The Next World Order and Social Justice

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. I am reminded of the saying of the Brazilian Archbishop Helder Camara. He said: 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist'. For me, I have to say that the Gospels are intensely political. When I stop being political, you will know I have lost my faith in God, and ceased to be a Christian.

I may well take you up on your reading recommendation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There is a saying - if you build a fire for someone you will warm them for an hour but if you light them on fire you will warm them for the rest of their life.  Bad humor aside - no one is the solution to someone else's problem with the exception that Lucifer believe if he was G-d that he could solve everybody's problems.

A lot of people need help - but one thing I have learned is that money is a gift and not help.  And as a gift money is perhaps the least helpful.  Money is a cheep out for cheep people unwilling to help.  But then no one can help anyone more than they are willing to help themselves. 

My father was a very wealthy person that many came to for advice - He said he could teach anyone just two principles that were all that is needed for anyone to be wealthy - and he could teach those principles in 5 minutes.  I could add many things that my father taught - but I have learned the most would rather be poor than apply the principles of wealth.

for fun here are my Father's two principles of wealth.

Principle #1.  Learn to love doing hard work - do not just do hard work but find joy in doing hard work that no one else wants, is willing or will do and be happy doing it.  Do not wait to be asked to do hard work but always be the first to volunteer - be the first there and the last to leave.

Principle #2. Always spend less than you earn.

If you do not convince people to follow the two principles (especially by example) - if you complain about doing more than others or others not doing enough (the mantra of a socialists) - you do not understand the principles and you will not make any dent in poverty.  For the record - I am not as wealthy as was my father but I am as wealthy as I want to be.  Correction - I am actually a little wealthier than I want to be but I am happier with working a little harder than I need or want to.

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

29 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

But to develop the virtues, we have to practice and exercise them. And what better way to do that, than by rescuing the world from its current, urgent, and really rather desperate plight?

Is Venezuela counted as a part of that plight?

[2ndRateMind]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That system is already in place in the US.

I know. And I applaud that. I do see it under threat, though, from the neo-liberal, libertarian extreme right wing tendencies in your society.

But, also, I would like to see the system extended throughout our global village.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

for fun here are my Father's two principles of wealth.

Principle #1.  Learn to love doing hard work - do not just do hard work but find joy in doing hard work that no one else wants, is willing or will do and be happy doing it.  Do not wait to be asked to do hard work but always be the first to volunteer - be the first there and the last to leave.

Principle #2. Always spend less than you earn.

Sounds like good, solid, homespun wisdom.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Traveler]

26 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think you are right, but God doesn't hand out the knowledge of others thoughts and intents like it’s candy at the parade like many think (For example, anyone who accuses others of hypocrisy and unrighteous judgment). He gives it to his Prophets and there when it is necessary

Again I think I disagree - a little.  I think G-d tells his secrets to anyone that wants to know.  I do think he throws out knowledge like candy at a parade - but I think most are too lazy to even pick it up.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Is Venezuela counted as a part of that plight?

Of course not.  Socialist countries that have gone under had nothing to do with socialism.

[unixknight]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Of course not.  Socialist countries that have gone under had nothing to do with socialism.

Well @2ndRateMind did say that the world needed rescuing form its desperate plight.  I'm just wondering whether Venezuela needs rescuing too.

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Of course not.  Socialist countries that have gone under had nothing to do with socialism.

Trite and gratuitous. Any place where people can't afford the basics necessary to sustain themselves and their families should be our concern.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Well @2ndRateMind did say that the world needed rescuing form its desperate plight.  I'm just wondering whether Venezuela needs rescuing too.

I know.  It's just that socialists always think that they can ignore countries that have gone under because of socialist policies driving their economies to the ground.  Otherwise, they can't keep touting the benefits of socialism.

I'd really like to hear ONE socialist who recognizes the utter failures of socialism AGAIN AND AGAIN and acknowledge that it was socialism that caused said failures to try to support the idea of trying it YET AGAIN.

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Trite and gratuitous.

Case in point.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Sounds like good, solid, homespun wisdom.

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you know of a single exception - pr a method to end poverty that works better I would be most interested.   Not the pseudo intellectual college class room pretend to work junk.  And before you think I am anti-education - I am an Engineer and Scientist - I run a consulting business out of my home in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  My father was raised in a small two bedroom home without plumbing or electricity - with 13 other siblings during what is now called the great depression.   I guess I can understand a 2ndRateMind calling it homespun wisdom.  I learned far more from my father than I did in college.

 

The Traveler

[2ndRateMind]

Nothing derogatory was meant by the term 'homespun'. Indeed, if colleges and universities were to put on a course such as 'How to succeed in life 101' with just such exemplary advice, then I think we all might benefit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Trite and gratuitous. Any place where people can't afford the basics necessary to sustain themselves and their families should be our concern.

They were affording them quite well before Chavez "upgraded" them to Socialism.  

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I know.  It's just that socialists always think that they can ignore countries that have gone under because of socialist policies driving their economies to the ground.  Otherwise, they can't keep touting the benefits of socialism.

I'd really like to hear ONE socialist who recognizes the utter failures of socialism AGAIN AND AGAIN and acknowledge that it was socialism that caused said failures to try to support the idea of trying it YET AGAIN.

That's why I'm asking.  I suspect by this point that @2ndRateMind isn't going to reply to me, even though I'm not being rude or making personal attacks.

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Trite and gratuitous. Any place where people can't afford the basics necessary to sustain themselves and their families should be our concern.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Where is this place where people (humans) lack the intelligence to survive?  I am of the opinion that it is more a matter of liberty than it is ability.  In short - oppression.  Most likely oppression by a government or governments and any idea that increasing government power (funding) will help is a greater concern to me.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

They were affording them quite well before Chavez "upgraded" them to Socialism.  

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

That's why I'm asking.  I suspect by this point that @2ndRateMind isn't going to reply to me, even though I'm not being rude or making personal attacks.

Notice how it won't make any difference.  He won't acknowledge the good times before socialism because that would completely destroy his entire argument.  And he's not interested in re-examining himself.  He's already got all the answers.

[2ndRateMind]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

They were affording them quite well before Chavez "upgraded" them to Socialism.  

I'm no expert on Venezuela, but I have the impression that the reduction in oil prices might have had something to do with the collapse of their economy, as well as idealistic, unrealistic policies. As I have said earlier, I favour a mixed economy, not a state-run monopoly on all production, such as communism advocates.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Nothing derogatory was meant by the term 'homespun'. Indeed, if colleges and universities were to put on a course such as 'How to succeed in life 101' with just such exemplary advice, then I think we all might benefit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It is not just advice - it works and with all my experience and observations - it is the only "thing" that works.

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm no expert on Venezuela, but I have the impression that the reduction in oil prices might have had something to do with the collapse of their economy, as well as idealistic, unrealistic policies. As I have said earlier, I favour a mixed economy, not a state-run monopoly on all production, such as communism advocates.

Thanks for the reply.  

So I'm going to read your reply as also a "yes" to my question of whether Venezuela also needed saving.

If a drop in oil prices was a major factor in the economic collapse of Venezuela, what other countries were similarly affected?  Also, why hasn't Venezuela recovered?

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm no expert on Venezuela, but I have the impression that the reduction in oil prices might have had something to do with the collapse of their economy, as well as idealistic, unrealistic policies. As I have said earlier, I favour a mixed economy, not a state-run monopoly on all production, such as communism advocates.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I am not a fan of capitalism but I am convinced it will always run circles around any state-run economy (or corporate run economy) - regardless of how smart the leaders of such a state or corporation think they are.

I am convinced that oil prices had nothing to do with the collapse of their economy other than an excuse for pseudo intellectuals.  The economic collapse was cause by corrupt influences trying to regulate the economy based on greed rather than honest labor and honest compensation for honest labor.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 14, 2018 by Traveler

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Thanks for the reply.  

So I'm going to read your reply as also a "yes" to my question of whether Venezuela also needed saving.

If a drop in oil prices was a major factor in the economic collapse of Venezuela, what other countries were similarly affected?  Also, why hasn't Venezuela recovered?

So, I think you need to create wealth, before you can redistribute it, and you can only redistribute so much wealth as you create, and ideally less than that, so as to leave some degree of incentive in the system for entrepreneurs to innovate. Possibly this is where Venezuela made mistakes. But, my position is, once you have created that excess of wealth, you should redistribute it, partially, and at least to the extent that no one starves, and preferably such that the least among us gets to live out an austere but reasonably dignified way of life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I think you need to create wealth, before you can redistribute it, and you can only redistribute so much wealth as you create, and ideally less than that, so as to leave some degree of incentive in the system for entrepreneurs to innovate. Possibly this is where Venezuela made mistakes. But, my position is, once you have created that excess of wealth, you should redistribute it, partially, and at least to the extent that no one starves, and preferably such that the least among us gets to live out an austere but reasonably dignified way of life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay, so once a given threshold of wealth has been achieved, the "excess" should then be redistributed, right?  I have a couple of questions, then.

• How is that wealth created in the first place?
• What's the incentive to work hard, or be innovative enough to earn that kind of wealth if it's just going to be redistributed?  You mentioned being able to keep a little of it as an incentive, but a little incentive encourages a small effort.  Won't that ultimately be self defeating?
• If one is to be the recipient of this wealth, what's their incentive to work for their own?
• Who gets to decide where that threshold of wealth is?

Also,  how is this an answer to my question about other countries affected by a drop in oil prices?  Venezuela had that wealth to begin with.  It seized privately owned facilities (owned by Exxon Mobil) and had that.  Now it's all gone.  What happened?

Edited December 14, 2018 by unixknight

[2ndRateMind]

19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Okay, so once a given threshold of wealth has been achieved, the "excess" should then be redistributed, right?  I have a couple of questions, then.

• How is that wealth created in the first place?
• What's the incentive to work hard, or be innovative enough to earn that kind of wealth if it's just going to be redistributed?
• If one is to be the recipient of this wealth, what's their incentive to work for their own?
• Who gets to decide where that threshold of wealth is?

Hmmm. I don't think you need a terse internet forum reply so much as a complete political manifesto, supplemented by further reading suggestions.

To take your points tersely, though, in reverse order:

Who gets to decide? We all do. It's called democracy.

What is the incentive to work? I do not notice that human ambition is limited to enough just to get by. Indeed, the basic principle of economics is that it is about allocating scarce resources amongst unlimited desires. So, we get shoes, so we can walk distances. But then we want a bicycle. And then we want a scooter. And then we want a car. And then we want a private jet...

How is that wealth created? By an individual or corporation in collaboration with his/her/its environment, political, economic, social, legal, etc. So, part of the profits an private company makes is directly due to a benign situation in which they find themselves. And, if that is true, it seems to me that the government providing that benign environment has every interest in redistributing some of those profits to ensure no one is left behind, and that the commercial environment for private enterprise is thereby enhanced.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Who gets to decide? We all do. It's called democracy.

Popular vote, or by representatives?

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

What is the incentive to work? I do not notice that human ambition is limited to enough just to get by. Indeed, the basic principle of economics is that it is about allocating scarce resources amongst unlimited desires. So, we get shoes, so we can walk distances. But then we want a bicycle. And then we want a scooter. And then we want a car. And then we want a private jet.

Would a person living under socialism be able to achieve those things?

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

How is that wealth created? By an individual in collaboration with his/her environment, political, economic, social, legal, etc. So, part of the profits an private company makes is directly due to a benign situation in which they find themselves. And, if that is true, it seems to me that the government providing that benign environment has every interest in redistributing some of those profits to ensure no one is left behind, and that the commercial environment for private enterprise is thereby enhanced.

Why would a company invest resources into growth past the point where the government would start redistributing its profits?

I still don't see how any of that makes Venezuela uniquely vulnerable to oil price fluctuations to the point of economic collapse.

[2ndRateMind]

30 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Popular vote, or by representatives?

Would a person living under socialism be able to achieve those things?

Why would a company invest resources into growth past the point where the government would start redistributing its profits?

I still don't see how any of that makes Venezuela uniquely vulnerable to oil price fluctuations to the point of economic collapse.

The exact democratic system is, I think, detail, and will vary from nation to nation, according to the tension between effectiveness (everyone's vote counting directly) and efficiency (the need to make decisions economically, expediently and rapidly).

Would a person under socialism...? I advocate, as I have previously pointed out, a mixed economy, not a totalitarian regime. So, I'm not sure I construe the relevance of this enquiry.

Why would a company invest...? Because it would be a foolish government that usurped the entirety of a company's earnings. There must always be the scope and incentive to keep some, perhaps most, of what one earns.

Venezuela? Basically, as I read the story, Chavez was elected on a platform of redistributing Venezuelan wealth more equitably. Most of that wealth was derived from oil revenues. At the time, oil prices were high. The budgets were set accordingly. Then the oil prices fell, markedly, but the budgets were not reduced. That was always bound to cause a problem.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

The exact democratic system is, I think, detail, and will vary from nation to nation, according to the tension between effectiveness (everyone's vote counting directly) and efficiency (the need to make decisions economically, expediently and rapidly).

It matters.  In a republic, elected officials, usually with deep pockets, would be the ones deciding.  Think they'll vote against their own interests?  In a straight, pure democracy,  the number would be arbitrary and meaningless. 

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Would a person under socialism...? I advocate, as I have previously pointed out, a mixed economy, not a totalitarian regime. So, I'm not sure I construe the relevance of this enquiry.

So where do you draw the line?  What part is socialist and what part isn't?  

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Why would a company invest...? Because it would be a foolish government that usurped the entirety of a company's earnings. There must always be the scope and incentive to keep some, perhaps most, of what one earns.

Would that cap be the same for all companies, or would each get its allocation of what it can keep individually?

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Venezuela? Basically, Chavez was elected on a platform of redistributing Venezuelan wealth more equitably. Most of that wealth was earned from oil revenues. At the time, oil prices were high. The budgets were set accordingly. Then the oil prices fell, markedly, but the budgets were not reduced. That was always bound to cause a problem.

So I decided to look into your claim of Venezuela's troubles being caused by falling oil prices.  I'm afraid this argument does not work.  Venezuela's GDP has been in a state of decline since it peaked in 2010.  It did experience an  uptick from 2011 to 2012 but has been decreasing since.  This does not correspond with the behavior of oil prices.  It does seem that high oil prices have a slight positive effect on Venezuelan GDP, but that's all.  Oil prices have dropped precipitously only twice in the last 10 years... Once in 2009 and once in late 2014 through early 2016.   It has been trending upward since.  Venezuela's economy does not appear to be tracking along with those changes.

Crude oil price history chart

Economy of Venezuela

It does seem that many of Venezuela's economic troubles were triggered by oil price drops, but the Socialist policies drove private businesses out, basically guaranteeing the recession would remain indefinitely.