• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

More than likely this will cause more layoffs and slow hiring.

You can't successfully mandate wage increases and get a favorable outcome.

Incorrect, there will always be job market shrinkage when artificial controls are added or increased such as a minimum wage.

Here we have a snapshot into the rather incomplete rightist perspective, in which the fact that textbook models of competition are not present in the actual labor market is unfortunately overlooked. In reality, monopsony power (and more broadly, oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets) complicates matters. Firms are confronted with an upward sloping labor supply curve, To simplify all this more, the imperfections of labor markets make things a hell of a lot more complicated than is immediately evident, and claiming that minimum wages increase unemployment is not so cut and dry, considering that the absence of infinite elasticity (few would argue that cutting wages by a cent would result in worker resignation, for example) is an element in the general deficiencies of labor markets.

I'm sorry, but I've been hearing a bunch of bull**** from faux "free market" people about the pitfalls of a minimum wage for as long as I've been interested in economics and history does not bear that argument out.

It certainly doesn't. Urethra mentioned the British experience, and it thus seems important to note the realities of minimum wage increases not adversely affecting employment as illustrated by legitimate empirical research rather than crude textbook theory inapplicable to actual conditions. For example, we could turn to Dickens et al.'s (in which Manning is included), The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment: Theory and Evidence from Britain. Consider the abstract:

Recent work on the economic effects of minimum wages has stressed that the standard economic model, where increases in minimum wages depress employment, is not supported by empirical work in some labor markets. We present a general theoretical model whereby employers have some degree of monopsony power, which allows minimum wages to have the conventional negative impact on employment but which also allows for a neutral or positive impact. Studying the industry‐based British Wages Councils between 1975 and 1992, we find that minimum wages significantly compress the distribution of earnings but do not have a negative impact on employment.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of empirical research that the utopian rightists aren't interested in looking into; they'd rather engage in horrible misinterpretations of Adam Smith or copy and paste something from mises.org.

Teenagers are already having problems finding summer jobs, this will make it worse.

The empirical research into the effects of the minimum wage on teenage employment is somewhat mixed, but is somewhat inclined toward the conclusion that the consequences are generally not adverse. The most oft-cited study into the teenage job sector (specifically the fast-food industry) is probably Card and Krueger's Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Again, consider the abstract.

On April 1, 1992 New Jersey's minimum wage increased from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour. To evaluate the impact of the law we surveyed 410 fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the rise in the minimum. Comparisons of the changes in wages, employment, and prices at stores in New Jersey relative to stores in Pennsylvania (where the minimum wage remained fixed at $4.25 per hour) yield simple estimates of the effect of the higher minimum wage. Our empirical findings challenge the prediction that a rise in the minimum reduces employment. Relative to stores in Pennsylvania, fast food restaurants in New Jersey increased employment by 13 percent. We also compare employment growth at stores in New Jersey that were initially paying high wages (and were unaffected by the new law) to employment changes at lower-wage stores. Stores that were unaffected by the minimum wage had the same employment growth as stores in Pennsylvania, while stores that had to increase their wages increased their employment.

I have a feeling some of us should be reading that instead of Henry Hazlitt.

No. Companies only have so much money to go around. Guess what happens if they have to pay their employers more? Can you say layoffs? This isn't complicated.

Actually, it's considerably more complicated than the textbook model of the labor market that you utilize would have us believe, which is why the monopsony model is preferable and more importantly, corresponds with existing empirical research.

If you ignore Say's Law you're going to get burned.

Say's Law is fallacious in nature, a reality that has been acknowledged by those aware of the nonexistence of perfect competition since Keynes, but of course ignored by those who draw their economic "expertise" from Economics In One Lesson and Peter Schiff's latest blog post. Regardless, the libertarian socialist economist Robin Hahnel notes the following:

While it is true that every dollar's worth of production generates exactly a dollar's worth of income or potential purchasing power, it is not necessarily true that a dollar's worth of income always generates a dollar's worth of demand for goods and services. Aggregate demand can be greater than income if all actors in an economy as a whole use previous savings, or wealth, to spend more than their current income, or if actors in the economy as a whole borrow against future income. And aggregate demand can be less than income if actors in the aggregate spend less than current income, saving and adding power of current income to their stock of wealth.

As a whole, the adoption of an approach able to note the negative deficiencies of oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets, the self-correcting balance of supply and demand absent from the imperfections of market deficiencies as a whole, and the presence of market disequilibria, negative externalities, inherent inefficiencies, etc., enables us to note that various facets of capitalism are rather unpleasant indeed. :shrug:

I don't believe anybody should be exploited, whether they be sixteen or sixty.

The minimum wage is not sufficient to eliminate exploitation, and merely serves to counter the negative effects of monopsony. To eliminate exploitation, we'd have to do away with capitalism altogether, something that unfortunately won't be happening in the conceivable future.

What's worse, is when you are forced to pay someone more than their labor is worth. Thats exploitation.

When we consider the realities of diminishing marginal utility, would it be overpayment that affected the employer more adversely than the laborer or underpayment that affected the laborer more adversely than the employer? And more importantly, what of the fact that existing empirical research indicates that underpayment is the norm in a significant portion of the labor market (imperfect information of course thrives in the capitalist economy) as well as what I'm always quick to note about the unjust extraction of the surplus labor of workers by those above them? ;)

What is crazy is how the capitalist system is what made this country the worlds only superpower with the largest economy but lots of people love to talk about how it doesnt work. kind of strange dont you think

Yeah, it's pretty odd. Capitalism of course involves extensive state protectionism as the government is an integral developmental and stabilizing agent, and it was by the virtues of interventionism that the U.S. and Britain were able to develop as economic powers of the world, but we still have naive laissez-faire utopians praising the benefits of "free markets" despite their perpetual nonexistence and failing to consider the accomplishments of actually existing capitalism. :shrug:

It's not capitalism, try again, it's a socialist/capitalist hybrid and the capitalist part isn't what is failing.

Incorrect. There can be no legitimate compatibility of socialism and capitalism, as they necessitate precisely opposite states of affairs. Socialism requires the public ownership and management of the means of production, whereas capitalism requires the private ownership and management of the means of production. You of course incorrectly consider elements of governmental intervention in the capitalist economy to be "socialism," but that is merely based on a corruption of the economic spectrum.

Gee thanks socialism. You really helped.

More inaccurate reference to socialism. Socialism requires collective ownership and management of the means of production; is there a single rightist on here who knows what that means?
 
I used to play drums about 10 years ago.
I liked a yellow set of DW's formed out of plastic.

Are you going to make them wood or other?
I'm thinking wood if I get around to starting this, have another business I need to get running first before anything though. If I get the ideas I'm working on to work properly then I want to do hardware as well, stands, pedals, brackets, etc. if all of that works I'm not opposed to doing urethane, carbon fiber, acryllic, and plastic drums, or anything else that could add to the scene. Again though, this is more of a hobby into business idea so it will be further back on my agenda.
 
Poverty is subjective, unless you are defining poverty as not being able to provide yourself with food, water and shelter.

If you can provide all of those things with the wages you are earning, you are not impoverished.
.

And there are those on low wages who can't, or who do so inadequately.

Then why entice them to remain stagnant with state benefits?

.

You don't, you entice them off benefits with a living wage.

A book at the library is free or you could own it if you buy it.

You don't have to be academically bright to get an education.
There are plenty of places looking for welders, machinists, mechanics etc.
All requiring a basic education and on the job training.

It is apathy, if you whine about being poor but do nothing to get out of it.
The only person you can blame is yourself.

.

Oh great, that will go down really well with most employers. I'm not qualified but I did read a book from the library :roll:
Automation is superior to humans because automated machines are consistent with their quality and productivity.

Humans are not and those no skill fields are slowly being phased out.
.

Rubbish. Each time I use the auto check-out at the supermarket there's a problem and it needs the intervention of...........a human being! What's more I prefer the human contact and being greeted with a smile.

Capitalism is how nature designed things to work.
It is a dance of cooperative and competitive behaviors in plants, animals, atoms, everything.

It is a massive failure that everyone misses this.

.

It is a massive failure that people think it's natural.
WHO health care statistics have already been shown to use subjective measurements when deciding which systems have higher overall efficiency of care.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of the state systems in Europe are moving portions back to the private market..

You are ignoring stats which are uncomfortable to you. You believe only what you want to believe.
You feel adequately paid, others do not. Pay, poverty et all are subjective.
Any doctor past junior level who feels inadequately paid is just greedy.
 
Here we have a snapshot into the rather incomplete rightist perspective, in which the fact that textbook models of competition are not present in the actual labor market is unfortunately overlooked. In reality, monopsony power (and more broadly, oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets) complicates matters. Firms are confronted with an upward sloping labor supply curve, To simplify all this more, the imperfections of labor markets make things a hell of a lot more complicated than is immediately evident, and claiming that minimum wages increase unemployment is not so cut and dry, considering that the absence of infinite elasticity (few would argue that cutting wages by a cent would result in worker resignation, for example) is an element in the general deficiencies of labor markets.



It certainly doesn't. Urethra mentioned the British experience, and it thus seems important to note the realities of minimum wage increases not adversely affecting employment as illustrated by legitimate empirical research rather than crude textbook theory inapplicable to actual conditions. For example, we could turn to Dickens et al.'s (in which Manning is included), The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment: Theory and Evidence from Britain. Consider the abstract:



Unfortunately, this is the kind of empirical research that the utopian rightists aren't interested in looking into; they'd rather engage in horrible misinterpretations of Adam Smith or copy and paste something from mises.org.



The empirical research into the effects of the minimum wage on teenage employment is somewhat mixed, but is somewhat inclined toward the conclusion that the consequences are generally not adverse. The most oft-cited study into the teenage job sector (specifically the fast-food industry) is probably Card and Krueger's Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Again, consider the abstract.



I have a feeling some of us should be reading that instead of Henry Hazlitt.



Actually, it's considerably more complicated than the textbook model of the labor market that you utilize would have us believe, which is why the monopsony model is preferable and more importantly, corresponds with existing empirical research.



Say's Law is fallacious in nature, a reality that has been acknowledged by those aware of the nonexistence of perfect competition since Keynes, but of course ignored by those who draw their economic "expertise" from Economics In One Lesson and Peter Schiff's latest blog post. Regardless, the libertarian socialist economist Robin Hahnel notes the following:



As a whole, the adoption of an approach able to note the negative deficiencies of oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets, the self-correcting balance of supply and demand absent from the imperfections of market deficiencies as a whole, and the presence of market disequilibria, negative externalities, inherent inefficiencies, etc., enables us to note that various facets of capitalism are rather unpleasant indeed. :shrug:



The minimum wage is not sufficient to eliminate exploitation, and merely serves to counter the negative effects of monopsony. To eliminate exploitation, we'd have to do away with capitalism altogether, something that unfortunately won't be happening in the conceivable future.



When we consider the realities of diminishing marginal utility, would it be overpayment that affected the employer more adversely than the laborer or underpayment that affected the laborer more adversely than the employer? And more importantly, what of the fact that existing empirical research indicates that underpayment is the norm in a significant portion of the labor market (imperfect information of course thrives in the capitalist economy) as well as what I'm always quick to note about the unjust extraction of the surplus labor of workers by those above them? ;)



Yeah, it's pretty odd. Capitalism of course involves extensive state protectionism as the government is an integral developmental and stabilizing agent, and it was by the virtues of interventionism that the U.S. and Britain were able to develop as economic powers of the world, but we still have naive laissez-faire utopians praising the benefits of "free markets" despite their perpetual nonexistence and failing to consider the accomplishments of actually existing capitalism. :shrug:



Incorrect. There can be no legitimate compatibility of socialism and capitalism, as they necessitate precisely opposite states of affairs. Socialism requires the public ownership and management of the means of production, whereas capitalism requires the private ownership and management of the means of production. You of course incorrectly consider elements of governmental intervention in the capitalist economy to be "socialism," but that is merely based on a corruption of the economic spectrum.



More inaccurate reference to socialism. Socialism requires collective ownership and management of the means of production; is there a single rightist on here who knows what that means?
Keynsian economics at it's finest eh? :rofl
 
By who's definition and what data? Bring something.
.

A wage that didn't keep you in poverty.


Just one of many examples:
Tesco profits top £3bn - Business News, Business - The Independent
You are being completely dishonest here, in fact, no one has said low wages are essential to capitalism, only that anything in which it's outlay exceeds it's value is a bad investment, this includes labor. That you aren't representing the argument correctly tells me you are either not understanding this conversation or are lying.
HAH! I'm ignoring the irrelevent, you're bringing emotion, economics deal in fact, I'm actually ashamed that I am giving you more attention that your value demands.

Several people have asserted that a decent minimum wage would send companies bust and cause unemployment. That is saying that low wages are essential to capitalism. If anybody's being dishonest here it's you hon!
 
I'm not using a textbook example, I'm using logic and reality.

No, you're not. If you were, you'd perhaps be considering the studies that I cited instead of basing your comments on preconceived ideological stereotypes.

Keynsian economics at it's finest eh? :rofl

'Fraid not, sparky. I'm a socialist. If you have an interest in the preservation of capitalism, however, I'd recommend adoption of a Keynesian perspective.
 
A wage that didn't keep you in poverty.
Numbers? Based ON WHAT DATA?




Several people have asserted that a decent minimum wage would send companies bust and cause unemployment. That is saying that low wages are essential to capitalism. If anybody's being dishonest here it's you hon!
Okay, I tried. Here's the deal, we are talking about value, not price, if you refuse to see that they are not the same thing I will leave you to that opinion and wish you luck in your monetary endeavors, because believe me, you'll need it.
 
And there are those on low wages who can't, or who do so inadequately.

That is a load of crap. You can provide all those things on minimum wage easily, the problems come in when you start putting luxuries over necessities.

You don't, you entice them off benefits with a living wage.

It already is livable.
An employer would be stupid to offer more than she/he can afford.

Oh great, that will go down really well with most employers. I'm not qualified but I did read a book from the library :roll:

If you leave it as simplistic as that during the interview, your absolutely right.

Rubbish. Each time I use the auto check-out at the supermarket there's a problem and it needs the intervention of...........a human being! What's more I prefer the human contact and being greeted with a smile.

90% of machines problems are user errors.
Every machine mechanic will tell you this. Its even on the mechanics exams.
Thats not to say that you did something wrong but it may not have been maintained correctly.

It is a massive failure that people think it's natural.

You think capitalism is only about competition when it isn't
That is the problem with anti capitalists.

You are ignoring stats which are uncomfortable to you. You believe only what you want to believe.

Not true, I read about UHC all the time.

It only has one benefit over a private market and that is cost.
Even then costs would be lower if doctors licensing boards wouldn't restrict the amount of doctors licensed every year.
Quality and time to services rendered are superior in private medical markets

Any doctor past junior level who feels inadequately paid is just greedy.

Greed is having more than you need, so everyone making more than they need is greedy.
That would probably include yourself.
 
'Fraid not, sparky. I'm a socialist.
'Fraid so, you're quoting it verbatim, including the terminology, and the long since historically false models. And the fact that you are a socialist means you have at some point embraced some form of Keynsian economics as that is the cornerstone economic philosophy of such. Care to refute?
If you have an interest in the preservation of capitalism, however, I'd recommend adoption of a Keynesian perspective.
Please, Keynes forgot the basic tenets of economics in favor of an overly mathematical approach and central planning, he entrusted pure numbers to outweigh the dynamics of supply and demand relationships, that isn't a capitalist model, which can shift easily to adjust for changes in demand or within the supply chain, Keynesian theory and socialism cannot.
 
No, you're not. If you were, you'd perhaps be considering the studies that I cited instead of basing your comments on preconceived ideological stereotypes.

I certainly am.

Raising minimum wage reduces jobs.
Plenty of stuff out there that confirms my statement.
You know this already though.
 
'Fraid so, you're quoting it verbatim, including the terminology, and the long since historically false models. And the fact that you are a socialist means you have at some point embraced some form of Keynsian economics as that is the cornerstone economic philosophy of such. Care to refute? Please, Keynes forgot the basic tenets of economics in favor of an overly mathematical approach and central planning, he entrusted pure numbers to outweigh the dynamics of supply and demand relationships, that isn't a capitalist model, which can shift easily to adjust for changes in demand or within the supply chain, Keynesian theory and socialism cannot.

:rofl

So now Keynesianism is "socialist" in nature? Keynesianism is based on the maintenance of capitalism; if you can provide any element of JMK's work that espouses the public ownership and management of the means of production, I suppose I'll concede the point. Then again, considering that most laissez-faire utopians incorrectly refer to any and all forms of government intervention in economic matters as "Keynesian" in nature (such as the New Deal, for example), I don't believe that most would have sufficient knowledge of the tenets to identify any significant portion of its actual nature. :shrug:
 
I certainly am.

Raising minimum wage reduces jobs.

Only when referring to the textbook models. You'll notice that I've cited Dickens et al. and Card and Krueger, which should indicate that the appropriate response is corresponding citation of contrary empirical research, if there are any sound examples of it. And I am desperate for rightists to show their mettle here. I'd even accept the inanities of Walter Block.

Plenty of stuff out there that confirms my statement.
You know this already though.

I'm afraid I don't. I'm aware of the fact that the empirical literature on the minimum wage is somewhat mixed, but I know of no broad consensus that the minimum wage necessarily reduces employment or that the labor market is even sufficiently homogenous for that to be anywhere near true.
 
Only when referring to the textbook models. You'll notice that I've cited Dickens et al. and Card and Krueger, which should indicate that the appropriate response is corresponding citation of contrary empirical research, if there are any sound examples of it. And I am desperate for rightists to show their mettle here. I'd even accept the inanities of Walter Block.

Rightist is a poor choice of labels for me.

My personal preference in balanced.

I'm afraid I don't. I'm aware of the fact that the empirical literature on the minimum wage is somewhat mixed, but I know of no broad consensus that the minimum wage necessarily reduces employment or that the labor market is even sufficiently homogenous for that to be anywhere near true.

"Subsequent research, based on the effects of 1990-91 and 1996-97 minimum wage increases, continues to confirm this estimate. A study of the 27 percent increase in 1990-91 by economists Donald Deere, Kevin Murphy and Finis Welch, published in the American Economic Review (May 1995), found that this action reduced employment for all teen-agers by 7.3 percent and for black teen-agers by 10 percent. A study of the 1996-97 increase by economists Richard Burkhauser, Couch and David Wittenburg found a decline in employment of 2 percent to 6 percent for each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.

In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Kenneth Couch translated these conclusions into raw numbers.

* At the low end of the range, at least 90,000 teen-age jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 jobs were lost in 1997.
* At the high end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997.
* Couch estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further reduce teen-age employment by at least 145,000 and possibly as many as 436,000 jobs.
"

Minimum Wage Teen-age Job*Killer - Brief Analysis #292
 
:rofl

So now Keynesianism is "socialist" in nature? Keynesianism is based on the maintenance of capitalism;

Keynesian Economics: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Keynesians’ belief in aggressive government action to stabilize the economy is based on value judgments and on the beliefs that (a) macroeconomic fluctuations significantly reduce economic well-being and (b) the government is knowledgeable and capable enough to improve on the free market.
You were saying? Government intervention is socialism, maybe not to your liking, but it is socialism just the same.
5. Many, but not all, Keynesians advocate activist stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most important of all economic problems. Here, however, even some conservative Keynesians part company by doubting either the efficacy of stabilization policy or the wisdom of attempting it.

[/QUOTE] Direct government intervention? That would also include up to owning the means of production in the worst cases, such as the government taking over around 60% of a United States auto company perhaps?

if you can provide any element of JMK's work that espouses the public ownership and management of the means of production, I suppose I'll concede the point.
See above.
 
Last edited:
1. Children are our future. Civilized societies recognise this and give a helping hand to those who have children, their upkeep being very expensive indeed. It's called solidarity. I am childless by choice and I happily pay my taxes towards the child allowances my reproducing fellow citizens receive.

2. The alternative to inadequate pay for many is unemployment and even worse poverty.

3. I have the greatest respect for one of the cleaners where I work. She is about 50 and has always been a cleaner. She takes great pride in her work and does it very well, always with a smile. She didn't want ot need to study to become an astro-physicist. She does deserve enough money to live on. Thankfully she does her thankless job because somebody has to and we'd be stuffed if we couldn't fill her post.

4. But not to obscene differences. Keep the differential reasonable.

1. We in America do have private orginizations who do help plus we already do have goverment benifts like WIC for mothers with young children.

2. No one likes to be forced to change or move on a lot of problems with existing lower wages may be resolved if more people decided to move.

3. Oh, the European Status Stratus. The rich man in his Mansion and the beggar at his gate. . . . It is so good to have those sorts of dependable people around isn't it. Seriously, if she has an impact on the business significantly than she would be paid what she was worth which you would then think is a living wage.

4. Who are you, the Government, or myself to determine what sort of salary a Doctor of Medicine is to get? And why compare that to one who is semi-skilled? The doctor spent nearly a decade after high (Secondary) school to get on the ground floor to become a doctor. And unlike the semi-skilled who could change jobs and with some effort become a skilled laborer. It would be somewhat different for the doctor to change careers given that if he stopped being a doctor over time much of what he would know be obsolete. Giving the socialization of health care he probably is not being paid what he is worth.
 
"Subsequent research, based on the effects of 1990-91 and 1996-97 minimum wage increases, continues to confirm this estimate. A study of the 27 percent increase in 1990-91 by economists Donald Deere, Kevin Murphy and Finis Welch, published in the American Economic Review (May 1995), found that this action reduced employment for all teen-agers by 7.3 percent and for black teen-agers by 10 percent. A study of the 1996-97 increase by economists Richard Burkhauser, Couch and David Wittenburg found a decline in employment of 2 percent to 6 percent for each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.

In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Kenneth Couch translated these conclusions into raw numbers.

* At the low end of the range, at least 90,000 teen-age jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 jobs were lost in 1997.
* At the high end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997.
* Couch estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further reduce teen-age employment by at least 145,000 and possibly as many as 436,000 jobs.
"

Minimum Wage Teen-age Job*Killer - Brief Analysis #292

That's better. But it's also not anything that wouldn't be expected in a heterogenous labor market in which oligopsonistic conditions are present, whereas Dickens et al.'s and Card and Krueger's research is simply a harsh slap in the face to the textbook model of the labor market.

You were saying? Government intervention is socialism, maybe not to your liking, but it is socialism just the same.

That's completely wrong, and the basis for your further inaccurate comments. As mentioned, socialism is the collective ownership and management of the means of production. Government intervention is ironically a foe of socialism, since utilization of the welfare state, for example, is able to maintain macroeconomic stabilization and sustain the physical efficiency of the working class.
 
That's completely wrong, and the basis for your further inaccurate comments.
I stand by it as overregulation of private business is assertion of defacto ownership, as the private business owner no longer has control of the decisions of acquisition, embursement, etc.
As mentioned, socialism is the collective ownership and management of the means of production. Government intervention is ironically a foe of socialism, since utilization of the welfare state, for example, is able to maintain macroeconomic stabilization and sustain the physical efficiency of the working class.
Huh? Government ownership is government control, the only way it can acquire private property is through intervention or cession of the people by altering the social contract, and finally, the working class has little to do with economics other than they trade their time and effort(labor) for contractual monetary exchange(salary). I don't know what kind of socialism you are talking about, but your theories aren't matching up to the reality of the definition.
 
I stand by it as overregulation of private business is assertion of defacto ownership, as the private business owner no longer has control of the decisions of acquisition, embursement, etc.

Except that that's a ridiculous exaggeration of general governmental policy. The primary purpose of business regulation is by no means day-to-day management; the constrictions of bounded rationality (and related imperfect information) prevent that. Even your reference to GM was simply inaccurate, since apart from the mere partial ownership involved, full management options were not utilized, GM does not even constitute the entirety of the auto industry, let alone the means of production, and even complete government ownership of the means of production is not a sufficient condition for socialism since consolidation of power within the control of a state is often purely antithetical to legitimate public ownership and management. This subject has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

Huh? Government ownership is government control, the only way it can acquire private property is through intervention or cession of the people by altering the social contract, and finally, the working class has little to do with economics other than they trade their time and effort(labor) for contractual monetary exchange(salary).

This isn't even a response to my post, for one thing, and formal "ownership" is often rather distinct from direct management in the capitalist economy, for another.

I don't know what kind of socialism you are talking about, but your theories aren't matching up to the reality of the definition.

I'm referring to the only valid definition: Socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production. Your definition is based on the misapplication of the label to authoritarian state capitalism (bogus "socialism") and the mixed economy, which is typically a technique of anti-socialists unable to offer legitimate criticism.
 
You're a ****ing liar. Read this and tell me what you think about what Hoover accomplished.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

Oh yeah, Rothbard at LewRockwell! Now there's a source. LOL No way he would lie by omission or spin anything,Eh?

How about you actually reading Hoover and learning what actual legislation he passed, or is that too hard for you to do and you need some academic shill who couldn't run a snow cone stand to tell you what to think about Hoover? I mean, you would actually have to read a book and then there would be no link n stuff.
 
Last edited:
Except that that's a ridiculous exaggeration of general governmental policy. The primary purpose of business regulation is by no means day-to-day management; the constrictions of bounded rationality (and related imperfect information) prevent that.
If the average socialist could see that point, you would be right, unfortunately we are dealing with an emotional sub-set of thought that does NOT realize that this principle exists, these are the types that put minimum wage laws in place and otherwise overregulate to begin with. Even in the best systems, socialism is not fast enough to deal with the rapid changes of a dynamic economic system, and even the most repressed system will become dynamic as the natural laws of econ take effect.
Even your reference to GM was simply inaccurate, since apart from the mere partial ownership involved, full management options were not utilized, GM does not even constitute the entirety of the auto industry, let alone the means of production, and even complete government ownership of the means of production is not a sufficient condition for socialism since consolidation of power within the control of a state is often purely antithetical to legitimate public ownership and management. This subject has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.
You are 100% wrong. Factories, labor, management, and even stocks are the means to production, and government now owns a majority share, also, this isn't just GM but Chrysler as well, and the president himself is the reason that there exists a new CEO of GM, that is a form of socialism, is it complete socialism, no, honesty demands I concede that, but there is also the long standing lease system of oil drilling, extremists in the E.P.A., the former Fairness Doctrine, etc. This is socialism. Socialism is any system in which the government owns the means of production, it's not about complete ownership, just ownership, and again, defacto ownership such as the oppressive regulation inherent in most businesses these days is assertion of that premise.


This isn't even a response to my post, for one thing, and formal "ownership" is often rather distinct from direct management in the capitalist economy, for another.
It is absolutely a response, direct management comes about because of those very abuses and oversteps that I mentioned, it just takes longer.



I'm referring to the only valid definition: Socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production. Your definition is based on the misapplication of the label to authoritarian state capitalism (bogus "socialism") and the mixed economy, which is typically a technique of anti-socialists unable to offer legitimate criticism.
No, you are contorting the definition to be a 100% or nothing and that isn't the case, so yes, I will call you on it.
 
If the average socialist could see that point, you would be right, unfortunately we are dealing with an emotional sub-set of thought that does NOT realize that this principle exists, these are the types that put minimum wage laws in place and otherwise overregulate to begin with.

You persist with the erroneous description of minimum wage laws as "socialism." Unless you wish to claim that capitalism has never existed, I'd advise you not to apply the term to the mixed economy.

Even in the best systems, socialism is not fast enough to deal with the rapid changes of a dynamic economic system, and even the most repressed system will become dynamic as the natural laws of econ take effect. You are 100% wrong.

This thread is not about socialism, so start another thread if you want to discuss it.

Factories, labor, management, and even stocks are the means to production, and government now owns a majority share, also, this isn't just GM but Chrysler as well, and the president himself is the reason that there exists a new CEO of GM, that is a form of socialism, is it complete socialism, no, honesty demands I concede that, but there is also the long standing lease system of oil drilling, extremists in the E.P.A., the former Fairness Doctrine, etc. This is socialism. Socialism is any system in which the government owns the means of production, it's not about complete ownership, just ownership, and again, defacto ownership such as the oppressive regulation inherent in most businesses these days is assertion of that premise.

Completely wrong. Socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production. Government ownership of a portion of a company that's itself a portion only of an industry that's itself only a portion of the means of production is light years away from that.

It is absolutely a response, direct management comes about because of those very abuses and oversteps that I mentioned, it just takes longer.

No, it doesn't. As mentioned, the nature of state protectionism actually plays a greater role in sustaining capitalism than attempts to implement laissez-faire policies would, because the government is an integral and necessary stabilizing agent in the capitalist economy.

No, you are contorting the definition to be a 100% or nothing and that isn't the case, so yes, I will call you on it.

Actually, it most certainly is the case. I'm an anarcho-communist, but I'm one of the least sectarian that you'll ever encounter. I acknowledge that markets are not capitalist-specific, for example, and realize that they are merely resource allocation devices that can also exist in a socialist economy. I've even conceded that forms of socialism may be implemented within the context of republican control. However, it's simply incorrect to deny that the public ownership and management of the means of production is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for socialism.
 
You persist with the erroneous description of minimum wage laws as "socialism." Unless you wish to claim that capitalism has never existed, I'd advise you not to apply the term to the mixed economy.
When did I say or imply such, no, I said the leadup to what we have now is the path, that includes the government assuming majority share ownership of GM, that IS the definition of public ownership. MW by itself is not socialism, it is an overall symptom of overregulation, which is the government making business decisions through law, which IS the definition of defacto ownership. You wrapped this up by mentioning a mixed economy, which is exactly what I have been saying, it isn't a free market, it isn't capitalism, which was what Uretha was asserting as a failed system.



This thread is not about socialism, so start another thread if you want to discuss it.
You are the self-proclaimed socialist libertarian here, not me.



Completely wrong. Socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production. Government ownership of a portion of a company that's itself a portion only of an industry that's itself only a portion of the means of production is light years away from that.
Socialism is any degree of public ownership, don't try to wiggle out of this.



No, it doesn't. As mentioned, the nature of state protectionism actually plays a greater role in sustaining capitalism than attempts to implement laissez-faire policies would, because the government is an integral and necessary stabilizing agent in the capitalist economy.
History disagrees with you, the most regulated portions of market history are the least productive, protectionism as you are defining it does not work, the two times regulation should exist or immediate public safety(clear and present danger) OR to prevent fraud.


it's simply incorrect to deny that the public ownership and management of the means of production is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for socialism.
No, that is the textbook definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom