You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Social Democracy & Liberal Democracy
The main factor in going from rags to riches is not talent or effort but luck. That's why it's relatively rare.
And, I agree that minimum wage is a bad way to regulate markets. A much better approach is a high marginal income tax rate on top earners, which encourages employers and CEOs to raise wages rather than lining their own pockets as productivity increases and profits increase. All of the Nordic social democratic countries have no minimum wage, but have high wages without the negative consequences that come with minimum wage, because they utilize tax policy to ensure that wealth is more fairly distributed.
Nope. It’s not luck. It’s talent. Talent is rare amongst poor, and for the sake of finding those out, you spend too much on social welfare, which is a misallocation. Those talented people come up on their own, without any help.
As far as tax is concerned, I favour extremely low tax rates (less than 5% for everyone), because government mostly uses those to pay off interest rates on debt and take more of it. It then either misallocates it or drives private sector out, creating unemployment. Liechtenstein has 1.2% income tax and is one of the richest countries. If you want unequal tax rates, you should be charging the rich at a lower rate. This incentivises people to move up the ranks (either get promoted or start your own business), hence encouraging them to work more (add more value to the society) and create more jobs. Higher marginal taxes deincentivise setting up businesses, which is why nobody wants to set up a business in nordic countries. Their stock markets are the worst performers and their government depends on capitalist countries for their earnings (their government holds shares of USA and emerging market based companies). If USA does that, most of the businesses will move away, creating mass unemployment and famines.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The most talented musicians I know of are poor and have never "been discovered" because they don't have enough money to promote themselves. You, sir, are completely out of touch with reality. I'm going to stop responding to your comments now because I don't have time to waste on refuting such mind-numbingly incoherent nonsense.
Oh really? Taste in Music is something that’s subjective. Nobody really cares about whether or not you adhere to the rules. People just follow whatever is trendy. For example, many rappers are richer than ‘discovered’ classical singers. Moreover, we don’t really need more musicians for survival. We’ll do just fine even without them. The only use case for music is that it’s leisure for some.
I was going to ask you to shut the fuck up anyways! It’s good that you did it yourself.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The only talent you consider is the talent needed to be an entrepreneur, or to be an effective employee under dire circumstances. Even then, environmental circumstances are a factor, which is a form of luck. Simply by denying that someone who's born in some far off village with little connection to the outside world is quite less likely to rise to riches with their own company, regardless of the talents they may possess, you show how far removed from reality you are.
Also, the way you completely drive over people who do have other talents, but who lack the attributes that would allow them to transform these talents into economic success on their own, also shows cruelty, and a willingness to waste those talents because they're not compatible with your beautiful, perfect equation for human society.
You seem to lack basic understanding and teamwork. If you’re unable to market your skills, you look for a person who can do so. Just consider the case of Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs.
Under a socialist economy, less of those talented people are employed and the government fixes a price on the talent. For example, Taylor Swift may not even exist under a socialist government if the government decides that her talent isn’t worth it. It’s not the job of the government to decide that. It’s the job of people (i.e. the free market). The more people watch her and the more they’re willing to pay, the more she gets paid.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Finding a person who can market one's skills still hinges on being able to successfully advertise oneself to such a person, filtering for people who are able to do so. Furthermore, not everyone is configured to fit the mode of operation required by the market: Some might have disabilities that introduce irregularities in their behaviour or schedule, others aren't able to deliver a steady stream of product, and then there are artists who simply never get the recognition they deserve in their lifetime (not uncommon).
There are also those who simply can't reasonably be expected to function under market conditions at any meaningful degree, and those who just don't have any of the talents the market is looking for. What's going to happen to them in that beautiful equation of yours? Charity will somehow rise to greatness and become a comprehensive solution? Can we have some sort of guarantee for that, or is that just some half hearted hope, the victims be damned if it doesn't work out?
Also, be aware that you're talking to a social democrat. I'm not advocating for some kind of central planning board based economy or whatever. I'm championing a mixed economy approach with regulations, public utilities, publicly financed education and generous welfare measures (e.g. universal healthcare, guaranteed housing, UBI, etc).
“still hinges on being able to successfully advertise oneself”
Ever heard of friends and connections?
“mode of operation required by the market”
Everyone fits into factory work (manufacturing) and customer support.
“then there are artists who simply never get the recognition they deserve in their lifetime”
Nobody forced you to be an artist. Do what pays you better.
“those who just don't have any of the talents the market is looking for”
They work in factories, restaurants, logistics (delivery guys, drivers etc.). By the way, these jobs are driven away by social democrats in the name of oppression. If the people working there feel oppressed, they’re always free to leave. What’s the point of driving away those jobs. Most of the day to day goods are expensive because of the taxes and hyperinflation introduced by socialists or social democrats.
“be aware that you're talking to a social democrat.”
The economics is not much different. The level of central planning (socialism) is still too high to be sustainable for an environment that produces growth.
“I'm championing a mixed economy approach with regulations, public utilities, publicly financed education and generous welfare measures (e.g. universal healthcare, guaranteed housing, UBI, etc).”
These are nowhere close to being generous. In fact these things are terribly destructive for the economy. Not only are they extremely expensive and wasteful, but they also create shortages and random distribution. All of the meaningful and focused research in healthcare and other sciences comes from companies that understand their customers and what needs to be done. Most of the papers published by universities are nothing short of crap and have terrible amounts of left wing bias, to the point that some of the statistical ones are even false. It makes no sense to fund these things with public money. Companies are much more informed and efficient at investing than government. As far as housing is concerned, why should the government subsidise those companies that hire low skilled workers by bearing the cost of housing. If there was no free housing and regulations/taxes on builders and companies that hire low skilled workers, companies would be paying enough for their employees to survive (which requires them to live in a home). In fact, companies build housing themselves right next to the factory to save up on time. This can be seen with zowee in Shenzhen, where they have libertarian economic policies in place.
Posted using Partiko iOS