SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Socialist Web Site reports
Three US states--New Jersey, Maine, and Illinois--with a combined population of 23 million people entered a new fiscal year [July 1] without a state budget, forcing widespread shutdowns of public services, state offices, and schools, as well as the closure of state parks on the Fourth of July holiday weekend.
In a fourth state, Connecticut, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy ordered across-the-board spending cuts totaling $2.1 billion after the legislature failed to pass a balanced budget. Malloy's cuts include the elimination of summer youth employment programs and rental assistance for low-income families, as well as a reduction in education funding.
Six more states entered the new fiscal year without a final budget, but without, as yet, any significant shutdown of state services: Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Cuts are to be expected in all of these states if new budgets are not enacted by July 5, the first workday after the holiday.
[...] In a display of elitist arrogance, [Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey] spent the weekend with his family at an official residence in a state park that had otherwise been closed to the public by his own executive order.
[...] In Maine, Republican Governor Paul LePage ordered the first statewide shutdown of government services since 1991 after the legislature failed to bow to his demand that it adopt a new, two-year, $7 billion budget without any tax increases.
In a brazenly antidemocratic action, LePage and Democratic and Republican state legislators had already agreed that the new budget would repeal a measure approved last November by the votes of more than 357,000 people in a statewide referendum. The referendum imposed an additional three percent income tax on the wealthiest state residents--those who make more than $200,000 a year--to increase funding for public education.
Additional Coverage: ABCNews
(Score: 4, Disagree) by bob_super on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:11PM (20 children)
Define: "profitably"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:22PM (19 children)
Here's the big secret: NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO BE PROFITABLE!
That's why capitalism is so valuable: It allows many people to make bets on what is going to be a profitable allocation of resources; those who make good bets are rewarded with the power to make more and larger decisions for society, while those who make bad bets lose their decision-making power.
-----------------
Capitalism is simply the philosophy that resources should be allocated according to rules that have been found agreeable in advance of allocation; this is an iterative process, whereby resources become increasingly allocated by agreement (hence, there is the emergence of "property"), even if it didn't start out that way.
At the very least, this makes people feel like they have control in their lives, which is psychologically valuable.
Even better, because disparate individuals come to be the stewards of resources, a workable shape for society is found more readily by tapping into one of the Universe's most fundamental processes: Evolution (innovation) by variation (competition in a market) and selection (consumer choice). Intelligent design is a myth; a system as complex as society requires evolution in order to keep society well matched to the environment at hand.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:03PM (18 children)
That's investment.
In slave economies, people invested in slaves.
In feudal economies, people invested in castles and weapons.
In a socialist economy, people still invest in their worker-owned companies.
You have been brainwashed into thinking that concentrated ownership is some kind of magic.
It isn't.
BTW, what Capitalism is is exploiting the labor of others while avoiding doing labor yourself.
Take out the "lazy" factor and leave only producers (workers who own the means of production) and you've converted the system into Socialism.
...and a government, doing its job properly, makes investments in e.g education and healthcare and infrastructure to plan for a strong future with an able workforce and e.g. good transportation system.
N.B. USA's vision in this is seriously lacking in the last 4 decades as it becomes an also-ran third-world country.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:20PM (9 children)
Indeed, it's unlikely that capitalism could produce a concentration of ownership that is dangerous or unprofitable for society, as any concentration will be the result of "do as we agreed" cooperation.
In contrast, when you build society around a government, you build the very culture itself around the principle of "do as we say" coercion; any such concentration of ownership under these conditions is likely to be very disagreeable!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:58PM (5 children)
it's unlikely that capitalism could produce a concentration of ownership
You don't understand Capitalism in the slightest.
that is dangerous or unprofitable for society
You remind me of the scene in "Guide for the Married Man" [google.com] where a woman catches her husband in bed with another woman.
Now, it could be that you're simply deaf and blind.
You clearly haven't noticed that a majority of USAians are on the cusp of insolvency as wealth becomes more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
...and, if you're so enthused about Capitalism, you should prove your faith in that by moving to Somalia where The Free Market reigns supreme.
You should be a billionaire in no time at all.
cooperation
You don't know the meaning of the word.
Having a boss that tells you what to do is the opposite of that.
Again, you don't understand Capitalism in the slightest.
when you build society around a government [...] coercion
We have a prior history that includes The Guilded Age where regulation was weak and wealth was concentrated.
That didn't go well.
Before that, Dickens wrote a bunch of books about the age of concentrated wealth that he saw.
You are simply an ignorant fool.
Maybe one day you'll grow up and complete your education.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)
Context is a thing; try reading whole sentences.
It's clear you are a reactionary who responds based on triggers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:23PM
Heh. Have you considered going into comedy?
Have you considered completing your education?
You use words that you clearly don't understand.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:25PM
Heh. Have you considered going into comedy?
Have you considered completing your education?
You use words that you clearly don't understand.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:24AM
Time for bartering. Now there's some serious tools to organize it using computers and networks. In addition some new ways currencies can be accomplished. As long as people have something to offer it's doable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:51AM
That's the era that built up the US as imminent superpower and reduced concentration of wealth. It went quite well.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)
> Indeed, it's unlikely that capitalism could produce a concentration of ownership that is dangerous or unprofitable for society,
> as any concentration will be the result of "do as we agreed" cooperation.
History books definitely demonstrate otherwise.
I do like "do as we agreed", though, because it sounds like something a robber baron channeling his best Don Corleone would say in a soft voice while flanked by a a few gorillas totally not pointing their machines guns at any member of anyone's family.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)
History books definitely demonstrate [that a concentration of ownership is dangerous for society]
Demonstrated very recently once again by Economics professor Thomas Piketty in his 696-page book [wikipedia.org] which analyzed 250 years of Capitalism and reached the conclusion that that economic system leads to Oligarchy (government by the rich).
...and, really, all you have to do is look around and see how tenuous an existence more and more USAians have now.
Of course, those observers who are so immature that they weren't around for the 1950s and 1960s don't have a baseline from which to compare just how far Joe Average has fallen in that nation with its Capitalist economy.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:24AM
I have to admit that 696 pages is a lot, he is probably write.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:09PM (2 children)
What capitalism is, is exploiting the ... wait, what?
Capitalism is about accumulating capital. It doesn't even have to be monetary capital. It can be fixing the roof in your house - an accumulation of value, as you perceive it.
Why does it matter, that I mentioned perception? Because value is contextual. You could pour buckets of water on someone who's drowning, and each incremental bucket would have a negative value - or you could bring buckets of water to someone dying of thirst in a desert, and each bucket would have vast value. You could have a gang of labourers feverishly digging a ditch that nobody wants, and the accumulated value would be nil - or in fact negative, most likely. Or they could be creating drainage to divert floodwaters, and be rendering great service.
Capitalism doesn't imply an employment relationship whatsoever. You can have a capitalist hermit. Or you could have a capitalist cooperative. Or you could have a capitalist village where everyone works for themselves. Or you can have a capitalist employer employing hundreds of people - who are all, themselves, engaging in capitalism.
The funny thing is, even Marx had nothing against capital, qua store of value. He made some (entirely comprehensible, given the era in which he lived) mistakes about the nature of value and its accumulation, but he understood full well that you need an accumulation of value in some form. His main departure from the world at large was taking the position that ownership needed to be undermined as a concept without replacing it with a different system of resource allocation and resolution of disputes.
Study economics with an open mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:46PM (1 child)
Capitalism is making money from money.
If someone somewhere isn't PRODUCING something, how does he make profit?
Now, if people came to his cave to buy from him what he produced in his 1-man operation, that would be entrepreneurship.
That would more accurately be described as Socialism (the workers^W sole worker-owner owns the means of production).
...and if he never leaves his cave and nobody comes there to buy, he needs to exploit the labor of a salesman.
Once again, Capitalism is the process of exploiting the labor of others.
You keep describing business as if all businesses are Capitalist.
They aren't.
Capitalism involves the word "employee".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:26PM
Thank you very much. You have elucidated that when you use the word "Capitalism" it means something different from everybody else. I'm going to guess that you mean something different by "Socialism" as well.
That explains a lot about your confused rants.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:32PM (4 children)
Listen there Comrade. Have you ever met any rich people? I have, and by and large most of them (with exception of some old-money hags) actually work real fucking hard. In the US if you are a workaholic, you will get rich, it's a guarantee. Lot of smart folk who aren't pathologically tied ot their job will actually opt for a more relaxed, less-stressful, and less financially rewarding path, so they can enjoy life more.
You think the likes of Elon Musk and Donald Trump avoid doing work? Are you fucking insane? These guys ONLY work. When you see one of them tee-up do you think they are thinking "oh I wonder if I can get a birdie on this hole" or do you think they are thinking "how do I Make America Greater Again" or "How do I revolutionize the Auto Industry while simultaneously planning colonization of Mars?" True genius never sleeps. And while I personally do not bill my work for all my shower-thoughts, I know definitely that plenty of real work does not involve hitting the same nail with a hammer over and over again.
You are just a self-hating clown. Deep down you know what it takes to be successful, and you know you don't have it, so you try to bring others down so you can feel better about your life. If you want your revolution, head down to Venezuela, they are in a process of one, but there is a twist! And the second twist will come later, when they replace their shitty communist system with an even shittier more communist system, same us before only slightly more cannibalism. Because why work for something when you can steal from the rich while being belligerent to them for their wealth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:48PM
The word you're looking for is entrepreneur.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:31PM (1 child)
Whelp, we have found our temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:15PM
You can't improve the world around you without believing that you can do so.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday July 06 2017, @05:39AM
In the US if you are a workaholic, you will get rich, it's a guarantee
LOL!