Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Here he clarifies a bit. He indicates dissatisfaction or discomfort with some part of the direction of English culture, society and economics.

Well, anything that takes significantly more capital out of the economy than it returns is eventually going to drain the economy. And social welfare programs don't produce financial capital...they only drain it. So unless the economy is very vigorous in a way very contrary to Socialism, and can afford to shed a lot of surplus value into social programs -- that is, in what guys like Will call a "capitalist" way, the social welfare programs themselves are doomed, as is the entire economy in which they're found.

This is the paradox of social welfare programs: they only work in an economy that is adamantly NOT Socialist. Norway's a great example of that, because without its considerable oil reserves, it couldn't afford its social welfare programs.

[Age]

How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

If God heals or prevents all the suffering in the world, would that not be a good reason to believe in a benevolent God? Or should I ask for winning lottery numbers instead?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Gary, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

"immanuel can" only WANTS and DEMANDS 'this' gets moved somewhere else because "immanuel can" is, once more, completely out of its depth, here, as some would note and say.

"immanuel can" has obviously already shown and proved that it can NOT back up and support quite a bit of its BELIEFS and CLAIMS, here, and so just like it is STICK, here, as well, it WANTS and DEMANDS things like this get MOVED AWAY, and out of sight, so to speak.

[Age]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

LOL

"immanuel can" poses the question, ' My question was about what evidence YOU would accept,: TO another, and when it is doing this, then doing so is PERFECTLY FINE within 'this thread'. However, when another does the EXACT SAME thing, TO "immanuel can", then "immanuel can" EXPECTS and DEMANDS that 'the question' be MOVED AWAY.

[Age]

I am a social democrat, and I live in a social democracy. You can't make sense of it. That doesn't make it nonsense.

Immanuel lives in a social democracy with so many of its features like socialized medicine and a great deal else. He is a beneficiary of everything “social democratic”.

I cannot ever be quite sure what, in fact, he is arguing against.

What "immanuel can" is 'trying to' argue against is any form of society where ALL are treated equally and where every thing is shared equally. you know ANY society where it would be MORE God, "christian", or heaven like.

And, the reason "immanuel can" is doing this is because of its 'current' beliefs, views,.and judgements about how some others are NOT as good nor righteous as "immanuel can" is, and nor are those others worthy of as many monetary things as "immanuel can" is.

In other words "immanuel can't is 'trying to' FIGHT AGAINST what is actually good and Right for ALL because "immanuel can" has 'grown up' just plain old GREEDY and SELFISH.

His original view is that corporations begin to accept socially-conscious doctrines because if they do so it is understood that their position and domination will not be undermined.

So they “cooperate” with socialized policies even if, apparently, it might affect profits. There is a “collusion”, for mutual benefit, between corporate power and structure, and governing regimes. That’s not hard to grasp.

He is very right though about a tendency of some regimes, especially those overtly communist and communist-socialist, to become dictatorial, power-hungry, and often ultimately to become gulags in both soft and hard senses of the word.

But ultimately — what the heck is he arguing both against and for? I cannot discern.

I do maintain that it is possible to arrive at a definition, but it takes a certain forcefulness to do so.

[Age]

You were defending a nonsense phrase, then.

I am a social democrat, and I live in a social democracy.

You live in a democracy of sorts...parliamentary, actually. You don't live in a Socialist state, and those elements of Socialism that exist in the system are dysfunctional and economically burdensome. And you know it.

LOL

And you "immanuel can" KEEP CONTRADICTING "yourself', here, and you KNOW it.

[Age]

Here he clarifies a bit. He indicates dissatisfaction or discomfort with some part of the direction of English culture, society and economics.

Well, anything that takes significantly more capital out of the economy than it returns is eventually going to drain the economy. And social welfare programs don't produce financial capital...they only drain it. So unless the economy is very vigorous in a way very contrary to Socialism, and can afford to shed a lot of surplus value into social programs -- that is, in what guys like Will call a "capitalist" way, the social welfare programs themselves are doomed, as is the entire economy in which they're found.

And, what is the actual difference between a very few only "billionaires" taking money out of society, and hoarding it for their own greedy selves, and the above, here, EXACTLY? Except, of course, in the former more money is SHARED among 'the people' and thus in 'the hands' of MORE citizens, than in the latter where only a tiny few end up with so much of the, 'drained from the system', money.

But, to "immanuel can" anyway, those VERY FEW people DESERVE ALL of that, 'taken out the system', money.

This is the paradox of social welfare programs: they only work in an economy that is adamantly NOT Socialist. Norway's a great example of that, because without its considerable oil reserves, it couldn't afford its social welfare programs.

you are NOT FOOLING ANY one, here, "immanuel can", except, of course, ONLY "yourself".

[Belinda]

Here he clarifies a bit. He indicates dissatisfaction or discomfort with some part of the direction of English culture, society and economics.

Well, anything that takes significantly more capital out of the economy than it returns is eventually going to drain the economy. And social welfare programs don't produce financial capital...they only drain it. So unless the economy is very vigorous in a way very contrary to Socialism, and can afford to shed a lot of surplus value into social programs -- that is, in what guys like Will call a "capitalist" way, the social welfare programs themselves are doomed, as is the entire economy in which they're found.

And, what is the actual difference between a very few only "billionaires" taking money out of society, and hoarding it for their own greedy selves, and the above, here, EXACTLY? Except, of course, in the former more money is SHARED among 'the people' and thus in 'the hands' of MORE citizens, than in the latter where only a tiny few end up with so much of the, 'drained from the system', money.

But, to "immanuel can" anyway, those VERY FEW people DESERVE ALL of that, 'taken out the system', money.

This is the paradox of social welfare programs: they only work in an economy that is adamantly NOT Socialist. Norway's a great example of that, because without its considerable oil reserves, it couldn't afford its social welfare programs.

you are NOT FOOLING ANY one, here, "immanuel can", except, of course, ONLY "yourself".

Immanuel Can thinks a welfare state is economically inefficient.

An autocratic state rules by keeping the labour force ignorant and stupid.

[Age]

Well, anything that takes significantly more capital out of the economy than it returns is eventually going to drain the economy. And social welfare programs don't produce financial capital...they only drain it. So unless the economy is very vigorous in a way very contrary to Socialism, and can afford to shed a lot of surplus value into social programs -- that is, in what guys like Will call a "capitalist" way, the social welfare programs themselves are doomed, as is the entire economy in which they're found.

And, what is the actual difference between a very few only "billionaires" taking money out of society, and hoarding it for their own greedy selves, and the above, here, EXACTLY? Except, of course, in the former more money is SHARED among 'the people' and thus in 'the hands' of MORE citizens, than in the latter where only a tiny few end up with so much of the, 'drained from the system', money.

But, to "immanuel can" anyway, those VERY FEW people DESERVE ALL of that, 'taken out the system', money.

This is the paradox of social welfare programs: they only work in an economy that is adamantly NOT Socialist. Norway's a great example of that, because without its considerable oil reserves, it couldn't afford its social welfare programs.

you are NOT FOOLING ANY one, here, "immanuel can", except, of course, ONLY "yourself".

Immanuel Can thinks a welfare state is economically inefficient.

OF COURSE "immanuel can" DOES. "immanuel can" if it is not the MOST JUDGMENTAL one, here, with the BIGGEST SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, then it would be a VERY CLOSE SECOND. So, OF COURSE, "immanuel can" does NOT, REALLY, WANT TO HELP OUT NOR HELP UP the "downtrodden". "Immanuel can" WANTS TO KEEP 'those ones' DOWN 'there'. So, "immanuel can" WILL and OBVIOUSLY HAS 'justified' TO "itself", and a few others, ONLY that ANY 'welfare state' WILL NOT WORK or WILL BE so-called economically inefficient'.

"immanuel can" HAS TO KEEP 'seeing' this, and BELIEVING this, in order to KEEP 'TRYING TO' FIGHT FOR what it WANTS and BELIEVES, and KEEP 'TRYING TO" FIGHT AGAINST 'the other'.

An autocratic state rules by keeping the labour force ignorant and stupid.

Okay.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can thinks a welfare state is economically inefficient.

No, any economist KNOWS it's inefficient. And anybody who can do basic maths can know the same. If a welfare program takes out more capital than it puts in, it drains capital. That's not rocket science.

And if you care about welfare programs, that should concern you very much. Don't you want your welfare programs to be sustainable? Or do you want them to vanish when the capital runs out?

An autocratic state rules by keeping the labour force ignorant and stupid.

Sometimes. And sometimes they do it by keeping them drugged on Socialism. Both work, because they produce the same results: a stupified population in thrall to the dictates of an elite.

[Alexiev]

Immanuel Can thinks a welfare state is economically inefficient.

No, any economist KNOWS it's inefficient. And anybody who can do basic maths can know the same. If a welfare program takes out more capital than it puts in, it drains capital. That's not rocket science.

And if you care about welfare programs, that should concern you very much. Don't you want your welfare programs to be sustainable? Or do you want them to vanish when the capital runs out?

An autocratic state rules by keeping the labour force ignorant and stupid.

Sometimes. And sometimes they do it by keeping them drugged on Socialism. Both work, because they produce the same results: a stupified population in thrall to the dictates of an elite.

Capitalism also keeps a stupified populatin in the thrall of the elite (obviously). Why is efficiency the be all and end all of political success and human happiness? If there are enough goods for everyone's needs, who cares if a little inefficency creeps in?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can thinks a welfare state is economically inefficient.

No, any economist KNOWS it's inefficient. And anybody who can do basic maths can know the same. If a welfare program takes out more capital than it puts in, it drains capital. That's not rocket science.

And if you care about welfare programs, that should concern you very much. Don't you want your welfare programs to be sustainable? Or do you want them to vanish when the capital runs out?

An autocratic state rules by keeping the labour force ignorant and stupid.

Sometimes. And sometimes they do it by keeping them drugged on Socialism. Both work, because they produce the same results: a stupified population in thrall to the dictates of an elite.

Capitalism also keeps a stupified populatin in the thrall of the elite (obviously).

Well, "Capitalism" is a Marxist invention...so yeah, they use all kinds of words to do that.

Why is efficiency the be all and end all of political success and human happiness? If there are enough goods for everyone's needs, who cares if a little inefficency creeps in?

Because without economic viability, social programs all die...but not until they also drag down the whole economy with them. If you like social programs, you ought to love efficiency. Sustainability, remember?

[Alexiev]

Because without economic viability, social programs all die...but not until they also drag down the whole economy with them. If you like social programs, you ought to love efficiency. Sustainability, remember?

Economic viability and economic efficiency are not synonyms. Some inefficiency to support human welfare is utterly reasonable in a surplus economy (like Norway’s).

[Immanuel Can]

Because without economic viability, social programs all die...but not until they also drag down the whole economy with them. If you like social programs, you ought to love efficiency. Sustainability, remember?

Economic viability and economic efficiency are not synonyms. Some inefficiency to support human welfare is utterly reasonable in a surplus economy (like Norway’s).

Well, it's only because of the oil that Norway has welfare. So do you want to feed "climate change", or do you want to give up the funding for your welfare programs? Because it's one or the other.

[Alexiev]

Because without economic viability, social programs all die...but not until they also drag down the whole economy with them. If you like social programs, you ought to love efficiency. Sustainability, remember?

Economic viability and economic efficiency are not synonyms. Some inefficiency to support human welfare is utterly reasonable in a surplus economy (like Norway’s).

Well, it's only because of the oil that Norway has welfare. So do you want to feed "climate change", or do you want to give up the funding for your welfare programs? Because it's one or the other.

Other countries have sufficient wealth to fund welfare programs. Of course fossil fuels are a problem. But your response fails to address the issue. Why is efficiency all-important? Do we really need excessive wealth at the cost of inhumane conditions for the poor?

[Immanuel Can]

Economic viability and economic efficiency are not synonyms. Some inefficiency to support human welfare is utterly reasonable in a surplus economy (like Norway’s).

Well, it's only because of the oil that Norway has welfare. So do you want to feed "climate change", or do you want to give up the funding for your welfare programs? Because it's one or the other.

Other countries have sufficient wealth to fund welfare programs.

How many, and for how long? Not many, and not forever. Look at the NHS or the Canadian system: people can't even get a GP appointment, the technology is dated, lines for all procedures are getting longer, some procedures are not even available -- especially cutting-edge ones, and people are dying in emergency waiting rooms. How long can that go on?

Of course fossil fuels are a problem. But your response fails to address the issue. Why is efficiency all-important?

Sustainability. That was the word. Not mere "efficiency," as good as that word also is. What you can't sustain, you can't have forever. If you love social welfare, then sustainability has to be a major concern to you.

Of course, if you don't care if you, or future generations, always have access, then I guess you can dismiss sustainability as an issue, and hope that while the clock runs out, you don't personally get caught.