The Next World Order and Social Justice

[2ndRateMind]

18 minutes ago, unixknight said:

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. 

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

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

What type of democracy? Of course it matters. The devil is in the detail! I am not, however, going to be tempted into prescribing the ideal democratic system for every nation on earth. That is for they to decide, and it is a good thing that they should do so (see previous, under exercise and practice of virtue).

I don't draw a line. I just suggest that government has a vital role to play in the equitable redistribution of wealth. But that it cannot, and should not, attempt to redistribute wealth that has not yet been created.

As for wealth 'caps' on corporate earnings, it should be plain by now that this is not what I advocate. Banded taxation up to a maximum of, say, 45%, seems to me quite in order, though.

Quote

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.

I dare say.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

What type of democracy? Of course it matters. The devil is in the detail! I am not, however, going to be tempted into prescribing the ideal democratic system for every nation on earth. That is for they to decide, and it is a good thing that they should do so (see previous, under exercise and practice of virtue)

Why not?  It feels like you're prescribing the ideal economic system for all of them.

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I don't draw a line. I just suggest that government has a vital role to play in the equitable redistribution of wealth. But that it cannot, and should not, attempt to redistribute wealth that has not yet been created.

Please define "equitable" as you apply it here.

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

As for wealth 'caps' on corporate earnings, it should be plain by now that this is not what I advocate. Banded taxation up to a maximum of, say, 45%, seems to me quite in order, though.

And when private companies leave in order to escape such high taxes?  What happens then? 

[2ndRateMind]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Why not?  It feels like you're prescribing the ideal economic system for all of them.

It is one thing to advocate neo-liberal capitalism with minimal government intervention, for all nations, or to advocate communist totalitarianism for all nations, and quite another to suggest a mixed economy, with each nation deciding for itself how that mix might best be implemented for the common good.

Quote

Please define "equitable" as you apply it here.

Fair, just, but not necessarily exactly equal. An equitable solution would ask why some are billionaires, while others starve. And act, if no convincing justification were to be provided.

Quote

And when private companies leave in order to escape such high taxes?  What happens then?

You have two options: 1) adjust your tax rates, or 2) consider them good riddance, if they are unwilling to contribute meaningfully for the benefit of the benign commercial environment the society provides.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

2) consider them good riddance, if they are unwilling to contribute meaningfully to the benefit of the benign commercial environment the society provides.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

They are contributing to the commercial environment.  Money goes where it is happiest.  That's why I transfer my funds depending on where they get the best return.  Are the institutions I leave in favor of more fertile ground stomping their feet because I'm not willingly sacrificing for them?  Doubtful.  They're likely either trying to become more competitive or going out of business.  Odd that we belittle organizations that bring jobs and money to the economy when they leave because they have better opportunities elsewhere.  

 

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It is one thing to advocate neo-liberal capitalism with minimal government intervention, for all nations, or to advocate communist totalitarianism for all nations, and quite another to suggest a mixed economy, with each nation deciding for itself how that mix might best be implemented for the common good.

Socialism =/= simple high tax rates.  Most of Europe has that already and are hardly Socialist.  True, they're drifting in that direction, but they aren't there yet.  I don't think what you're advocating here is actually socialism, by any definition.  Communism, on the other hand, does expressly claim to be fair on the grounds that all people are made economically equal.  Socialism doesn't say that.  

8 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Fair, just, but not necessarily exactly equal. An equitable solution would ask why some are billionaires, while others starve. And act, if no convincing justification were to be provided.

What's 'fair and just' mean?  Those are very subjective words.  If you're not looking for exact equality, then what's the justification for *any* inequality that can't be applied to billionaires vs. paupers?  

And to answer the hypothetical:  Some people are billionaires because they, or their ancestors, worked hard, managed resources, used their brains and in some cases were just fortunate.  Some didn't and weren't.  That's life, and it is neither inherently fair or unfair.

I'm not a millionaire.  Not even close.  Yet I don't find myself thinking that millionaires have a better life than I do, nor do I think it's somehow unfair that they have more money than I.  Life isn't about money.   

8 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

You have two options: 1) adjust your tax rates, or 2) consider them good riddance, if they are unwilling to contribute meaningfully to the benefit of the benign commercial environment the society provides.

Ok, so tax rates have been adjusted down and now things are basically b ack how they were.  Or, okay say "good riddance."  Now that a portion of your economic engine is gone, and not generating new wealth, what do you do?  Tax the remaining companies more?  Guess what happens then?

Moralize all you like, but solutions need to be realistic.

Edited December 14, 2018 by unixknight

[2ndRateMind]

20 minutes ago, Grunt said:

They are contributing to the commercial environment.  Money goes where it is happiest.  That's why I transfer my funds depending on where they get the best return.  Are the institutions I leave in favor of more fertile ground stomping their feet because I'm not willingly sacrificing for them?  Doubtful.  They're likely either trying to become more competitive or going out of business.  Odd that we belittle organizations that bring jobs and money to the economy when they leave because they have better opportunities elsewhere.  

 

Uh huh. I notice that in UK law that companies are considered to be 'persons'. But, of course, according to economists, they are not people, since whereas people must juggle a multitude of goals, objectives, aims and outcomes, the sole objective of a company is to maximise the return on the shareholder's capital. So, if they are a person at all, they are a very one dimensional, attenuated sort of a person.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 14, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[JohnsonJones]

Well, we point out Socialistic nations that have problems, but we fail to note the monsters in the room.

For example, I consider the US a socialist nation...though it is also a capitalist and a Democratic Republic as well.  Social Security can either be considered a Ponzi Scheme (despite what people my age feel about it) or is basically a socialistic program that supports the elderly.  The money that was taken in ages ago was already spent by my parents, my generations parents, and is gone.  The money that our kids paid in may even have been spent by now (though some of my generation feels that some of it is left and the government is robbing us), or at least what they've paid into it.

It's based on the idea that those working today and what they pay support those who are drawing off Social Security. 

Welfare and CHIP is another socialistic program.  In fact, if we account for those in the military with their Socialist healthcare, those on medicare, welfare, and social security...probably almost half the United States lives in a Socialist type state. 

It dwells side by side with a Capitalist one, which by all means, probably drives the socialist one.

You'll find a similar dynamic, sometimes even more so on the Socialist scale in other Western nations such as Canada, the UK, and many other parts of Europe. 

Thus far there are successes and failures, just like there have been successes and failures with Capitalist societies and others. 

In the scriptures we DO have what I would call successful societies which redistribute wealth.  I won't call them communist or socialist (as we've seen in other topics, people do not like those terms related specifically to this, so to focus on the topic rather than devolve into definitions...we won't call it such).  However, they do focus on the idea that everyone has what they need and those who have more than they need have it given to the poor.  IN reality, as we see, they give it all to the church (as demonstrated in the book of Acts) and it is the church that then redistributes it as per the needs of those who involved with it.

We see it HIGHLY successful with the city of Enoch and HIGHLY successful among the Nephite civilization for several centuries (which is far more successful than almost any economic or government system we have today).  There is a BIG difference between how these operate and the wealth redistribution systems we have operating today.

1.  They were led by the Lord.  (believe it or not, this is a HUGE factor).

2.  The people were faithful to the Lord and the commandments.  This means that the probably felt it was good to fulfill their callings, including those that gave them jobs to do that produced materials for their society to live on.

We cannot discount these two features.  The second features is the one that most often fails in socialistic or other societies.  It relies on the virtue of the individual.  Capitalism on the otherhand depends less on virtue and has greed tossed into it.  Greed is a powerful motivator that is lacking in the Lord led societies (or should be, coveting is also not supposed to exist) which makes it more likely that those who follow his commandments could bring about such a society.  On the otherhand, the natural man is greedy and covets.  This causes a great deal of problems if one wants a society where none are rich or poor.  Naturally, we gravitate towards wanting more and as we want more than we need, we gather more and more, even at the expense of others until some are rich and some are poor.

Ideally (and right now it is just that, which is why it is considered more of a utopian ideal rather than something that can be a reality) we would all worship the Lord, be Saints and follow his gospel, and practice the fullness of the gospel including being fully active in the full usage of the Law of Consecration.  Unfortunately, too often the natural man gets in the way so we must settle for systems that are inspired to allow us to be virtuous in our deeds, even as others are greedy and held by vice with theirs.

[2ndRateMind]

20 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Socialism =/= simple high tax rates.  Most of Europe has that already and are hardly Socialist.  True, they're drifting in that direction, but they aren't there yet.  I don't think what you're advocating here is actually socialism, by any definition.  Communism, on the other hand, does expressly claim to be fair on the grounds that all people are made economically equal.  Socialism doesn't say that.  

Ummm. I know that somewhere back in the history of this thread, I specifically denied being a communist. And I don't think I have ever claimed to be a socialist. The most I have implied is that I am left leaning. 

That's all for now, folks. It's not that I'm ignoring you, just that it's my bedtime.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Grunt]

22 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. I notice that in UK law that companies are considered to be 'persons'. But, of course, according to economists, they are not people, since whereas people must juggle a multitude of goals, objectives, aims and outcomes, the sole objective of a company is to maximise the return on the shareholder's capital. So, if they are a person at all, they are a very one dimensional, attenuated sort of a person.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So?

[unixknight]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm. I know that somewhere back in the history of this thread, I specifically denied being a communist. And I don't think I have ever claimed to be a socialist. The most I have implied is that I am left leaning. 

I don't mean to say you are a communist.  Just pointing out that what you appear to be advocating for is similar. 

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

That's all for now, folks. It's not that I'm ignoring you, just that it's my bedtime.

Sleep well!

[2ndRateMind]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

So?

So, do we really want to be held ransom by one dimensional, attenuated sort of persons making the decisions that determine the life chances of complex and constantly interesting and surprising people?

Night all, and sweet dreams.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, do we really want to be held ransom by one dimensional, attenuated sort of persons making the decisions that determine the life chances of complex and constantly interesting and surprising people?

Night all, and sweet dreams.

Best wishes, 2RM.

We aren't held ransom.  We invest in them or support them at will.  When I buy an interest in a company, I expect a return.  I also expect the government to mind its own business.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

My have many problems with anyone that thinks they have a solution for the poor.  I will list some.

If if someone believes in G-d and believes that we can take care of the poor if the rich would just not be so greedy and give up more of their riches.  Question - Since G-d is the richest being (also the smartest) in the universe; why has he not given up a tiny insignificant minuscule bit of his riches and forever ended poverty?  If rich people can fix poverty - why do you believe in a G-d that is rich and refuses to fix poverty himself?

If anybody really knows how to end poverty - why is there still poverty?

If anybody has even an idea how to relieve poverty - why is poverty increasing?

Why in over 50 years of government programs specifically intended to end poverty - is poverty worse today than before all the programs were conceived?  

My biggest problem with any discussion about poverty is some pseudo intelligent person that thinks they can solve the problem but it requires someone else other than them to do something.

 

The Traveler

If if someone believes in G-d and believes that we can take care of the poor if the rich would just not be so greedy and give up more of their riches.  Question - Since G-d is the richest being (also the smartest) in the universe; why has he not given up a tiny insignificant minuscule bit of his riches and forever ended poverty?

God has given up a "tiny insignificant bit of his riches" -- it is called "earth."

It is not God's responsibility to end poverty. It is ours, and will always be ours -- or better said -- it will be the responsibility of any son or daughter of God that inhabits a body of flesh and bone on any earth to end poverty.

If anybody really knows how to end poverty - why is there still poverty?

Because of the pride of humankind that loves riches and wealth more than their brethren. They have not understood the first two great commandments. The implementation of the new order in the beginning of the Church is an example of where the love of God and of their fellowmen diminished when asked to move forward with a government that would end poverty.

Humans like to take something simple and make it complicated. Just look at Home Teaching and now Ministering and how easily it is complicated by the human mind. With God things are simplified, as President Hinckley (if I am remembering correctly) who pointed out God's law of government finance is tithing -- one sentence. Humans on the other hand have a whole book, and a department to handle this task. We like to complicate things, when left to our own devices.

If anybody has even an idea how to relieve poverty - why is poverty increasing?

Same answer above.

Why in over 50 years of government programs specifically intended to end poverty - is poverty worse today than before all the programs were conceived?  

Socialism doesn't work, and we implement more socialist ideas - sadly.

The Lord has already specified the state of mind, heart, and government that needs to exist in order to end poverty, which also ends riches (figuratively speaking). We remember who our giver is of our riches (God who indeed has given a "tiny [significant] bit of his riches,") and that our riches are not our own. But again, we as humans like to complicate something that is very easy when we remove our pride. It is whether or not we as a people -- who are called to be a Zion people -- actually stop talking about it and act more toward it.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Anddenex

[boxer]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

We see it HIGHLY successful with the city of Enoch and HIGHLY successful among the Nephite civilization for several centuries (which is far more successful than almost any economic or government system we have today).  There is a BIG difference between how these operate and the wealth redistribution systems we have operating today.

1.  They were led by the Lord.  (believe it or not, this is a HUGE factor).

2.  The people were faithful to the Lord and the commandments.  This means that the probably felt it was good to fulfill their callings, including those that gave them jobs to do that produced materials for their society to live on.

Couple of flaws, we really have no clue about the functioning of either of those societies.  It's completely possible that both of them were simply capitalistic enterprises where the hearts of men were cleansed from anger, envy, malice, hatred, laziness, etc.  Simply because it states "they had all things in common" or "no inequality" does not state HOW they got to that point and it's foolhardy to think we can try to replicate it without the Lord directly intervening to make it happen.

Even the United Order was a failure and didn't last for a long period of time every single time it was tried it lasted max 2-3 years.  It's idiotic to think that we could even remotely begin to actually implement it however it should be implemented.  Maybe, maybe when Christ comes-we'll see what He says.  But until then, it's best to just put it in the realm of fantasy and "not gonna happen".

[2ndRateMind]

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

...why has he not given up a tiny insignificant minuscule bit of his riches and forever ended poverty?

It is not God's responsibility to end poverty. It is ours, and will always be ours -- or better said -- it will be the responsibility of any son or daughter of God that inhabits a body of flesh and bone on any earth to end poverty.

If anybody really knows how to end poverty - why is there still poverty?

Because of the pride of humankind that loves riches and wealth more than their brethren. They have not understood the first two great commandments.

Bravo!

Cheers, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Quoting traveler:

My biggest problem with any discussion about poverty is some pseudo intelligent person that thinks they can solve the problem but it requires someone else other than them to do something.

 

Hmmm. Global poverty is a big and complex problem. It is just too much for any one individual to solve alone, however rich or powerful. We all need to get involved, and together, we all might stand a chance of success, provided we find the will to succeed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

18 hours ago, boxer said:

You bring up a good point.  How does one indicate to the market they would like food, shelter, etc?  They produce something that someone else wants!  At the end of the day it's all a massively huge barter system.  That all it is-money is just the grease that makes sure the gears don't get rusty and that they can turn properly.

Thank you @boxer, for that. It will far easier for me to read, note, mark and inwardly digest what you have to say if you can sustain this degree of polite conversation.

As to producing; well, of course, most of the poor do work, and work long, hard hours for mean reward. 

A friend of mine, when I was at college, pointed out that the reality of life is that you either have time, or money, but never them both, simultaneously. And I think that is true for most of us in the developed world, most of the time. Nevertheless, we are seeing arising, due to untrammelled globalisation, a situation where some have considerable excesses of money, and all the time they want, and many have neither time nor money. And the child in me cries out: that's just not fair!

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

15 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Thank you @boxer, for that. It will far easier for me read, note, mark and inwardly digest what you have to say if you can sustain this degree of polite conversation.

As to producing; well, of course, most of the poor do work, and work long, hard hours for mean reward. 

A friend of mine, when I was at college, pointed out that the reality of life is that you either have time, or money, but never them both, simultaneously. And I think that is true for most of us in the developed world, most of the time. Nevertheless, we are seeing arising, due to untrammelled globalisation, a situation where some have a considerable excess of money, and all the time they want, and many have neither time nor money. And the child in me cries out: that's just not fair!

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you say something that is wrong, or has severe moral implications-I'll call you on it.  If you say something that is a good question-I'll say so to. For example, I don't know who your friend was-but he's an idiot.  Yes you can have both time and money.  You can not have unlimited time and unlimited money-but that's the nature of the physical world.

As to working hard, I never said productivity = working hard.  If I only have a shovel and want to dig a septic tank-it's going to take me all day to do it.  I'll work really, really hard at it-but my productivity is limited to one hole.  If I have a backhoe, I can dig my hole in 30 mins and then I can be lazy the rest of the day . . .or I can tell other people for 100 I'll dig you a hole too!  I'll spend an entire day digging holes-just like the guy with a shovel-but I'll be much more productive at it.

Productivity increases wealth not money.  This is why the developed world has much more leisure time now than 200 years ago. We have developed tools that allow us to be more productive than our ancestors.  We have a tractor instead of a mule and a spade.  The question then becomes well how to you get to the point that you are producing the tools that allow you to be more productive.  It comes from stored wealth-it comes from built up savings.

I save my extra productivity and then I INVEST it to become more productive.  I've done this in my life . . .many times.  The reason why Western civilizations have advanced is b/c they allow people the ability to SAVE what they earn and then in the future to INVEST their stored wealth to become more productive.

The MAJOR reason why undeveloped countries are undeveloped is b/c they do not have a good culture of saving and investing.  They have a culture of robbery and theft-which is exactly what you propose in order to solve the problem.

[2ndRateMind]

29 minutes ago, boxer said:

The MAJOR reason why undeveloped countries are undeveloped is b/c they do not have a good culture of saving and investing.  They have a culture of robbery and theft...

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support either of these assertions? Or do you just watch Fox News?

My own experience is that the poor in the developing world are far more careful with their money than we in the profligate West. They need to be; their next meal depends on it. But, if you are, say, a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa on even $5 per day, which would make you really quite wealthy in local terms, and out of that you contrive to save $1 per day, it's still going to take you a heck of long time to save up sufficient for a Kubota tractor.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

17 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support either of these assertions? Or do you just watch Fox News?

My own experience is that the poor in the developing world are far more careful with their money than we in the profligate West. They need to be; their next meal depends on it. But, if you are, say, a subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa on even $5 per day, which would make you really quite wealthy in local terms, It's still going to take you a heck of long time to save up sufficient for a Kubota tractor.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Look up South Africa and Farmers.

Look up Zimbabwe and Farmers.

I don't watch Fox news too much propaganda. The developed world didn't go from horse and buggy to a BMW. Why would the undeveloped world do that?

Edited December 15, 2018 by boxer

[2ndRateMind]

8 minutes ago, boxer said:

Look up Zimbabwe and Farmers.

So because Mugabe ransacked and trashed the Zimbabwean economy, all Africans have a culture of robbery and theft? I'm not sure that's a particularly strong justification even for a stereotype. And even if it was, it would just mean that we would have more work to do to change that culture, not that we should ignore the hungry altogether.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So because Mugabe ransacked and trashed the Zimbabwean economy, all Africans have a culture of robbery and theft? I'm not sure that's a particularly strong justification even for a stereotype. And even if it was, it would just mean that we would have more work to do to change that culture, not that we should ignore the hungry altogether.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Isn't Mugabe a result of democracy?

How can you say it's not indicative of the culture when the majority of the people voted him in?

[2ndRateMind]

5 minutes ago, boxer said:

Isn't Mugabe a result of democracy?

How can you say it's not indicative of the culture when the majority of the people voted him in?

Simples. Corrupt elections. The intimidation, imprisonment and even murder of the opposition. I am sure if you google you will find plenty of evidence of such.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

55 minutes ago, boxer said:

The developed world didn't go from horse and buggy to a BMW. Why would the undeveloped world do that?

Indeed not. But you were the one implying that Africans should buy tractors. I was just pointing out that this is not a realistic prospect for the poor. EF Schumacher* is good on this, and talks about 'appropriate technology', that people can buy, use, maintain and repair in a low income environment. It may well be that for most of the poor, hand tools are the most appropriate technology. But often enough, they lack even those.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Schumacher E, (1973), Small is Beautiful, Abacus Books: London.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Indeed not. But you were the one implying that Africans should buy tractors. I was just pointing out that this is not a realistic prospect for the poor. EF Schumacher* is good on this, and talks about 'appropriate technology', that people can buy, use, maintain and repair in a low income environment. It may well be that for most of the poor, hand tools are the most appropriate technology. But often enough, they lack even those.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Schumacher E, (1973), Small is Beautiful, Abacus Books: London.

Another strawman. Learn how to read and argue.