course we can "afford" almost anything if you take such a narrow view.

I define "afford" as "can we, as a society, set aside the amount of production necessary to meet this desire without a strain on our system of production that will result in long term harm to our ability to continue increasing our overall productivity".

Now, you can certainly argue that in fact we currently can and should be able to do just that for this particular item. But you are not making that claim, you are making the claim that we should not even do any such evaluation, but simply keep raising taxes until we can pay for it, because there is some kind of fundamental principle involved that demands that we do this irrespective of our ability to actually support it. This is what is just as frustrating as the Libertarian bullshit that embraces the idea of humans as strictly individual creatures without any need for social conscience. It is trying to define your answer as the only possible answer by ignoring the true question.

That is patently false. Human being have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without guaranteeing 99% of the things we currently consider as "absolute bare minimums of required social outlays to support a 'civilized' society". But the reality is that most human societies were and are perfectly civilized for their times. the question is not one of "what MUST we do to convince ourselves we are civilized" it is rather "what is next on the list of things that we as a society value that perhaps we could not afford before, but we can now?"

Maybe that is more retirement security. Or maybe it is greater amounts of basic healthcare for the poor. Or maybe it is more access to higher education for the middle class. Or maybe it is more research into why quasars are so damn weird. But it cannot be all of those, almost certainly, even though perfectly good arguments can be made by various people that each of them is more important in some fashion or another than the others.

Quote from: frunk on June 03, 2013, 12:38:20 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 12:28:13 PM
I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I think Berkut is arguing that "affording it" isn't a function of government tax policy, but the overall productive ability of society itself.  200 years ago the productivity of society as a whole was lower, so attempting to provide a comfortable retirement and health care for everyone wasn't possible without crippling society as a whole, not just a particular government.  At the present time some of this is achievable, but it shouldn't by default be assumed that we can or that it is some fundamental right.

Bingo.

These are the 10 concrete measures proposed in the Communist Manifesto:

Quote1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Most these have been implemented  at least partially in modern "capitalist" economies.  2, 8, 9 and 10 have been nearly fully implemented.  3,5,6, and 7 have been partially implemented, in some cases to a significant degree. 

It's common to view Marxism as a failure - it would really be more accurate to say that the reformist wing of Marxism - Bernsteinsim - was an enormous success.

Note that health care is not on there - the notion of health care provision as a vital good did not exist at time; most likely because its benefits were dubious.  I am reminded of the historian Daniel Walker Howe's claim that William Henry Harrison might have survived had he not had access to the best medicine of that time.  Ordinary rest and healing might have saved him, but the courses of bleeding and purging prescribed by the top medical minds of the 1840s finished him off.

Quote from: frunk on June 03, 2013, 12:38:20 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 12:28:13 PM
I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I think Berkut is arguing that "affording it" isn't a function of government tax policy, but the overall productive ability of society itself.  200 years ago the productivity of society as a whole was lower, so attempting to provide a comfortable retirement and health care for everyone wasn't possible without crippling society as a whole, not just a particular government.  At the present time some of this is achievable, but it shouldn't by default be assumed that we can or that it is some fundamental right.

Fundamental rights change over time - noone except for some really crazy Aquinas fanboys argue differently these days. That's why I put it in the context of modern Western civilisation/developed democracy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 12:39:12 PM
Berk, I understand your point now.  :)

As an outsider looking in it seems to me there is broad support within the US for certain spending priorities.  Take for example the military.  The disputes in your country relate to social programs over which there is much disagreement.

Where our two countries differ is that in Canada the broad agreement is that certain social policies should be given priority. For example most all Canadians firmly support a single payor health system.  We recognize that it takes a lot of resources to fund it but as a society we are deeply committed to it and we are willing to make other sacrifices to fund it in the form of higher taxation and lower spending in other areas.

Doesnt it all come back to the values each society has as reflected in the priorities it sets for itself through the political process?

I think America is exceptional in that it is probably the only prominent Western-style developed democracy these days in which this is the case. Pretty much all of Europe (including the UK), Canada and Australia agree that what I outlined is considered the priority in public resource spending.

Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2013, 11:43:19 AM
True enough... well, that and when they stopped pushing for revolution and instead bought into the democratic process.

they recognized the use of democracy as a means to achieve their ultimate goal, wich is the same as socialists.

Do you see any difference between NDP and French Socialist Party?  NDP is officially social-democrat according to its leader, at least.

Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2013, 12:01:08 PM
Then I'd say that social democracy is not communism with a vote. I'd say that social democracy is an attempt to achieve communist goals* within the framework of a liberal democratic state, with various doses of pragmatic compromise along the way.

Another big difference is conceptual. Communism is about inevitable historic economic forces. Social Democracy rejects that idea and says that the economic forces can be shaped and are subordinate to our political choices.

Capitalism doesn't have to end with class warfare and the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat. The negatives can be ameliorated in such a way that improves people's lives and reduces tensions between classes making Communism a redundant analysis and silly.

QuoteI think America is exceptional in that it is probably the only prominent Western-style developed democracy these days in which this is the case. Pretty much all of Europe (including the UK), Canada and Australia agree that what I outlined is considered the priority in public resource spending.

I think that's right. There's going to be differences in emphasis and delivery in those societies but they're pretty universally held. And my own view is that it's normally more efficient and better for society. I think having a decent minimum pension system allows for consumer spending (unlike having to save money to look after yourself/parents and a huge rate as in China) and, in a good way, erodes family ties allowing more free movement and liberal opportunities.

Similarly I always come out in a bit of a rash when politicians talk about the NHS as the best healthcare system in the world, or as a national treasure. But it does provide a reasonable level of care to everyone, that's free at the point of use, and relatively cheap - for the UK that's a really good blend.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2013, 02:18:44 PM
Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Yeah. And the US as a whole spends double the amount of most Euro countries on healthcare. To me that seems like an enormous drain on other bits of the economy as well as inefficient.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2013, 02:18:57 PM
Capitalism doesn't have to end with class warfare and the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat. The negatives can be ameliorated in such a way that improves people's lives and reduces tensions between classes making Communism a redundant analysis and silly.

I'm wondering if the entire concept of "class" can be worked into our semantic argument about socialism. :hmm:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2013, 02:18:44 PM
Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Yeah, that is why I said we had wide agreement here regarding having a single payor system.  Simply saying one is willing to spend money on health care is not all that meaningful.  Everyone is in favour of having access the health care.  The issue is how one creates an efficient and cost effective system.  Which I suppose partly goes to Berkut's point.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2013, 02:36:52 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2013, 02:18:44 PM
Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Yeah, that is why I said we had wide agreement here regarding having a single payor system.  Simply saying one is willing to spend money on health care is not all that meaningful.  Everyone is in favour of having access the health care.  The issue is how one creates an efficient and cost effective system.  Which I suppose partly goes to Berkut's point.

That is actually a pretty good point.

I guess perhaps part of my bitch is kind of silly in that my complaint is at least partially a matter of all these "solutions" being evolved systems.

It's not like the US just got up one morning and said "Bully, we have enough excess production to pay for semi-universal health care! Yeah! What's the best way to do that???".

Rather we get a little more ability to have a little more healthcare, so we append it onto some existing system (which was likely never intended to scale in that manner, and may even have been intentionally designed NOT to scale in order to get it sold to begin with), then slap something on again, and again, and again.

There is no doubt that what the US has ended up with is a complete abortion of a system overall.

Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2013, 02:43:43 PMThere is no doubt that what the US has ended up with is a complete abortion of a system overall.

And given how controversial abortions are, no wonder the system is so messed up.

Still, it's generally a good thing in my mind that there are different states trying different things so we can see what experiments work better than others and in what conditions.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
Still, it's generally a good thing in my mind that there are different states trying different things so we can see what experiments work better than others and in what conditions.

Yeah. I think a lot of these differences reflect social, cultural values and expectations rather than anything else. There's no perfect system, there's different sets of benefits and costs to all of them.

Quote from: frunk on June 03, 2013, 12:38:20 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 12:28:13 PM
I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I think Berkut is arguing that "affording it" isn't a function of government tax policy, but the overall productive ability of society itself.  200 years ago the productivity of society as a whole was lower, so attempting to provide a comfortable retirement and health care for everyone wasn't possible without crippling society as a whole, not just a particular government.  At the present time some of this is achievable, but it shouldn't by default be assumed that we can or that it is some fundamental right.

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Societies did try take care of their poor in the early industrial revolution.  Both public and private efforts were made, and they didn't cripple their society.  They weren't always successful by our standards, but even high standards of living in those societies fall short of our expectations these days.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2013, 03:00:16 PM

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Societies did try take care of their poor in the early industrial revolution.  Both public and private efforts were made, and they didn't cripple their society.  They weren't always successful by our standards, but even high standards of living in those societies fall short of our expectations these days.

The programs that they had didn't cripple their societies precisely because their goals were modest, extremely limited and suited to the available resources.  There was no global health system, or even a particularly good health system for anyone.  The concept of retiring didn't really exist except for the physically incapable and the extremely wealthy.  People worked until they couldn't.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 03:54:32 AM

Quote from: Tyr on June 03, 2013, 03:44:37 AM
Social democracy has just as much right to the socialist name as social dictatorships. More in fact.

Socialism is a system characterised by planned economy and state ownership of means of production, but (unlike communism) allowing limited private ownership of smaller businesses and private property in general.

This.

I really don't understand why people cling to a failed system.
Or rather why some people ideolized a proven failed system.

And don't mention the kibbutzim. A kibbutz is a capitalist enterprise in which the owners have equal shares and sell their products into a free market society.

Nothing socialist about it, other than the sharing between the owners. Their employees, and some kibbutzim have quite a few employees, do not share the sharing.

Kibbutzim are, or were at least, socialist enterprises on a small scale and in principle. That they sold to free market systems, is neither here nor there. So did the USSR and China.

Marty's definition is not that good either. I mean, the exact same wording applies just as well to feudal England.

Quote from: Siege on June 03, 2013, 04:51:53 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 03:54:32 AM

Quote from: Tyr on June 03, 2013, 03:44:37 AM
Social democracy has just as much right to the socialist name as social dictatorships. More in fact.

Socialism is a system characterised by planned economy and state ownership of means of production, but (unlike communism) allowing limited private ownership of smaller businesses and private property in general.

This.

I really don't understand why people cling to a failed system.
Or rather why some people ideolized a proven failed system.

And don't mention the kibbutzim. A kibbutz is a capitalist enterprise in which the owners have equal shares and sell their products into a free market society.

Nothing socialist about it, other than the sharing between the owners. Their employees, and some kibbutzim have quite a few employees, do not share the sharing.

That sounds like Socialism.  It seems to me you are against what the GOP tells you is socialism, not actual socialism.

Quote from: frunk on June 03, 2013, 03:35:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2013, 03:00:16 PM

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Societies did try take care of their poor in the early industrial revolution.  Both public and private efforts were made, and they didn't cripple their society.  They weren't always successful by our standards, but even high standards of living in those societies fall short of our expectations these days.

The programs that they had didn't cripple their societies precisely because their goals were modest, extremely limited and suited to the available resources.  There was no global health system, or even a particularly good health system for anyone.  The concept of retiring didn't really exist except for the physically incapable and the extremely wealthy.  People worked until they couldn't.

There was no global system, period.  Early nations did things to prevent famine, they weren't always successful, but they typically tried.  When you read about the Potato famine you see that that didn't just strike Britain, but the whole of Europe.  Most countries were able prevent the terrible starvation that Ireland endured.  In fact, Ireland could have been saved were it not for a change in government from an interventionist one to a lazzie-faire one.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2013, 05:55:13 PM
Marty's definition is not that good either. I mean, the exact same wording applies just as well to feudal England.

Socialism's a modern concept that's not really any use when applied to the Medieval.

Also Siege most Euro socialists love kibbutzim, that's their dream. I'm afraid they're the ideal of socialism :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2013, 06:40:51 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2013, 05:55:13 PM
Marty's definition is not that good either. I mean, the exact same wording applies just as well to feudal England.

Socialism's a modern concept that's not really any use when applied to the Medieval.

I know. That's why it's not a useful definition.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2013, 06:48:59 PM
I know. That's why it's not a useful definition.

I'm not so sure. The issue is the lack of definition within the Medieval world between public, private and divine. I think Marti's definition works well enough if you realise by 'state' he means the modern, bureaucratic state that owns significant chunks of the economy and plans the rest.

For someone who has spent almost his entire career working for big government, Siege seems awfully down on socialism.

Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2013, 03:54:32 AM
Socialism is a system characterised by planned economy and state ownership of means of production, but (unlike communism) allowing limited private ownership of smaller businesses and private property in general.

Not quite... That's a rather extreme brand of socialism. You don't really need state ownership of the means of production and the limited private companies need not be that limited, merely controlled.
Planned economy too is not a binary absolute. Most modern countries plan their economy to an extent.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
Still, it's generally a good thing in my mind that there are different states trying different things so we can see what experiments work better than others and in what conditions.

I don't think the Federal government takes into account the lessons the states learn any more than it looks at what other countries do.  The Federal government is about covering your ass or getting re-elected.  Nothing like efficiency or sense seems to get any traction.

The US health care system is headed for an enormous crisis.  Avoiding that crisis would come at a trivial overall cost today, but the people in power right now would be the ones paying those trivial costs (like, not getting re-elected/promoted), and so don't see those costs as trivial.  Change will come when it is unavoidable (as we saw in Europe), and then it will come at a huge cost.  That's just the nature of bureaucracies.

I'm not familiar enough with the creation of the Canadian Health Care Act to know what degree of crisis thinking led to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to adopt the single-payer plan was not simply a rational decision.  One of the advantages of the parliamentary model is the degree to which individual representatives can avoid the need to grandstand and support stupid independent policies in order to get themselves re-elected.  When you have 535 independent and arrogant surgeons at the operating table table, each with effective veto on the procedures undertaken, only the most obviously and immediately mortal patient woes will get operated on.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2013, 08:00:28 PM
For someone who has spent almost his entire career working for big government, Siege seems awfully down on socialism.

You can only get truly familiar with the rot of the system from the inside :P

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2013, 08:29:31 AM
I'm not familiar enough with the creation of the Canadian Health Care Act to know what degree of crisis thinking led to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to adopt the single-payer plan was not simply a rational decision. 

It was a fairly long process which was led by the Provinces.  Tommy Douglas is credited as the father of our medical system as he was the first Provincial leader to introduce the precursor in his Province.  But Provinces alone cannot fund such a system and so, eventually, the Feds started contributing and the Canada Health Act was created.

I am not sure whether this kind of iterative process would meet your definition of "rational".  Douglas was moved to bring in legislation because too many people were not getting the health care they needed in his province.  Other provinces began to follow his lead as they recognized it was more efficient to fund health care in a manner in which they could have some control over cost (both administrative costs and the cost of paying the various service providers).  I think ultimately that is why the Federal government also supported this manner of providing health care.

The one group to strongly oppose the measure?  The Doctors.  There were a number of strikes throughout the years by doctors who saw the new system as a threat to their income potential.  Their problem was that their patients were strongly in support of medicare.

You guys didn't have a monolithic medical guild already in place with a stranglehold on the entire profession when you tried to implement it. Our doctors control our system, not the other way around.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2013, 06:40:51 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2013, 05:55:13 PM
Marty's definition is not that good either. I mean, the exact same wording applies just as well to feudal England.

Socialism's a modern concept that's not really any use when applied to the Medieval.

Also Siege most Euro socialists love kibbutzim, that's their dream. I'm afraid they're the ideal of socialism :(

But when most people speak of socialism, they're talking about state socialism.  I have zero problem with private individuals getting together & running an enterprise the way the want, whether it's "socialist" or hierarchical in nature.  I do have a problem with state socialism.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2013, 12:25:24 PM
You guys didn't have a monolithic medical guild already in place with a stranglehold on the entire profession when you tried to implement it. Our doctors control our system, not the other way around.

Actually I think we did.  Before we started implementing these changes our two systems were very similar.  I think the main difference is that you have many more state governments than we do provincial governments.  This change was led by the Provinces.  I dont think the same kind of change would be led by your states.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2013, 12:25:24 PM
You guys didn't have a monolithic medical guild already in place with a stranglehold on the entire profession when you tried to implement it. Our doctors control our system, not the other way around.

They'd probably say the insurers.

If I may summarize (and correct me where I'm wrong) the thesis goes like this:

"Socialism" is nothing more than the term for a society putting resources taken from individuals towards the common good, which every society does to a greater or lesser extent. The existence of "socialism" in modern societies in the form we are familiar with - that is, the welfare state - is a function of the vast increase in productivity within those societies in the very recent past. In order to determine how much (or how little) "socialism" we ought to have, we need to take an objective look at the amount of productivity actually available and measure it against needs, rather than be swayed by arguments about "rights" to such entitlements.

So far, so good.

The problem, to my mind, is that there is rational, unbiased actor that can decide such matters. "Socialism" did not arise because of human kindness, or even, simply because the resources were available to create it; it arose from heated political battles of the sort that are still going on today, resulting in all sorts of inefficiencies and absurd compromises. Unfortunately, such stuff is the inevitable product of our political system, and attempts to make it more rational have, to date, not fared well. 

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 12:47:33 PM
They'd probably say the insurers.

Insurers compete with each other.  The AMA has a monopoly.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2013, 12:56:56 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 12:47:33 PM
They'd probably say the insurers.

Insurers compete with each other.  The AMA has a monopoly.

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PM
Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

....?

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PMYeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity!  :w00t:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2013, 09:53:53 AM
I am not sure whether this kind of iterative process would meet your definition of "rational".

It would if the process was designed to actually improve the health care system, as opposed to pleasing campaign contributors or buying votes.

Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2013, 01:34:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2013, 09:53:53 AM
I am not sure whether this kind of iterative process would meet your definition of "rational".

It would if the process was designed to actually improve the health care system, as opposed to pleasing campaign contributors or buying votes.

It both improved the system and appealed to voters.

Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2013, 01:24:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PMYeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity!  :w00t:

Well presumably they aren't covering it because it isn't a high profit-generating choice. :P

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 02:01:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2013, 01:24:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PMYeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity!  :w00t:

Well presumably they aren't covering it because it isn't a high profit-generating choice. :P

A good summation of what is wrong with your system.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2013, 02:02:22 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 02:01:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2013, 01:24:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PMYeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity!  :w00t:

Well presumably they aren't covering it because it isn't a high profit-generating choice. :P

A good summation of what is wrong with your system.

Well yes and no. I mean someone does need to pay for that risky/expensive/experimental treatment...but then yeah if the person doesn't get it and there are further health complications (/condition continues) then presumably it could cost more to care for them than if they'd been properly treated from the start.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2013, 12:56:56 PM
Insurers compete with each other.

Weakly.  It's a classic example of monopolistic competition.
The force of competition is also weakened by the fact that the end users usually have no choice.  their employers choose for them.

The social safety net idea in practical terms has been around since the beginning of western civilization. The Romans had it, and after Rome fell the church filled the role (people had to tithe, and the church had to provide for the poor).

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2013, 12:46:43 PM
Actually I think we did.  Before we started implementing these changes our two systems were very similar.  I think the main difference is that you have many more state governments than we do provincial governments.  This change was led by the Provinces.  I dont think the same kind of change would be led by your states.

Same in the UK. There was some council based health services, especially in London and some charities, but the overwhelming majority was private. The biggest problem was the doctors. The BMA withheld their services and threatened to not participate with the NHS (doctors wrote to newspapers saying it was the first step to a Gestapo). It was solved because Nye Bevan, in his words, 'stuffed their mouths with gold' :lol:

Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2013, 03:22:52 PM
The social safety net idea in practical terms has been around since the beginning of western civilization. The Romans had it, and after Rome fell the church filled the role (people had to tithe, and the church had to provide for the poor).

I would argue that neither the Roman model nor the church model had much to do with the social safety net as we know it today.  The modern social safety net is a part of the social contract, and is a consequence of the processes of urbanization and industrialization (thus the rural poor have a much higher resistance to "relying on welfare" than their urban cousins).  The Roman model was a pure "buy off the mob" effort 9and was started and halted several times in the early years), while the religious model was built around the needs of the churches, not the poor.

I guess Grumber was dissatisfied with the bread and circuses as young and struggling gubernator.

Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2013, 06:11:10 AM
while the religious model was built around the needs of the churches, not the poor.

Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven.  At least in the early Church when the Roman elite was making the transition from Pagan to Christian and making the transition from donating to their town to become leading citizens to donating to the Church to become leading citizens - and to ensure their place in heaven.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 08:38:59 AM
Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven.  At least in the early Church when the Roman elite was making the transition from Pagan to Christian and making the transition from donating to their town to become leading citizens to donating to the Church to become leading citizens - and to ensure their place in heaven.

That's a rather exaggerated and extrapolated viewpoint, but typical of Languish.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 08:42:38 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 08:38:59 AM
Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven.  At least in the early Church when the Roman elite was making the transition from Pagan to Christian and making the transition from donating to their town to become leading citizens to donating to the Church to become leading citizens - and to ensure their place in heaven.

That's a rather exaggerated and extrapolated viewpoint, but typical of Languish.

Take of read of Eye of the Needle...

The local Roman elites had  abandoned the provincial towns  due to changes to the administrative and fiscal structure, not to the change in cult.  That shift began before the 4th century.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 09:05:35 AM
The local Roman elites had  abandoned the provincial towns  due to changes to the administrative and fiscal structure, not to the change in cult.  That shift began before the 4th century.

You might want to refresh your memory by also reading Eye of the Needle.  In the first third of his book Peter Brown deals with the transition of elites giving to the community (including provincial towns - indeed he opens his book examining an elite from a provincial town) in the Fourth century to giving to the Church and the poor through the Church.  His main thesis is that although most scholars believe that the elite transitioned easily from giving to the community (paying for public works and putting on games) to giving to the Church for many of the same reasons of prestige and patronage (as well as the concept of putting "treasure into heaven" which was a concept readily identifiable for a pagan elite) that interpretation is based on which the Chruch itself says about itself through the Church writers of the time.

He argues that although he does not reject this view gift giving in that culture also reflected humane behaviour embedded in the well established practices of pagans and Jews as well as the new Christian cult.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 09:18:24 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 09:05:35 AM
The local Roman elites had  abandoned the provincial towns  due to changes to the administrative and fiscal structure, not to the change in cult.  That shift began before the 4th century.

You might want to refresh your memory by also reading Eye of the Needle.  In the first third of his book Peter Brown deals with the transition of elites giving to the community (including provincial towns - indeed he opens his book examining an elite from a provincial town) in the Fourth century to giving to the Church and the poor through the Church.  His main thesis is that although most scholars believe that the elite transitioned easily from giving to the community (paying for public works and putting on games) to giving to the Church for many of the same reasons of prestige and patronage (as well as the concept of putting "treasure into heaven" which was a concept readily identifiable for a pagan elite) that interpretation is based on which the Chruch itself says about itself through the Church writers of the time.

He argues that although he does not reject this view gift giving in that culture also reflected humane behaviour embedded in the well established practices of pagans and Jews as well as the new Christian cult.

In his opinion.

ok

I'm just saying that someone's counter-mainstream thesis presented in a published form, less than a year old - might not be the end all be all on how we should conceptualize said events. Not that he's necessarily wrong, of course. :)

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 11:22:47 AM
I'm just saying that someone's counter-mainstream thesis presented in a published form, less than a year old - might not be the end all be all on how we should conceptualize said events. Not that he's necessarily wrong, of course. :)

The point is that is that the mainstream thesis is consistent with what I said. ;)

He doesnt disagree with the mainstream thesis.  He just wants it better understood within the context of the time.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 09:18:24 AM
You might want to refresh your memory by also reading Eye of the Needle.  In the first third of his book Peter Brown deals with the transition of elites giving to the community (including provincial towns - indeed he opens his book examining an elite from a provincial town) in the Fourth century to giving to the Church and the poor through the Church.  His main thesis is that although most scholars believe that the elite transitioned easily from giving to the community (paying for public works and putting on games) to giving to the Church for many of the same reasons of prestige and patronage (as well as the concept of putting "treasure into heaven" which was a concept readily identifiable for a pagan elite) that interpretation is based on which the Chruch itself says about itself through the Church writers of the time.

I've read Brown's earlier books. As well as others on the subject.
The decline of the curiales has been a huge subject of inquiry in the study of late antiquity for about 100 years now.  Tpyically the "push" factors cited are the greater burden of fiscal responsibility placed on the curiales and a corresponding decrease in local discretion on how the funds raises were used (more going to the central administration).  "Pull" factors include the adminsitrative reorganization of the Empire which led higher-end or ambitious local notables to seek to attach themselves to imperial courts in Milan, Trier, etc.  The rise of the Church is often described as playing a role in this process because of Constantine's edict exempting clergy from civic responsibility (basically a tax exemption).

Now Peter Brown knows a lot more about this stuff then I do and if he is advancing a radically different thesis now I would assume he has good reason to.  But I would be interested to know whether he is discounting the traditional story or supplementing it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 11:57:05 AM
Now Peter Brown knows a lot more about this stuff then I do and if he is advancing a radically different thesis now I would assume he has good reason to.  But I would be interested to know whether he is discounting the traditional story or supplementing it.

It is not at all radically different.  You have simply overstated the case.  Elites didnt just all pack up and leave their provincial towns as you seemed to have suggested.  That would be very odd given the fact that many of those same elites became leaders in their local Churches (Ambrose is the best example we have of that).  The fact that he was always in a major centre is not evidence that all other elites left for major centres but rather accounts for the amount of power and influence he had in the formation of the Church and its doctrine.

As I already noted, Brown does not reject the scholarship that came before him.  Rather he is studying (in this book) how the rich elites of Roman society transitioned from Pagans to Christians given the early beginnings of the Church focused on the poor.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 12:04:48 PM
Elites didnt just all pack up and leave their provincial towns as you seemed to have suggested. 

I wasn't suggesting that.  For one thing, there weren't enough places at the imperial court to permit such a mass elite migration.  Also a not uncommon pattern seems to have been stints at a regional court interspersed by time at home.  But the flight from curial office, if not from the physical location, is pretty well documented IIRC.

QuoteAs I already noted, Brown does not reject the scholarship that came before him.  Rather he is studying (in this book) how the rich elites of Roman society transitioned from Pagans to Christians given the early beginnings of the Church focused on the poor.

Definite must read for, if I can find the time to get to it.

I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 12:27:49 PM
I wasn't suggesting that.  For one thing, there weren't enough places at the imperial court to permit such a mass elite migration.  Also a not uncommon pattern seems to have been stints at a regional court interspersed by time at home.  But the flight from curial office, if not from the physical location, is pretty well documented IIRC.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your first post.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.

Is market abolition part of that package?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.

Hmmm. I don't think that too many people would accept that when it is taken to the extreme that is implied by it's statement without qualification.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 01:44:07 PM
Is market abolition part of that package?

If you mean is it an indispensable part of socialism, I would say no.

If you mean is it a desirable end in and of itself, I say absolutely not, but feel free to throw a handful of retarded Occupy slogans at me.

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2013, 01:54:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.

Hmmm. I don't think that too many people would accept that when it is taken to the extreme that is implied by it's statement without qualification.

Non socialists would not accept it but it is very much an underlying goal of socialists (using the term as it is usually defined and not in the manner you have defined it in this thread). 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
If you mean is it a desirable end in and of itself, I say absolutely not,

Why not?  Explain.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:08:20 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
If you mean is it a desirable end in and of itself, I say absolutely not,

Why not?  Explain.

Because then everyone would be equal but dirt poor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.

I think most are willing to give out unequal slices where they know that means more pie for all.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2013, 02:14:25 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.

I think most are willing to give out unequal slices where they know that means more pie for all.

Again, most non socialists but that is not the socialist view.

It's not the communist view. Socialists accept the private market and the inequality that comes with it.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2013, 02:20:11 PM
It's not the communist view. Socialists accept the private market and the inequality that comes with it.

I wish that was true.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 02:22:06 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2013, 02:20:11 PM
It's not the communist view. Socialists accept the private market and the inequality that comes with it.

I wish that was true.

Yeah. 

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2013, 02:20:11 PM
It's not the communist view. Socialists accept the private market and the inequality that comes with it.

True.  But I think countries like the Scandinavians view equality as a goal as well.

And as an aside it's relatively easy to maintain functioning markets redistributive government simultaneously.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:08:20 PM
Why not?  Explain.

Because history has abundantly shown that the profit motive and the price mechanism are the most efficient way of allocating resources to create the goods and services that maximize human satisfaction, and a more efficient way of incentivizing productive behavior than ballets about tractors or bayonets and gulags.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 02:26:35 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2013, 02:20:11 PM
It's not the communist view. Socialists accept the private market and the inequality that comes with it.

True.  But I think countries like the Scandinavians view equality as a goal as well.

And as an aside it's relatively easy to maintain functioning markets redistributive government simultaneously.

Like the soviets did?

Quote from: Siege on June 05, 2013, 02:33:06 PM
Like the soviets did?

The Soviets had very limited functioning markets for very limited times.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 02:29:35 PM
Because history has abundantly shown that the profit motive and the price mechanism are the most efficient way of allocating resources to create the goods and services that maximize human satisfaction, and a more efficient way of incentivizing productive behavior than ballets about tractors or bayonets and gulags.

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:48:15 PM
Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

:(

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:48:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 02:29:35 PM
Because history has abundantly shown that the profit motive and the price mechanism are the most efficient way of allocating resources to create the goods and services that maximize human satisfaction, and a more efficient way of incentivizing productive behavior than ballets about tractors or bayonets and gulags.

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

Yeah for the most part we have it. :)

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:48:15 PM
Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

That's reassuring.

Swedish Socialists are married to the idea of everyone being equally wealthy. In their view if not everyone gets an increase in wealth then no one should get one.

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 02:55:54 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:48:15 PM
Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

Yeah for the most part we have it. :)

[lumbergh]Mmmm, yeah...[/lumbergh]

A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 02:55:54 PM
Yeah for the most part we have it. :)

We have a system that prohibits a range of behavior.  We are still left with only one way to incentivize productive behavior: money.

Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

What about the Sweden Democrats :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 02:55:54 PM
Yeah for the most part we have it. :)

We have a system that prohibits a range of behavior.  We are still left with only one way to incentivize productive behavior: money.

Not really.  Money is a major component but non monetary benefits like flexibility in hours of work can also work wonders to increase productivity. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 08:38:59 AM

Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven. 

I have a more cynical view of history, I think. Individuals may have donated out of sincere belief of course, but I think the church maintained its wealth and power for roughly 1,500 years because of the secular role it played. One key part of that was the charitable mission.

In practical terms it doesn't make much sense to leave the social safety net in the hands of non democratic clerics that discriminate against elements of society (such as members of other sects, non believers, and "sinners"),as we moved into the industrial age the system was increasingly challenged and had to be changed.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 03:38:01 PM
Not really.  Money is a major component but non monetary benefits like flexibility in hours of work can also work wonders to increase productivity.

Rigid work hours are part of the unpleasantness of work that necessitate compensation to perform it.

I suspect if you started up a company and offered totally flexible work times and no pay the applicant pool would not be very deep.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2013, 03:41:42 PM
In practical terms it doesn't make much sense to leave the social safety net in the hands of non democratic clerics that discriminate against elements of society (such as members of other sects, non believers, and "sinners"),as we moved into the industrial age the system was increasingly challenged and had to be changed.

An interesting case study to demonstrate your point would be the transformation in Quebec from a Province in which the Church had a signficant role to the rather insignfiicant role it now has.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
Rigid work hours are part of the unpleasantness of work that necessitate compensation to perform it.

So says the rigid boss who finds it hard to compete with employers who offer less pay but better fringe benefits.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 03:45:44 PM
So says the rigid boss who finds it hard to compete with employers who offer less pay but better fringe benefits.

Are we talking about a hypothetical case here?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
I suspect if you started up a company and offered totally flexible work times and no pay the applicant pool would not be very deep.

Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 03:50:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 03:45:44 PM
So says the rigid boss who finds it hard to compete with employers who offer less pay but better fringe benefits.

Are we talking about a hypothetical case here?

Yes, in the sense that you are not a boss, rigid or otherwise. :P

Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2013, 03:14:22 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

What about the Sweden Democrats :D

They are intensely Socialist. The fact that their voters are predominantly people who live on welfare may have something to do with it. They are essentially old-skool Social Democrats (of the Swedish 1960s-80s "moar taxes and moar welfare!" kind) who don't happen to like the brownies.

I am rigid.

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 03:50:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 03:44:03 PM
I suspect if you started up a company and offered totally flexible work times and no pay the applicant pool would not be very deep.

Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

There may be some menial jobs where that may be true but for a lot of work where judgment and some degree of problem solving/creativity is needed increasing hours with only the reward of pay is counterproductive.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

That approach does not increase shareholder value.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 03:59:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

That approach does not increase shareholder value.

Good thing I dont have any shareholders.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 03:59:36 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
Yep.  Its been my experience that when employers show a lot of leniency over work hours productivity goes up.  I think it is a fallacy that workers do x amount of work per hour and so if you just increase the hours you will get more productivity on the assumption x will stay constant.

That approach does not increase shareholder value.

:hmm:

Actually it does...given that (office) worker productivity declines if you're asking them to sit for many hours without taking breaks.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2013, 03:41:42 PM
I have a more cynical view of history, I think. Individuals may have donated out of sincere belief of course, but I think the church maintained its wealth and power for roughly 1,500 years because of the secular role it played. One key part of that was the charitable mission.

There is an interesting period in 9th and 10th century Western Europe where a lot of wealth is transferred to religious foundations apparently because it was a more effective and secure way to control family patrimony. 
That is some time after the period that Peter Brown is usually writes about, however.

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

This is a silly semantic argument about incentives and the absence of disincentives.

Most people would be happier sitting in a nice comfy chair than on cinder blocks, and more willing to work for less money if they get a comfy chair rather than a cinder block.  If you and CC want to claim that the comfy chair is an incentive to work, that's fine.  But it doesn't detract from my original point, which is that the only two ways to generate productive behavior is through rewards (money) or coercion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
If you and CC want to claim that the comfy chair is an incentive to work, that's fine.  But it doesn't detract from my original point, which is that the only two ways to generate productive behavior is through rewards (money) or coercion.

If you want to ignore the fact that there are other methods then you are missing out on the last 50 years or so of management studies in the area of increasing productivity.

Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2013, 03:54:36 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2013, 03:14:22 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
A major problem in Sweden is that we only have Socialist parties in parliament. There is no right wing option anymore since the Moderates (used to be the major conservative party) turned Red.

What about the Sweden Democrats :D

They are intensely Socialist. The fact that their voters are predominantly people who live on welfare may have something to do with it. They are essentially old-skool Social Democrats (of the Swedish 1960s-80s "moar taxes and moar welfare!" kind) who don't happen to like the brownies.

:(

I guess it's kinda like Argentina, then.  The only political party with any economic sense has a handful of seats in the lower house and zero Senate seats.  Only thing they have is the mayor of Buenos Aires and a governorship.

Everyone hates the lefty president and her Peronist faction now but I doubt anything positive will come out of the next election.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 04:27:12 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2013, 03:50:41 PM
Didn't he say it was a major component? Clearly then his suggestion wouldn't be no pay.

This is a silly semantic argument about incentives and the absence of disincentives.

Most people would be happier sitting in a nice comfy chair than on cinder blocks, and more willing to work for less money if they get a comfy chair rather than a cinder block.  If you and CC want to claim that the comfy chair is an incentive to work, that's fine.  But it doesn't detract from my original point, which is that the only two ways to generate productive behavior is through rewards (money) or coercion.

I think this is highly dependent upon the type of work and quality of employees.  Money is the main driver, but flexibility and other considerations may possibly contribute.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2013, 04:29:06 PM
If you want to ignore the fact that there are other methods then you are missing out on the last 50 years or so of management studies in the area of increasing productivity.

Christ almighty.  What do you expect to achieve by deleting the part of my post that's relevant to your response?

I didnt :huh:

I'm not sure I get Yi's point.  Is he saying that every accommodation has a money value, and so in effect any improvement in workplace quality of life is just a form of monetary compensation?

Quote from: DGuller on June 05, 2013, 05:02:40 PM
I'm not sure I get Yi's point.  Is he saying that every accommodation has a money value, and so in effect any improvement in workplace quality of life is just a form of monetary compensation?

His point has something to do with flexible work hours equating to not sitting on cinder blocks but that is as far as I got.

Quote from: DGuller on June 05, 2013, 05:02:40 PM
I'm not sure I get Yi's point.  Is he saying that every accommodation has a money value, and so in effect any improvement in workplace quality of life is just a form of monetary compensation?

The main thing I'm getting from him is that I don't want to work for him, and I don't want to hire him for any kind of management position either.

No matter how comfy the chair you won't work unless you get money. Or you are forced to work.

Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2013, 05:27:05 PM
No matter how comfy the chair you won't work unless you get money. Or you are forced to work.

Except it was pointed out to him that nobody is suggesting people work for no money.   He is just wrong that money by itself is the only thing that can motivate people to be productive.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 02:48:15 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 02:29:35 PM
Because history has abundantly shown that the profit motive and the price mechanism are the most efficient way of allocating resources to create the goods and services that maximize human satisfaction, and a more efficient way of incentivizing productive behavior than ballets about tractors or bayonets and gulags.

Bah.  There has to be a happy medium somewhere between unrepentant, society-destroying greed and dysfunctional, myopic central planning.  One that doesn't involve explosives or guillotines.

Society destroying greed?

Dude, greed is the engine of the world.
Everything human civilization have ever achieved have been because of someones' greed.

Quote from: Siege on June 05, 2013, 08:59:30 PM
Dude, greed is the engine of the world.

Says the Jew wannabe.

Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2013, 05:17:31 PM
The main thing I'm getting from him is that I don't want to work for him, and I don't want to hire him for any kind of management position either.

What an odd thing to say.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:54:25 AM

Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2013, 05:17:31 PM
The main thing I'm getting from him is that I don't want to work for him, and I don't want to hire him for any kind of management position either.

What an odd thing to say.

Creative differences.

I'd hire Yi. @ $8/hr.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:54:25 AM

Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2013, 05:17:31 PM
The main thing I'm getting from him is that I don't want to work for him, and I don't want to hire him for any kind of management position either.

What an odd thing to say.

No kidding, your outlook has worked for Romney types for ages.  I see no downside.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:54:25 AMWhat an odd thing to say.

Really? Seems pretty clear to me - your management philosophy as you've laid it out seems counter-productive to me, so I wouldn't want to be subjected to it or introduce it into any organization over whichI had control.

Yi, given your hate for unions, you might want to consider that the main reason employees unionize is not for monetary gain.  A lot of research has shown that the main reason is that employees feel they need from protection from asshole managers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:17:54 AM
Yi, given your hate for unions, you might want to consider that the main reason employees unionize is not for monetary gain.  A lot of research has shown that the main reason is that employees feel they need from protection from asshole managers.

I suspect that what such research really shows is that the reason given for the desire to unionize is the need to protect themselves from assholes.

I also suspect that the actual reason is for monetary gain.

You can't really trust survey's when the people being asked have a vested interest in the survey's results.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:29:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:17:54 AM
Yi, given your hate for unions, you might want to consider that the main reason employees unionize is not for monetary gain.  A lot of research has shown that the main reason is that employees feel they need from protection from asshole managers.

I suspect that what such research really shows is that the reason given for the desire to unionize is the need to protect themselves from assholes.

I also suspect that the actual reason is for monetary gain.

You can't really trust survey's when the people being asked have a vested interest in the survey's results.

Yeah, because I am sure the researchers lack your keen wit and insight and have no idea how to properly structure their research to take into account inaccurate self reports. :rolleyes:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:31:21 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:29:34 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:17:54 AM
Yi, given your hate for unions, you might want to consider that the main reason employees unionize is not for monetary gain.  A lot of research has shown that the main reason is that employees feel they need from protection from asshole managers.

I suspect that what such research really shows is that the reason given for the desire to unionize is the need to protect themselves from assholes.

I also suspect that the actual reason is for monetary gain.

You can't really trust survey's when the people being asked have a vested interest in the survey's results.

Yeah, because I am sure the researchers lack your keen wit and insight and have no idea how to properly structure their research to take into account inaccurate self reports. :rolleyes:

Depends in the motives of the researchers, and how careful they are - although I am unsure how their keen insight could adjust for such a thing. I would not simply assume that it could by magic.

Unless the research you are citing is NOT in fact a survey, but rather some objective evaluation of union actions in order to make inferences about what the motives of organizaing? That would be very challenging, I think.

Of course, one way to illuminate the issue a bit - just cite the actual research, and we can take a look at how they reached their conclusions.

So, where is this research you are referencing?

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 11:11:12 AM
Really? Seems pretty clear to me - your management philosophy as you've laid it out seems counter-productive to me, so I wouldn't want to be subjected to it or introduce it into any organization over whichI had control.

What is it abou my "management philosophy" that you believe is counter-productive?

The other thing for both Berk and Yi to consider is that the number one union avoidance strategy non union companies use to keep themselves union free is to set up systems which provide employees input into decision making and procedures under which asshat managers can be dealt with.

At least within jurisdictions where unionization is a viable option.  I suppose if you live in a jurisdiction which has laws which make unionization either very difficult or which diminishes the power of unions then the employer will not care as much and they are free to live under the Yi mantra that the only thing that matters is money.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:35:57 AM
Depends in the motives of the researchers, and how careful they are - although I am unsure how their keen insight could adjust for such a thing. I would not simply assume that it could by magic.

Well you are certainly willing to assume they are inept.  Perhaps this has something to do with your own bias?  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:31:21 AM
Yeah, because I am sure the researchers lack your keen wit and insight and have no idea how to properly structure their research to take into account inaccurate self reports. :rolleyes:

Getting people to reveal unpleasant truths in a survey is no easy thing, and I seriously doubt that the people who conducted the surveys you're referring to made the effort.

I'm willing to bet they just asked the question and recorded the answer.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:31:21 AM
Yeah, because I am sure the researchers lack your keen wit and insight and have no idea how to properly structure their research to take into account inaccurate self reports. :rolleyes:

Getting people to reveal unpleasant truths in a survey is no easy thing, and I seriously doubt that the people who conducted the surveys you're referring to made the effort.

I'm willing to bet they just asked the question and recorded the answer.

Yeah, you would never want to reconsider your own bias.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:29:34 AMI suspect that what such research really shows is that the reason given for the desire to unionize is the need to protect themselves from assholes.

I also suspect that the actual reason is for monetary gain.

You can't really trust survey's when the people being asked have a vested interest in the survey's results.

Well... when I was younger I was instrumental in leading a union drive at the place of my work. I was the guy who reached out to several unions to see if any of them wanted to help organize us; I was the guy who met with the union reps to get the campaign started; and I was the guy who got the organizing drive going. We got enough support (majority) to start the certification process too - United Steelworkers of America, as a matter of fact.

I can tell you that my personal motivation - as well as the arguments we used to convince our coworkers - had nothing to do with monetary gain, and everything to do with the relationship to management. That was the actual reason. Our bargaining position for our first round of contract negotiation did not involve any monetary gain.

Don't worry, though, the story has a happy ending from your perspective - management's anti-union campaign was eventually successful and we got decertified, though by that time I'd left for my first job in the gaming industry.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:42:26 AM
Yeah, you would never want to reconsider your own bias.

I would want to reconsider my bias on a nonstop basis, and do so constantly.

On the other hand you don't seem to be advancing any actual arguments other than your own faith and your contempt for people who hold opinions different from your own.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 11:38:12 AMWhat is it abou my "management philosophy" that you believe is counter-productive?

1: Increase in time at work = increased productivity.

2: All matters of work satisfaction and productivity can ultimately and usefully be reduced to monetary value.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:42:26 AM
Yeah, you would never want to reconsider your own bias.

I would want to reconsider my bias on a nonstop basis, and do so constantly.

On the other hand you don't seem to be advancing any actual arguments other than your own faith and your contempt for people who hold opinions different from your own.

Ok Yi.  I have no interest in having an internet fight with you over something like this.  This is where I make my money.  But I am sure you know best.

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 11:46:57 AM
1: Increase in time at work = increased productivity.

2: All matters of work satisfaction and productivity can ultimately and usefully be reduced to monetary value.

#2 at least has the advantage of being CC's misrepresentation of my position.  #1 is completely out of left field.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:48:54 AM
Ok Yi.  I have no interest in having an internet fight with you over something like this.  This is where I make my money.  But I am sure you know best.

Damn, just when your faith and contempt were *this* close to winning me over too.

I'm not a member of a union, but it's not because I want less money.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 11:53:49 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:48:54 AM
Ok Yi.  I have no interest in having an internet fight with you over something like this.  This is where I make my money.  But I am sure you know best.

Damn, just when your faith and contempt were *this* close to winning me over too.

:lol:

I have no interest in winning you over.  Your ideology is far too strong for such a thing to work.  Trying to convince you that money is not always the answer would be like trying to reform Marti into a decent human being.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:40:05 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:35:57 AM
Depends in the motives of the researchers, and how careful they are - although I am unsure how their keen insight could adjust for such a thing. I would not simply assume that it could by magic.

Well you are certainly willing to assume they are inept.  Perhaps this has something to do with your own bias?  :P

I am not aware I have any bias on the issue of the ability of people taking surveys to get people to state the reasons they do the things they do.

Could you just cite the actual research, so we can take a look, rather that trying to impugn the motives of the people who are asking for your source?

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 11:44:11 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:29:34 AMI suspect that what such research really shows is that the reason given for the desire to unionize is the need to protect themselves from assholes.

I also suspect that the actual reason is for monetary gain.

You can't really trust survey's when the people being asked have a vested interest in the survey's results.

Well... when I was younger I was instrumental in leading a union drive at the place of my work. I was the guy who reached out to several unions to see if any of them wanted to help organize us; I was the guy who met with the union reps to get the campaign started; and I was the guy who got the organizing drive going. We got enough support (majority) to start the certification process too - United Steelworkers of America, as a matter of fact.

I can tell you that my personal motivation - as well as the arguments we used to convince our coworkers - had nothing to do with monetary gain, and everything to do with the relationship to management. That was the actual reason. Our bargaining position for our first round of contract negotiation did not involve any monetary gain.

Don't worry, though, the story has a happy ending from your perspective - management's anti-union campaign was eventually successful and we got decertified, though by that time I'd left for my first job in the gaming industry.

That is all dandy, but doesn't speak to the issue at all. Anecdotes rarely do when the issue is claims made about the results of statistical surveys.

This is the sort of thing that in the academic literature and so not easy to link with a google search to wiki.  If you guys are interested by all means go look it up.

If you have no interest and simply want to reject anything that does not conform to your existing belief system then that is also fine with me.

Quote from: Warspite on June 06, 2013, 11:56:02 AM
I'm not a member of a union, but it's not because I want less money.

It's a bit of a gamble anyway. You know you'll be out the money for dues, and are betting that the union will make up for it.

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 11:44:11 AM
Our bargaining position for our first round of contract negotiation did not involve any monetary gain.

What about subsequent rounds?

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:59:35 AMThat is all dandy, but doesn't speak to the issue at all. Anecdotes rarely do when the issue is claims made about the results of statistical surveys.

Certainly, proper studies of significant data is much more valid than anecdotal data. You, however, have offered neither.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:56:50 AM
:lol:

I have no interest in winning you over.  Your ideology is far too strong for such a thing to work.  Trying to convince you that money is not always the answer would be like trying to reform Marti into a decent human being.

Are there other posters who hope to win over with repeated expressions of faith and contempt?  Less biased, ideologically-blinkered posters perhaps?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 11:44:11 AM
Our bargaining position for our first round of contract negotiation did not involve any monetary gain.

What about subsequent rounds?

Like I told you, the the bargaining unit eventually got decertified. There were no subsequent rounds.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 11:50:06 AM

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 11:46:57 AM
1: Increase in time at work = increased productivity.

2: All matters of work satisfaction and productivity can ultimately and usefully be reduced to monetary value.

#2 at least has the advantage of being CC's misrepresentation of my position.  #1 is completely out of left field.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:13:24 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:56:50 AM
:lol:

I have no interest in winning you over.  Your ideology is far too strong for such a thing to work.  Trying to convince you that money is not always the answer would be like trying to reform Marti into a decent human being.

Are there other posters who hope to win over with repeated expressions of faith and contempt?  Less biased, ideologically-blinkered posters perhaps?

No.  I was merely intending to relate a piece of knowledge to you.  You and Berk have rejected it for your given reasons.  I have no interest in attempting to dismantle your ideoligical view of the world for the reasons already given.

The only person I would care to convince is someone who lives in this jurisdiction as the way they vote matters to me.  Jacob already seems to accept the premise so I need not press the matter further. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
The only person I would care to convince is someone who lives in this jurisdiction as the way they vote matters to me.  Jacob already seems to accept the premise so I need not press the matter further.

If you convince somebody in a different jurisdiction, they may go on to convince a dozen people in yours.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:59:59 AM
This is the sort of thing that in the academic literature and so not easy to link with a google search to wiki.  If you guys are interested by all means go look it up.

If you have no interest and simply want to reject anything that does not conform to your existing belief system then that is also fine with me.

Ahh,  so you make a claim, I question the applicability, and the only options are "Look up my claim yourself" and "You are just rejecting anything I say!"

Are you sure there isn't some other possibilities in there?

 :lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 06, 2013, 12:23:25 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
The only person I would care to convince is someone who lives in this jurisdiction as the way they vote matters to me.  Jacob already seems to accept the premise so I need not press the matter further.

If you convince somebody in a different jurisdiction, they may go on to convince a dozen people in yours.

There is some chance of that.  But I think it highly unlikely that Yi or Berkut, given their particular political views, would have any impact at all on someone from BC.  Just as someone from BC would likely have zero chance of influencing the political views of someone living in their areas.

Time and again, it is readily apparent that our cultural/political viewpoints are too far separated for any meaningful influence.  But that is one of the things that makes Languish interesting.

I hear things like "money is the only way to create an incentive for productivity" and that is just so foriegn that it is at least interesting to explore the depths of the conviction of that kind of belief.

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 12:12:38 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 11:59:35 AMThat is all dandy, but doesn't speak to the issue at all. Anecdotes rarely do when the issue is claims made about the results of statistical surveys.

Certainly, proper studies of significant data is much more valid than anecdotal data. You, however, have offered neither.

But I am not the one making the claim that unions aren't really about money after all.

I am pretty much ok with the conventional wisdom that there might be some relationship, even a rather significant one, between people joining unions and their desire for more money.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:26:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:59:59 AM
This is the sort of thing that in the academic literature and so not easy to link with a google search to wiki.  If you guys are interested by all means go look it up.

If you have no interest and simply want to reject anything that does not conform to your existing belief system then that is also fine with me.

Ahh,  so you make a claim, I question the applicability, and the only options are "Look up my claim yourself" and "You are just rejecting anything I say!"

Are you sure there isn't some other possibilities in there?

The funny thing is that from this side of the fence it Yi who is making the outlandish claim.  As I said, the ideological barriers are at times very large.

Also, strawman much.  The fact that the academic literature isnt a link away somehow makes me wrong.  Are you really going to dumb down to that level?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:26:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 11:59:59 AM
This is the sort of thing that in the academic literature and so not easy to link with a google search to wiki.  If you guys are interested by all means go look it up.

If you have no interest and simply want to reject anything that does not conform to your existing belief system then that is also fine with me.

Ahh,  so you make a claim, I question the applicability, and the only options are "Look up my claim yourself" and "You are just rejecting anything I say!"

Are you sure there isn't some other possibilities in there?

The funny thing is that from this side of the fence it Yi who is making the outlandish claim.  As I said, the ideological barriers are at time very large.

Certainly entirely possible. I have no opinion on Yi's claim - actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

I am just not willing to accept YOUR claim. A lot less willing now that it seems clear that the study you remember may not actually exist.

Quote from: Siege on June 05, 2013, 08:59:30 PM
Society destroying greed?

Dude, greed is the engine of the world.
Everything human civilization have ever achieved have been because of someones' greed.

So let's say the Iranians offered to triple your pay for the rest of your life and hired you to help them fight the Great and Little Satans.
Deal?

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:30:37 PM
actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

That much is obvious.

So basically this is just Berkut in attack mode without actually know why he is in attack mode.  Ok.

I would work for Yi. Do you have any openings in the Portland area? :P

Quote from: fahdiz on June 06, 2013, 12:32:42 PM
I would work for Yi. Do you have any openings in the Portland area? :P

:lol:

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 12:32:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:30:37 PM
actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

That much is obvious.

So basically this is just Berkut in attack mode without actually know why he is in attack mode.  Ok.

What a bizarre thing to say. Why are you trying to hard to turn this into something personal?

I just want to know what the source of your study is, and see how they went about arriving at their conclusions. Is that such a terrible thing to ask that you are justified in responding with these personal attacks?

This has nothing to do with ideology or politics.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:34:02 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

If these are the basic claims CC is talking about, I am with him.

There are not "motivators" that are only money and "demotivators" that are not money. That is just a circular definition.

People do work for various reasons, and people are demotivated for working for various reasons. The primary reason *most* people work is for money. It is not the only reason.

IMO, CC and Jake are right to reject the idea that money is the only motivating reason to work.

But that is kind og throing the baby out with the bathwater. Money is not the only reason...but it is the primary reason for the vast majority of people under the vast majority of circumstances.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:38:25 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:34:02 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

If these are the basic claims CC is talking about, I am with him.

There are not "motivators" that are only money and "demotivators" that are not money. That is just a circular definition.

People do work for various reasons, and people are demotivated for working for various reasons. The primary reason *most* people work is for money. It is not the only reason.

IMO, CC and Jake are right to reject the idea that money is the only motivating reason to work.

But that is kind og throing the baby out with the bathwater. Money is not the only reason...but it is the primary reason for the vast majority of people under the vast majority of circumstances.

Yi, hasn't really captured what I said as I did not discount the importance of money but rather suggested it is not the only motivativing force.

Here is what I did say which I am surprised is in any way contraversial.

QuoteNot really.  Money is a major component but non monetary benefits like flexibility in hours of work can also work wonders to increase productivity

. 

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:35:22 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2013, 12:32:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:30:37 PM
actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

That much is obvious.

So basically this is just Berkut in attack mode without actually know why he is in attack mode.  Ok.

What a bizarre thing to say. Why are you trying to hard to turn this into something personal?

I just want to know what the source of your study is, and see how they went about arriving at their conclusions. Is that such a terrible thing to ask that you are justified in responding with these personal attacks?

This has nothing to do with ideology or politics.

And I told you it is not something that can be linked.  I could go back into my files and find the titles of the research I have read over the years.  But really what is the point. I am not going to scan the papers and send them to you.  Either you are willing to accept my years of experience looking at these issues are you are not.  I dont really care one way or the other.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:34:02 PM
Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

Ah... okay. That is unobjectionable on the whole. I mean, you don't account for voluntary labour/ charity; but that is tangential.

I think the confusion came in around the use of the word motivator. You were using it to describe the impetus to perform labour at all, versus not working. CC, on the other hand was speaking of motivators as a means to get more productivity out of your work force. The two concepts are related but not interchangeable.

Since you were not speaking to how to get your workforce to be more productive (nor, it seems to motivations for unionizing), I retract my comments about your management philosophy. You can totally work for me (while I can't pay you anything right now, the conditions are pretty good) :hug:

Fair enough Throbby.  Many people for example do volunteer work.  Back when the military was a poorly paid job many people joined anyway because of a sense of obligation or other intangibles.  People enter the religious life because of a higher calling.

And that's not that different than the Communist method of incentivizing work through stirring speeches, belief in the cause, and solidarity.  But all these other motivators still fail to deliver the output that the pricing mechanism does.  Just take a look at the explosion in Chinese GDP.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:52:36 PM
Fair enough Throbby.  Many people for example do volunteer work.  Back when the military was a poorly paid job many people joined anyway because of a sense of obligation or other intangibles.  People enter the religious life because of a higher calling.

And that's not that different than the Communist method of incentivizing work through stirring speeches, belief in the cause, and solidarity.  But all these other motivators still fail to deliver the output that the pricing mechanism does.  Just take a look at the explosion in Chinese GDP.

No argument from me.

The reality is that most of the "other" motivational tools are particular in their application. If you want to talk about *general* motivators for work that are largely applicable across different contexts, there really is just one practical one - money.

To be clear this is the statement Yi made which I disagreed with.

QuoteWe are still left with only one way to incentivize productive behavior: money.

Yi, do you still maintain that the only way to incentivize productive behavior is money?

I think Yi meant that it's the only efficient way to incentivize productive behaviour on a macro-economic scale, rather than in the workplace.

Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 12:57:22 PM
I think Yi meant that it's the only efficient way to incentivize productive behaviour on a macro-economic scale, rather than in the workplace.

If that is all he meant then sure.

I guess that's a no then :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:52:36 PM
But all these other motivators still fail to deliver the output that the pricing mechanism does.  Just take a look at the explosion in Chinese GDP.

I think you are conflating a few things here: (1) a theory of individual choice and behavior, (2) an institutional market mechanism, (3) macro results.  May explain some of the confusion re your interloculators.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:34:02 PM
1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market.

Not all that rhetorical. :unsure:  But you knew that already.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 12:26:15 PM
Ahh,  so you make a claim, I question the applicability, and the only options are "Look up my claim yourself" and "You are just rejecting anything I say!"

Are you sure there isn't some other possibilities in there?

How about the possibility that his data comes from a novel, but one based on the truth?

Would that make his data acceptable to you?