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: 2, Interesting) by idiot_king on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:37PM (33 children)
Just more proof the Capitalist pigs running most of the country could care less about the common man. Get rid of all of 'em, put in university profs who actually STUDY economics and what the average human being needs.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)
Were this a matter of capitalism, the people of these states would be signing up with other, more competent service providers by now; instead, all they can do now is complain while writing more checks to the government at the point of gun.
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:04AM
That proves precisely the opposite point of what you're suggesting. Good job, it's rare that I see that around here.
The reason why these things are a problem is in large part because capitalism doesn't work very well when partisan hacks continually knee-cap the government's ability to regulate economic activity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:57PM (7 children)
Wow, is this a parody account? Because almost all these states suffer fiscal crisis because they have unfunded pension liabilities. Who could have guess giving "the worker" insane lifetime pension with full health benefit after only 25 years of work somehow was a recipe for disaster.... Mind you a lot of these "retirees" still work and collect pension at the same time. Must be nice!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:18PM (5 children)
Of course, they could also have avoided the problem by noting that having offered that significant benefit in lieu of competitive salary, they needed to actually FUND it as they went along rather than raiding the retirement fund to give tax cuts to the wealthy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:38PM (4 children)
People who offered it did not know the actual cost of what they were offering, or in fact knew but didn't care (which is malicious). A lot of them just offered up this shit for votes. Now the outcome will be that you can't get blood from the stone, so the same people who sold their votes will now get diddly squat. Good riddance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:42PM (3 children)
Nah, the problem is they dipped into those accounts like it was their personal piggy bank and failed to live up to their funding obligations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:21PM (2 children)
That is definitely part of it, but this part is unsolvable. You simply cannot tell the government where you keep your money, because they will always find a way to steal it. To them if you have money lying around, then you don't really need it.
Regardless, the funds that were siphoned off, were only part of what was needed, the other part always came from taxes because they "estimated" there would always be more revenue in the future to use for this, so why pay for it back then? Any way you involve the government in retirement you will be screwed. And anytime you go private, you might get screwed there as well. It's simply no longer cynical to think there is no point in saving for retirement. You might think about getting a second property instead of 401K (IRAs will most definitely get poached in the future, and 401Ks will get hammered in some fashion), but then the wonderful comrades will find a way to penalize you for owning two homes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:59PM (1 child)
You've got good points, but your rhetoric needs help. The people you envision as the bogey men are not the ones to worry about. It is a range.
Also, taxes are a civic duty, this is not a new concept.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:50AM
... you're full of shit!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:49PM
Probably yes. The account has a habit of leaving a single blatant partisan screeds on stories without replying or explaining their position.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:04PM
Just more proof the sun is hot.
I think you are piling up evidence against a claim nobody made.
No one says business owners started their companies so that they could "care" for people. Pretty obviously, they want to sell stuff, and they hope to sell it for more than it costs, otherwise, why go to all that bother?
Similarly, I don't think politicians go into government because they "care". They go into government because they love to govern, that is, to control other people.
Maybe some politicians lied, and claimed to care. Don't vote for them next time.
If you want someone to care, look to your friends and family. Not business owners and politicians.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:05PM (10 children)
I don't disagree with the spirit of your comment. But consider that intelligent people are still people. They are subject to biases, brainwashing and convincing like anyone else is. The thing with an intelligent person and especially an academic is that they're really good at internalizing what they want to believe in and defending it. Do you want someone with the persistent attitude of the current president and adminstration replaced with intelligent academics that think christian science is legit?
btw, christian science:
and yes an intelligent person can buy this shit. I consider myself at least a thinking man and I was very much a christian (non-science, standard new/old testes) for a large part of my life. Just like judging based on white trash IQ is probably not the only thing you should go by. You probably don't want to just go by savant IQ.
Also professors have their own biases. It's the butt of like 10000 stupid jokes but there is a kernel of truth to it. Long term solution: Put enough factions into the system to represent views and people that aren't cartoons like they are. In other words it's probably not just a leader issue. Christie keeps getting re-elected because the only two tangible parties like to swordfight with their cocks. Chances are, you're going to get a "left leaning" or "right leaning" professor. Trends and the reality of social progression is usually going to give you the former. And that is not a good thing either. You need contrary arguments to build solid foundations on.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Informative) by Justin Case on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:30PM (7 children)
The "right leaning" professor is pretty rare. I worked at a University for many years and here's what I observed:
They've never, in their whole lives, had to earn a dollar. First Mommy and Daddy took care of them. Then Mommy and Daddy paid for their college. And more education. And even more.
Sometimes Mommy and Daddy don't cover the full bill, so Peggy Professor has to beg for a grant or maybe even a scholarship. Still looking for handouts, just not exclusively Mommy and Daddy any more.
Eventually Peggy gets her PhD and now she can kick off a full time career of begging for more grants. This money, with exceedingly rare exceptions, comes from various government bodies directly or indirectly.
In other words, the only way a professor knows to get money is to rob the taxpayers. So yeah, of course, they are going to be very vocal advocates of even more stealing. They'll even barf out blatantly absurd insanity like "debt doesn't matter" and "you can spend your way to prosperity".
These are the "economists" you trust to design a functional national economy? They couldn't manage a gas station.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:47PM (5 children)
So, worked at a university? In food service, or janitorial? Not that there is anything wrong with that. But let me guess, just in case I have misread you: despite your Matt Damon level of brilliance, and all your hunting for good will, they flunked you out, right? I am sorry for you. Perhaps more respect for the upper classes would help?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:58PM (2 children)
So do you have anything to say that is on topic, or do you generally agree with my analysis?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:25PM (1 child)
No hes saying your biased. Shoot before this comment we could only assume you never graduated, after this comment you've removed all doubt. Thanks slugger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:59AM
A little too close to home, slugger?
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:29PM (1 child)
Well I mean the courses at MCC don't set the bar very high so no. Oh and I learned my field from reading TCPL and other such material starting at age 14. Meanwhile one of my profs thought hexadecimal went past F. I just went there to get the toilet paper. Amusingly it turns out the places that still care about degrees are also looking for something bachelor or above. Which was time I simply couldn't give and still can't.
I guess it's not University(TM) level edumucations. But frankly I don't expect any better from a uni if our current stock is the result. Respect for the upper classes you say? I think you mean respect for the supporting underclass that wipes their asses for them.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:39PM
Well hey look at that I proved the thing about everyone having the capacity to be stupid by getting lost in my own thread. Still topical I would hope. Idea that educators are infallible is as silly as placing any role or right to leadership on someone for their class alone.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday July 06 2017, @05:39AM
In fact I thought that the parent's idea of handing matters to university professors were a subtle joke.
Anyway, y'all step aside please, I actually had two [wikipedia.org] university [wikipedia.org]professors as mayors recently. The agenda went on smoothly, no matter their influence. And the agenda is about making the city center a place for special events and for getting tickets and pay through the nose to park, while shoppers on cars flock obviously to malls outside the city. You follow the directions to the city center, you end up outside. Same agenda as in most cities BTW.
The current professor mayor seems keen on spending money on projects which the citizens protest about (and not for mere ideological opposition). He's gonna get to parliament, mark my words.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:03PM (1 child)
Sure, that is possible, but it's far more likely that the person buying into that nonsense is unintelligent. What matters is probability.
Also, IQ is unproven nonsense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:31PM
You are unproven nonsense:
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:13PM (2 children)
"Just more proof the Capitalist pigs running most of the country"
It's not "capitalist pigs" who are the problem. We are specifically talking about governments that have spent themselves to bankruptcy.
In capitalism, if a company overspends, it goes bankrupt and gets replaced by a competitor. If your local government overspends, they raise taxes and take it out of your wallet. When that doesn't work anymore, they just refuse to honor their commitments, but the government - along with essentially all of the individual politicians and high level bureaucrats that make up the government - remain in place and keep collecting their paychecks.
Heck, governor Christie even keeps going to the beach. Gets caught in outright lies ("I didn't get any sun today") and doesn't have to give a shit.
No, it's not capitalism that's the problem. What do you call an overspending, out-of-control government? Socialism?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tfried on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:52PM
Sigh. It's not so hard to keep these terms apart, is it?
1) Overspending or budget deficits is a wide-spread problem in governments of every color.
2) Once deficits hit a limit, there are two distinct responses: Capitalist governments will cut public spending, but not increase taxes (and occasionally, cut taxes, arguing that this will spark the economy, and generate more income in the long run). Socialist governments will increase taxes, typically on the high income end, first, but not cut spending (and occasionally, increase spending, arguing that this will spark the economy, and generate more income in the long run).
There are reasons to be sceptical of either approach, and you will not have difficulty finding examples of either approach yielding terrible results, but the one(s) TFA is reporting on is clearly of the capitalist side.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:19PM
Maybe someone needs to re-plug governor Christie into the control system feedback loop. The one where if you mismanage your job it hurts the paycheck and the boss tells you to do more hours, perhaps reading up on economy.
Suppose water supply to that state park closed to the public by his own executive order went dry because "budget deficit", electricity bzz bzz oops no money for repair man, the sewer got blocked because no one around to fix it, the access road however needed some urgent repair but the workers went home because check bounced and of course the fiber connection somehow got crushed under some road equipment with no one on call.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:29PM (5 children)
Illinois, NJ and Maine are blue states. A better comparison would be Venezuela.
Perhaps if you studied economics on a rudimentary level you'd realize that "profs" are mostly left wing - they either don't have a fucking clue what's going on or refuse to admit that their political ideology always results in moral and fiscal bankruptcy.
(Score: 5, Touché) by rcamera on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:33PM (4 children)
Governor of Illinois: Bruce Rauner (R) [wikipedia.org] - assumed office 2015
Governor of New Jersey: Chris Christie (R) [wikipedia.org] - assumed office 2010
Governor of Maine: Paul LePage (R) [wikipedia.org] - assumed office 2011
/* no comment */
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:37PM (2 children)
Yea and both Christie and LePage are not well liked in their states. I think you intended to disprove but ended up proving. *golf clap*
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rcamera on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:57PM
not liked, but are both multi-term. how's that work?
agreed, they're not popular NOW. they were both very popular when they ran on a platform of cutting taxes. of course, the spending cuts to go with those tax cuts never really materialized (other than NJ cutting infrastructure and education funding and dropping like a rock in national standing), so now they have massive deficits. their problem is that they're still both in office to reap the "rewards" of their decisions.
pick your poison; democrats "tax and spend" or republicans "cut taxes and spend".
/* no comment */
(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:51PM
That's a lie. It's a lie that's been going around so maybe you don't know you're lying. Trust me, there's no such thing as the golf clap. Folks, I was examined by a doctor. By Dr. Jacob Bornstein, M.D. That means he's a medical doctor, if you didn't know. A fellow of the American College of Gastroenterology. And Dr. Bornstein said I'm in astonishingly excellent health. The healthiest individual ever elected. To the presidency or anything. Believe me, folks, Dr. Bornstein knows everything there is to know about the clap. And he says I don't have it. A lot of people ask me about the golf clap. Mostly ladies. And I asked Dr. Bornstein. He says there's no such thing as the golf clap. Which is great to know. It's a huge relief. Because I tee off a lot. But I don't get laid a lot. Not as much as I want to. And the lie going round about the golf clap is a big part of that. So don't spread it. And I love Chris Christie. Sometimes I love him. ❤️ #TrumpGolfLinks [twitter.com] #Trump2020 [twitter.com] 🇺🇸
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:35PM
Still a Blue State.
Governor of Illinois: Bruce Rauner (R) [wikipedia.org] - assumed office 2015
President of the Illinois House: Michael Madigan - Assumed House Seat 1970 - Speaker of the House 1983.
Stretch of years 1995 - 1997, House under Republican Rule.
Years the State of Illinois could even be considered Red. 1995-1997.
Illinois has been a Blue state for the vast majority of its existence. The Democratic machine was based in Chicago for a number of Decades.
Chicago's politics reaches deep into Springfield.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @03:09AM
And of course, let us note that every single one of these states is a blue state (most heavily so). Funny how these "capitalist pigs" and their budgetary problems manifest in highly urbanized environments which happen to favor one political faction notorious for being unable to balance a budget.
Which will work just fine, until you actually put them in charge of something. They don't know what the average human being needs. The average human being knows what the average human being needs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @03:25PM
it's a bunch of socialist states you stupid fuck.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:39PM (7 children)
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-why-rome-fell [history.com]
There are enough parallels to discuss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:59PM (1 child)
Well as the GOP keeps telling us it's a republic not a democracy, that is no accident get begging to your Don now before all the patronage is taken
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:19PM
Do you think this is incorrect? What is your point here?
(Score: 2, Informative) by kaszz on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:45PM (4 children)
8 Reasons Why Rome Fell [history.com]:
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire (only to be overrun by the Ottoman empire in the 1400s)
4. Overexpansion and military overspending
5. Government corruption and political instability
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
8. Weakening of the Roman legions
There certainly are systemic similarities..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:14PM (3 children)
8 Reasons Why Rome Fell [history.com]:
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes - Mexicans/Indians/East Asians?
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor - US Economy and pay of the debt-slaves?
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire (only to be overrun by the Ottoman empire in the 1400s) - China?
4. Overexpansion and military overspending - F22/35/Aircraft Carriers/Multiple Wars in the Middle East
5. Government corruption and political instability - Pick a party/president/politician
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes - Radical Islam?
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values - Atheists? Evangelical Christians super-minority?
8. Weakening of the Roman legions - Military personnel doing it for the paycheck rather than to serve their country?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:10AM (2 children)
Reasons Why Rome Fell [history.com]: (just some guesses)
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes - Migration of radical Islam and various chaff people. Also foreign nations that under normal circumstances would not stand a chance now seem to have some confidence, which they should not have.
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor - Spending on projects that will not return anything substantial either in money or other more intangible values, blatant taxation (theft) and reliance on obedient wage slaves which not necessarily are in debt.
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire - Treating skilled people like shit while at the same time sucking up to sociopathic money hoarders. That result in them not consider US as a viable option or simply leave US.
4. Overexpansion and military overspending - Simple trying to be everywhere and do everything - most importantly not realizing ones own limitations.
5. Government corruption and political instability - The cycle of lobbyist bribery and bought power brokers. And courts threatening the population.
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes - Radical Islam and people that just is a drain.
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values - Not having a vision or overall goal. Not adhering to sound principles grounded in realities. Seen any blue sky projects lately?
8. Weakening of the Roman legions - Using the military for corporate interests and military contracts that won't benefit anyone except the corporation that get them. This demoralizes and makes the military loose focus on the objectives that are of real importance.
There are some tendencies in the US that are not good for the long term prosperity:
* Virtues that either don't exist or are completely detrimental to prosperity.
* Bad education. It's what is taught (common core?), how it's taught (rote) and the social environment of the school (bullying, authoritarian, central planning).
* Drone like treatment of the workforce.
* People having to plan their life to avoid legal implications rather than getting stuff done.
* Wasting peoples resources to get the basics of life.
* Unfocused decision makers that make decisions based on their personal short term gratification but loosing sight on the overall systematic effects.
There will be future challenges that will demand a full workforce that is both smart and knowledgeable. That can cooperate and is guided by a sound vision. The alternative may be less than a happy one. And this can be bought when the time comes. It has to be prepared.
If there would be a new continent that need filling just like the mass emigration to America during the 1900s. The time is ripe now for a massive brain drain once the opportunity opens up.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:41AM (1 child)
> If there would be a new continent that need filling just like the mass emigration to America during the 1900s.
Australia's still pretty empty, but getting hotter.
Russia is warming up fast
Antarctica will eventually get there if we keep being selfish.
Otherwise, there's a lot of empty space in the middle of the ocean, and soonish there will be more competition on satellite broadband than landline down my street.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday July 06 2017, @04:33AM
Australia's still pretty empty, but getting hotter.
Russia is warming up fast
Australia and the other English-speaking countries are closely allied with the US, and making the same mistakes or worse.
Russia is much worse off than the US: it's extremely authoritarian, the people are extremely nationalistic, and the economy is a disaster. The only good thing about living in Russia is that they probably won't extradite you to the US, which is something only useful to a small number of people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:54PM (45 children)
Anyone trying to convince you that the government should be run "more like a business" is setting the government up for failure so that they can later point at it going "see, despite running it as a business and cutting everything we could and gutting the core of what a government who is concerned about its citizens, it cannot deliver these services. We should just get rid of it altogether!".
Well gee-fucking-whiz, Robin.
Government is NOT a business and should not be run as one. Thinking so or doing so is kidding yourself. Government has a fundamentally different purpose and a different way of acting from companies. For one, a government doesn't (and/or shouldn't) have a profit motive. A government (federal in this case) can decide to devalue its currency for a myriad of reasons. A government can jail you and even kill you (now granted, companies can do that too but at least they get a slap on the wrist and told to 'pretty please don't do it anymore').
In essence, taxes are the price you pay for a functioning society. Not wanting to pay taxes (!= claiming they are too high) is anti-social.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:09PM (43 children)
You either allocate those resources profitably, or you don't. That's it.
It doesn't matter whether you call your organization "government" or "business" or anything else. You either allocate resources profitably, or you don't.
(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!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:16PM (11 children)
Profitability should NEVER be of concern to the government. Accountability, transparency and good stewardship and governance in favor of the citizens (corporations are NOT people) for sure are required, but profit or profitability are NOT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:25PM (6 children)
Either resources are allocated profitably [soylentnews.org], or they are not. That's it.
There is NOTHING else in this universe.
A bank balance is just one way to try to measure profit, but it's not the only way. Maybe that is your confusion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:21PM
I agree with the grandparent on this one. A government should not be judged on its profitability, but entirely on its RESPONSIBILITY. It is responsible for collecting taxes for the services it performs and its obligations. It is responsible for not overspending its revenue. It is responsible for treating is citizens and residences fairly. It is responsible to creating, enforcing, and following its laws. Protecting its people and providing them with opportunity for success is yet another responsibility. Countries like Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela may be able to balance a checkbook enough to make the government 'profitable' but its government is still a failure to its people as it is not responsible.
I'm sure you're able to propose the scenario where 'profitable' becomes interchangeable with 'responsible'. However, I encourage you to forgo the mental gymnastics and use the word generally better suited for our expectations on how our government should operate.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:31PM (2 children)
There is NOTHING else [besides profitably] in this universe
Now, describe the profit motive WRT SoylentNews.
Repeat for your town's community chest.
Hint: Not all endeavors need to make a profit.
You have been brainwashed by greedy people for whom "enough" is never enough.
A system that provides social stability for all (Socialism) is more viable than a system (Capitalism) that maximizes profits for a few individuals.
We're seeing the implosion of that latter archaic, obsolete system today.
In several of his songs, Springsteen[1] has written about the hollowing out of USAian towns by Capitalists offshoring jobs.
[1] Arranging/performing "Born in the USA" as a cheerleader stomp was a bad choice.
(People only pay attention to the chorus.)
I've heard that tune performed as a dirge by another act; if you look at the lyrics, that is more appropriate.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:00PM
You're not listening to him. In this case, SN's profit is the value of the discussions we have, not dollars. If at a certain point our discussions' value sinks too low, it may not be worth "buying" anymore.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:01PM
Y'all are talking at cross purposes. There's profit as counted in strict cash terms, and then there's profit in the broader sense of desirable outcomes for acceptable costs.
"A system that provides social stability for all (Socialism) is more viable than a system (Capitalism) that maximizes profits for a few individuals."
Citation needed. And, while we're at it, measures of "viable" and comparisons of net outcomes, society-wide.
"In several of his songs, Springsteen[1] has written about the hollowing out of USAian towns by Capitalists offshoring jobs."
Sure, lots of people have chronicled all sorts of things about the shifting economic and social grounds in the USA. Gangsta rap is one example.
The good news is that you can model a socialist system within a capitalist ruleset. Very techy. Go on, gewg! Instantiate VirtuaSociety on the CapitaloHost!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @09:46AM (1 child)
> There is NOTHING else in this universe.
> A bank balance is just one way to try to measure profit, but it's not the only way. Maybe that is your confusion.
Either resources are hot, or they are not. That's it.
There is NOTHING else in this universe
A pyrometer is just one way to try and measure heat, but it's not the only way. Maybe that's your confusion.
How the fuck did anything you say better respond to your parent post than the equally, if not more, true bollocks I've just written. If you agree to forget about profit for a second, I'll promise to forget about heat. And then maybe you'll be able to enter a discussion from which you'll be able to learn a bit more about how the world can work (rather than how the bubble you live in currently works, if you can call it working).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @04:29PM
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:52PM (3 children)
It should be concern of government because PROFITABILITY = SUSTAINABILITY. You cannot hope something to endure while it hemorrhages money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:07PM (2 children)
Well, if you're an international banker, you can survive just fine while hemorrhaging money. You'll be too big to fail.
(Not sure if I'm refuting or illustrating your point. Probably illustrating it, since the international banker is only able to do so thanks to our violently imposed monopolies.)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)
Rather than letting poorly managed banks fail, and thereby allow their resources to become controlled by more competent minds, the governments of the world instead decided to prop up those bad banks by using money stolen from citizens at the point of a gun.
Your government did that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:36PM
Yes that is a fail. It's like preventing intermittent disaster to create a longer and enduring one.
I understand the FEELs argument behind it. Workers are poorly insulated from such happenings. But these were mostly White Collar workers, who would have been better able to weather the storm. Collapse of a large bank creates opportunity for smaller players to go into the market. Giving these new players money would have been a better way to go. In the end we averted nothing, we are still precariously on the line here, and these banks are just getting more and more sinister because they know there is no lose for them.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:20PM (9 children)
In a 'finite' world, there can be no profit, only circulation.
It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!
The world is a ledger.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:44PM (8 children)
I think you misunderstand the word "profit".
Suppose I go over to the orange grove and buy a truckload of oranges. That cost me (let's say) $1000. Now I drive around to a bunch of grocery stores and sell them oranges. Wear and tear on my truck, plus fuel: $100. But I sold the oranges for $1200, so at the end of the day I have $100 left over. That is my profit.
The store managers were happy to pay me (a total of) $1200, in part because they didn't have the time or inclination to drive out to the orange grove for just one crate of oranges.
If the store managers were not happy to pay me $1200 they would not have paid me $1200. But they were. In fact, they might have been willing to pay even more. But the fact is they agreed to the bargain because buying my oranges seemed better to them than not buying my oranges. In other words they profited on the deal too although perhaps the exact dollar value of their profit may be hard to calculate.
We can now see that every time two people agree to a trade they both profit. Otherwise they would not have agreed.
Every voluntary transaction increases the happiness in the world, because both parties are happier.
The amount of profit you make each day is a measure of how much happiness you added to the world.
Unless of course you stole the money. In that case the other party did not agree, and you should go to jail. Like thieving politicians, who make the world unhappier every time they force a transaction on unwilling participants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:53PM (4 children)
Oh, dear, now I see why you flunked out of micro-economics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
Feel free to enlighten us where he went wrong, O Almighty AC, instead of just pointing and laughing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:04AM (2 children)
He forgot labor! Just like a capitalist apologeticist! He forgot to pay himself for the 10 hours of work, loading, unloading, driving, waiting, and dead-heading back. At a decent minimum wage of $15/hr, he would be -$50 of profits. I do not expect someone this challenged by numbers to stay in business very long. Which is good, because we forgot to factor in unemployment insurance, health insurance, retirement benefits, liability insurance, and Social Security.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:41AM
If the man sells the oranges for $150M, and pays himself $15M/hour in wages for those 10 hours of work, would you say he's down $1000 on the day? That's a silly question, your above statement demonstrates that you would say that. And if you wouldn't then that would demonstrate that you are happier contradicting yourself than anything else.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 06 2017, @03:28PM
If the guy is working for himself, the profit *is* his pay.
"That's what governments are there for: to get in a man's way."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)
That's microeconomics 101... but the reality is more complex.
FTFY.
If everyone has equal information and analysis, then everyone should profit, or at least break even. But often enough, that is not the case.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:49AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:25PM
Your last sentence really shows the problem with your idealized scenario of basic capitalism. There are many caveats, so like every other system it falls prey to exploitation. As humans we have to agree on the problems we face, and come to terms with how to handle such problems. History seems to show that diversity is the answer, conservative and liberal ideologies applied where desired, economic systems of socialized versus privatized used where applicable.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:02AM
...Yet people have been brainwashed to the contrary so successfully as to intentionally put a bad businessman in the White house because...actually I have no idea...
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:27PM (9 children)
Despite the fact that people are engaging in genuine discussion, the users of this website still mark them as "Troll".
What a shit website; I seriously don't know why I bother coming back here—I must be a masochist.
Please, admins, come up with a better system for managing the discussion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Lagg on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:49PM
If you leave you're just going to encourage bad mods. You shouldn't have been -1 Troll'd and I don't think it qualifies, it was a simple expression of opinion. (to which I have no opinion because it feels fallacious to say it's a business and managed like one but not really)
That too is why the system isn't as terrible as other places.
You should have been Disagree'd though if anything. That's what it's there for.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:52PM (1 child)
At least it isn't as bad as that other green site. Back to the subject... New Jersey is a fchking joke, a goverbater that shuts down shit when he gets butthurt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:17PM
Yes New Jersey is a sick joke. But the reason is not the governor, it's the fact that property taxes here are higher than mortgages in other states! So even if you pay off your mortgage, you are in essence paying rent to live in your own home. Don't give me the BS that it costs blah blah blah, whatever the fuck it costs, it shouldn't cost this much! Paying grand a month to live in your own fucking house? really? And the kicker is NJ also has SALES TAX and INCOME TAX. That is the fucking joke. NJ has never met a tax it didn't like.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:01PM (4 children)
Better than democracy? Okay. All hail our new benevolent moderation dictator, Me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:56PM (1 child)
I was expecting this.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:59PM
You underestimate my lack of ambition severely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:03PM (1 child)
I would trust you in that position as far as I could throw you, and I've got a bum shoulder.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:51PM
I wouldn't trust me in that position and I know I'd go into it trying to be 100% objective.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:09PM
The only comment to get a Troll mod is now at Score: 1.
One "bad" mod! OMG the system is broken!
Maybe your whine directed people to upmod the comment. In that way you are a crucial cog in the system.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:56PM (3 children)
Do people like Christie realize this is what they are though? The last few elections and associated controversy have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these people don't think on the same plane you do.
Also, he was pretty flagrant about how the media would "get a pulitzer" as if they're pests bothering him on his beach. I personally think his partly-by-luck success has made him think in the same vein as the president. People calling him out are just a minority of detractors. He's actually top shit. Because why else would he have all that money and power? Seems like this is at least an approximation of his mindset:
There's a pretty serious infestation of deteriorating minds in the US government at the moment. How unfortunate.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:26PM
these people don't think on the same plane you do.
They are sociopaths, and they win.
The lapdog press asks Christie if it was fair. Dumbasses... They should ask the public if this will affect their vote next season. Chances are it won't, but it's worth asking to get it on record. The sociopaths will keep on winning because the voters really aren't that different. The politicians are the result, not the cause.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
Why didn't the Coast Guard just tow him off the beach?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:40PM
The government org in charge of making that call was closed due to budget cuts?