Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

Mullicker

Akrasia wrote: »

They could conceivably reduce their workforce from 1.4 million employees to 100,000 employees. The profits made at the company will remain within the Walton family and far less of the wealth is redistributed in the form of wages.

The profits made from automation will be redistributed to workers via lower prices for everything at Walmart boosting the real wages of everyone not working at Walmart.

Lower demand for workers would put downward pressure on wages so there needs to be a counter balance, to force employers to improve the conditions of the workforce.

The benefits of technology are potentially huge, but we need an economic system that is capable of handling it.

The economic system has handled the benefits of industrialization, automation and improving technology for a couple of centuries now, why is now different?

Lockstep

Brian? wrote: »

Suharto?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their ilk were as much socialist as Pinochet was libertarian. Their actions were an anathema to socialism, which is an inherently democratic philosophy. These people were megalomaniacs pure and simple, right or left.

Agreed.
There's always a large amount of No True Scotsman when discussing dictators.

Tiddlypeeps

I would have been slightly right leaning in my teenage years. I believed the dole just encouraged people to be layabouts, I believed in privatisation being more efficient and that high tax rates on the rich were unfair. My opinions at the time tho were just based on personal experience, I knew a lot of layabout types and probably had notions of being on a huge wage when I was older etc.

As I got older I started realising personal experience is crap and started forming my opinions based on real data. I'm a lot more left leaning these days. I agree with progressive taxation, I think the marginal rate here kicks in a bit early but other than that I think the rate is fine. I agree with generous social welfare, all data I've seen to date indicates this is the most efficient way to decrease unemployment and a host of social issues along with it. I agree with as much free education as the state can afford and that is should be a fairly high priority just a bit behind health care which should be as close to free as possible. I used to believe the government had no place controlling substances like drugs, but I've moved to a much more middle of the road position that regulation is essential but criminalisation is ineffective so should be for the most part abandoned.

I don't believe in pure socialism tho, I don't agree with the whole "people should control the means of production" thing. I think a universal basic income is the inevitable conclusion of the welfare system we currently have IF automation causes large scale unemployment.

I haven't become more left leaning because of selfish reasons either, I've a household income of well over twice the national average so if I were selfish I would be advocating for lower taxes and cutting social welfare spending.

Mullicker

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I agree with generous social welfare, all data I've seen to date indicates this is the most efficient way to decrease unemployment...

All data you've seen indicates generous social welfare is the way to decrease unemployment? Did the data include generous unemployment benefit? That would be nonsense.

Akrasia

gobsh!te wrote: »

This is nonsense...The only reason a company gets to be brutal is through state help....show me any company that lasts without the help of the state.

I don't know what you're asking here. There are very few places in the world where there isn't a 'state' that has some kind of impact on the economy

You have made a strange claim, that all instances of private companies acting in a brutal manner are because of state help.

I'd love to see your justification for this.

I suppose you are hoping Uber gets "regulated" then?

I don't know enough about Uber, but there are reasons why public service vehicles are regulated, for public safety and to ensure their cars are roadworthy and they have the proper insurance.

Maybe the internet can get regulated too.....Once you see the state as force, everything else becomes clearer.

The internet should be regulated. I support net neutrality. These are regulations that prevent ISPs from discriminating against users and demanding payment from companies to ensure that their traffic is not artificially restricted.

BoJack Horseman

Mullicker wrote: »

All data you've seen indicates generous social welfare is the way to decrease unemployment? Did the data include generous unemployment benefit? That would be nonsense.

Double the S/W budget and watch unemployment disappear.

simples, right?

Tiddlypeeps

Mullicker wrote: »

Did the data include generous unemployment benefit?

Yes, why nonsense? I don't really want to drag the thread off topic to a debate on unemployment but if you want I can try dig up some of the studies I've encountered and specific working examples of countries with generous welfare and low unemployment.

Akrasia

Mullicker wrote: »

The profits made from automation will be redistributed to workers via lower prices for everything at Walmart boosting the real wages of everyone not working at Walmart.



The economic system has handled the benefits of industrialization, automation and improving technology for a couple of centuries now, why is now different?

Its different because it's different. The economy adapted with the industrial changes, so did the labour force and the nature of the state and the labour market.
I am suggesting that it needs to continue to adapt, and one of the things that is currently a problem, is the distribution of wealth has gone out of balance and this is likely to get worse before it gets better. libertarians have no way to address this, social democrats will do so by adjusting the tax rates and regulations that govern the workforce.

BoJack Horseman

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

specific working examples of countries with generous welfare and low unemployment.

Any examples form Ireland would suffice.
Ireland spends a lot on s/w, one of the highest spenders in the world, yet unemployment somehow persists.

Mullicker

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Yes, why nonsense? I don't really want to drag the thread off topic to a debate on unemployment but if you want I can try dig up some of the studies I've encountered and specific working examples of countries with generous welfare and low unemployment.

Yes I'm sure you can find a correlation. There is a correlation between height and success at basketball, that doesn't mean success at basketball makes you taller.

Brian?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Any examples form Ireland would suffice.
Ireland spends a lot on s/w, one of the highest spenders in the world, yet unemployment somehow persists.

Strawman yet again!

Mullicker

Brian? wrote: »

Strawman yet again!

I think you are misunderstanding his point.

Brian?

Mullicker wrote: »

I think you are misunderstanding his point.

I perfectly understand it.

The strawman is that no one is suggesting doubling social welfare to reduce unemployment

Mullicker

Brian? wrote: »

I perfectly understand it.

The strawman is that no one is suggesting doubling social welfare to reduce unemployment

You didn't quote that part though. You quoted the part where he pointed out Ireland as an example that went against the simplistic notion that where welfare is generous unemployment is low, therefore generous welfare causes low unemployment.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's my understanding that Friedman declared Chile an economic success while Pinochet was slaughtering his own people. Chicago school economists stood by Pinochet while it happened, as did thatcher and Reagan.

A dictator endorsed by Friedman. Capitalist Libertarians love a bit of Friedman, in my experience.

As for whether Friedman was a libertarian -- good question. One could argue that he became increasingly libertarian later in his life, but he strove for much of his career to find a middle ground between the nineteenth-century philosophy of unchecked laissez-faire and the socialist collectivism of mid-twentieth century Europe, both of which he saw as unacceptable extremes. He became a promoter of what he called neo-liberalism, as outlined in his essay "Neo-Liberalism and its Prospects." In it, he strives to limit the power of the state to enforce state socialism, insisting on the primacy of the individual over the collective, while also envisioning a more expansive role for the state than many libertarians were prepared to accept:



Friedman's stances were frequently utilitarian rather than doctrinaire. Because of his unorthodox positions on issues, such as his support for the negative income tax and publicly funded education vouchers, he wasn't exactly popular among other prominent figures in the libertarian movement of his time. Rothbard called him a statist, Mises called him a socialist, and Rand called a pamphlet by Friedman and Stigler the most pernicious thing she had ever read.

I don't see Friedman as a libertarian. I see him as a pro capitalist ideologue.

Mullicker

Can you guys offer up the logic behind why increasing welfare would reduce unemployment?

If I am on unemployment benefit and it is increased I am less likely to want to work. If I am in a low paying job and unemployment benefit is increased I might decide to quit and go on welfare.

Brian?

Mullicker wrote: »

Can you guys offer up the logic behind why increasing welfare would reduce unemployment?

If I am on unemployment benefit and it is increased I am less likely to want to work. If I am in a low paying job and unemployment benefit is increased I might decide to quit and go on welfare.

Is anyone arguing that it would?

Mullicker

This guy.

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I agree with generous social welfare, all data I've seen to date indicates this is the most efficient way to decrease unemployment.

I asked did that include generous unemployment benefit. He said yes. He seems to believe there is a causal link based on studies he has seen.

When making his point he only mentions a correlation. And do I really have to tell people to go back and learn that correlation does not imply causation?

I'll take the non response to my question as a sign there is no logic behind the belief, simply an assumption that a correlation is sufficient evidence.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/5710874/the-best-illustration-youll-see-that-correlation-doesnt-equal

Lockstep

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Any examples form Ireland would suffice.
Ireland spends a lot on s/w, one of the highest spenders in the world, yet unemployment somehow persists.

To be fair, Ireland isn't a very good example: our unemployment was just 4.6% in 2006 (close to full employment)
Irish unemployment rose substantially after this (to nearly 15% in 2012) but this was in line with the recession. Now that the economy has been steadily improving, and now stands at just 9.5%

Evidently, despite our generous social welfare rates, our unemployment follows our economy. It's hardly the case that once the recession happened, our unemployment rate tripled because of people being lazy. Rather, the data suggests that people were made unemployed due to a lack of jobs and as the economy has improved, more and more have found jobs ensuring the unemployment rate falls.
There certainly will be people who can't be bothered working but in my own case, I have taken poorly-paid jobs to get off the dole as frankly, I really hate not working.

BoJack Horseman

Indeed, and Ireland cut S/W rates slightly and unemployment fell. (but the two are not causative)

again, the previous posters supposition that high dole decreases unemployment holds little water.

Lockstep

Yeah, I doubt high social welfare causes lower unemployment. I'd need to see some pretty solid data to convince me otherwise. That said, considering Ireland's unemployment rates mirroring our econmic situations, Ireland's high social welfare rates are not a good indicator that they increase unemployment.

Tiddlypeeps

Mullicker wrote: »

This guy.



I asked did that include generous unemployment benefit. He said yes. He seems to believe there is a causal link based on studies he has seen.

When making his point he only mentions a correlation. And do I really have to tell people to go back and learn that correlation does not imply causation?

I'll take the non response to my question as a sign there is no logic behind the belief, simply an assumption that a correlation is sufficient evidence.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/5710874/the-best-illustration-youll-see-that-correlation-doesnt-equal

Bloody hell, it's been about 3 hours since I last responded and it's during work hours, sorry for not responding quick enough for you.... I'm also not a "guy" or a "he" which you bizarrely keep repeating.

Anyway it's almost cringey how misused the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is. I can post a condescending link too
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/correlation-does-not-imply-causation-except-when-it-does/

The actual means correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Two unrelated things happening together are unlikely to have a causal link. Two related things happening together have a much higher probability of having a causal link. To use the basket ball example from above, most good basket ball players are tall. There is likely to be a causal link here between being good at basketball and being tall because there is a relationship there, being tall is beneficial to playing basket ball because the hoop is high up and being closer to it make it easier to put the ball through it, so the correlation is valid evidence that being tall has a causal link to being good at basketball. But the other way around it is not likely that being good at basket ball causes someone to be tall, because there isn't any obvious relationship.

Most high welfare countries have low unemployment. There is a direct relationship between ones financial stability and ones ability to better oneself. Some data on the correlation between welfare and poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty A decrease in poverty means an increase in social mobility. It's certainly possible welfare levels have no effect on employment, it's next to impossible to know these things for sure because of the lack of ability to do controlled studies on them, but you can't just dismiss the evidence either just because you don't like it. The more important point I was trying to make anyway is that generous social welfare doesn't make someone a scrounger like I had previously believed. The fact that most high welfare countries typically have low unemployment is very strong evidence of this much at the very least.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

joseph brand wrote: »

My parents, who are in their 60's, have shifted to the right and now read The Daily Mail. The above phrase was put to me on a few occasions.

I believe that people long for the old days as they age, and conservatism is all about regression and retarding progress. Of course older folks become less idealistic, but I would change the '40' in that phrase to '50'. (we probably had shorter lifespans when that phrase first appeared).

Being conservative at a young age is odd.

sure. Venture capital is quite a conservative idea and has given us a vast array of technological breakthroughs over the last few decades. Conservatism stifled the unions who wanted to keep filthy unsafe coal mines open in the UK , stifled dock workers unions who opposed containerisation of shipping , the mechanisation of the post office and it was conservative money that funded the industrial revolution.

if you want to talk about regression have a look at north korea, cuba, even soviet russia. Funnily enough none of them are right wing states.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

It's my understanding that Friedman declared Chile an economic success while Pinochet was slaughtering his own people.

Why are you trying to connect a country's economic policy with the dictator that had nothing to do with it other than to not get involved?

Argentina had many similarities with Chile during these times however the economic system was different.


Hmmmm, I wonder why Chile is booming now and why Argentina is approaching their third hyperinflation in recent times.

Must just be one of those things I suppose.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Why are you trying to connect a country's economic policy with the dictator that had nothing to do with it other than to not get involved?

Argentina had many similarities with Chile during these times however the economic system was different.


Hmmmm, I wonder why Chile is booming now and why Argentina is approaching their third hyperinflation in recent times.

Must just be one of those things I suppose.

Ah but it's not "just one of those things". There are many reasons chile is doing well. Social spending is one of them.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Ah but it's not "just one of those things". There are many reasons chile is doing well. Social spending is one of them.

Lol, yeah that's right.....funny how it does not have the same affects in Argentina..hmmmm

I'm sure it is just one of those things really though.

Nothing to do with how they went from being very similar economically to being very different.

coolemon

Brian? wrote: »

It's my understanding that Friedman declared Chile an economic success while Pinochet was slaughtering his own people.

Despite Pinochet's economic reforms he never re-privatised the copper mines, which made up 80% of the economy.

The "Chilean Miracle" was actually due to increased copper prices rather than wholesale privatisation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gobsh!te

coolemon wrote: »

Despite Pinochet's economic reforms he never re-privatised the copper mines, which made up 80% of the economy.

The "Chilean Miracle" was actually due to increased copper prices rather than wholesale privatisation.

That is absolute nonsense.

80%..........what a loud of garbage