Hugo Chavez is dead

[AppleQueso]

Actually, I was a socialist before I saw "Capitalism". Hypocrite propagandist or not, Moore makes a very good argument for why modern capitalism is a very bad thing (and before that he made a very good argument for why we need universal health care, and before that...).

Socialism may not be perfect (what is?), but it would be better than what we've got now. There are actually several ideas for a socialist system and the one I agree with goes like this: Everybody works, everybody pays into one giant pot, and everybody shares that pot equally, but if you don't work, you don't eat. Obviously there would be exceptions for the elderly and disabled like we have now, and there would need to be new laws with harsh penalties to discourage folks from cheating the system (whether by intentionally disabling yourself to avoid working or by hiding massive amounts of income the way many CEOs are already doing), but I honestly don't see why that couldn't work if given a fair chance.

One area where capitalism has largely failed is by convincing people that they're too good for certain jobs. Part of the reason the unemployment rate took so long to drop back down is because many people were too proud to accept grunt work and so continued to collect unemployent (or drop out of the job market altogether) rather than get a job at Walmart, McDonalds, etc, as if it would be beneath them to work in such a place. Remember, getting a degree is a voluntary process. If you can find work in your chosen field, than good for you, but if you can't, you should be willing to accept any job you can find and not be picky about it (this is coming from someone who worked a job I hated for 13 years because it was steady income and I have bills to pay).

It's true that most of those grunt jobs don't pay a livable wage, but they would if the minimum wage was raised to $9/hr as President Obama has proposed. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening because congress answers to billionare CEOs, not to us (sad but true), and their corporate masters will insist that paying their employees more is bad for business, all the while taking larger and larger bonuses for themselves. That's why I'm a socialist, folks. Like I said, it might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than this crap.

...a self described Socialist pulling the "people are unemployed because they're too lazy/entitled to work!" card?

[prfsnl_gmr]

Socialism may not be perfect (what is?), but it would be better than what we've got now.

No, it is not. There is a reason that the United States is the wealthiest nation in the world despite a relative dearth of natural resources. Likewise, there is a reason that Venezuela - despite an abundance of natural resources - is one of the world's poorest and most dangerous nations. The key difference between the world's wealthiest and poorest nations is the protection of private property.

There are actually several ideas for a socialist system and the one I agree with goes like this: Everybody works, everybody pays into one giant pot, and everybody shares that pot equally, but if you don't work, you don't eat. Obviously there would be exceptions for the elderly and disabled like we have now, and there would need to be new laws with harsh penalties to discourage folks from cheating the system (whether by intentionally disabling yourself to avoid working or by hiding massive amounts of income the way many CEOs are already doing), but I honestly don't see why that couldn't work if given a fair chance.

This is precisely the system that was employed in the Soviet Union. It did not work there, and it would not work anywhere else. The absence of private property rights and market pricing for labor ensures the inefficient allocation of labor and resources. The "harsh penalties" are the gulag and grave.

One area where capitalism has largely failed is by convincing people that they're too good for certain jobs.

Why is this the result of market capitalism? Inflexible job markets are the hallmark of socialism.

Part of the reason the unemployment rate took so long to drop back down is because many people were too proud to accept grunt work and so continued to collect unemployent (or drop out of the job market altogether) rather than get a job at Walmart, McDonalds, etc, as if it would be beneath them to work in such a place.

The United States economy basically recovered from a financial disaster in just under four years. Underemployment and the inefficient allocation of labor are systemic in socialist societies.

Remember, getting a degree is a voluntary process. If you can find work in your chosen field, than good for you, but if you can't, you should be willing to accept any job you can find and not be picky about it....

This is true.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening because congress answers to billionare CEOs, not to us (sad but true), and their corporate masters will insist that paying their employees more is bad for business, all the while taking larger and larger bonuses for themselves.

A billionaire casts just as many votes as me, and the members of Congress - ultimately - do not answer to them any more than they do to any other citizen. If we are not happy with current policies, then - at least in the United States - we have the power to change them. Moreover, the argument that "monied interests have too mush control over politics" is usually just an excuse for inaction. In 2012, more money was spent on Halloween candy than on all local, state, and federal elections combined.

That's why I'm a socialist, folks. Like I said, it might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than this crap.

Again, socialism is not better than democracy and efficiently regulated market capitalism. For some perspective on this point, you should read the excellent book:

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty

This book - in addition to a course on basic macroeconomics - will provide you with some perspective that you probably will not receive from Michael Moore's intellectually dishonest documentaries.

[Ack]

Actually, I was a socialist before I saw "Capitalism". Hypocrite propagandist or not, Moore makes a very good argument for why modern capitalism is a very bad thing (and before that he made a very good argument for why we need universal health care, and before that...).

Socialism may not be perfect (what is?), but it would be better than what we've got now. There are actually several ideas for a socialist system and the one I agree with goes like this: Everybody works, everybody pays into one giant pot, and everybody shares that pot equally, but if you don't work, you don't eat. Obviously there would be exceptions for the elderly and disabled like we have now, and there would need to be new laws with harsh penalties to discourage folks from cheating the system (whether by intentionally disabling yourself to avoid working or by hiding massive amounts of income the way many CEOs are already doing), but I honestly don't see why that couldn't work if given a fair chance.

One area where capitalism has largely failed is by convincing people that they're too good for certain jobs. Part of the reason the unemployment rate took so long to drop back down is because many people were too proud to accept grunt work and so continued to collect unemployent (or drop out of the job market altogether) rather than get a job at Walmart, McDonalds, etc, as if it would be beneath them to work in such a place. Remember, getting a degree is a voluntary process. If you can find work in your chosen field, than good for you, but if you can't, you should be willing to accept any job you can find and not be picky about it (this is coming from someone who worked a job I hated for 13 years because it was steady income and I have bills to pay).

It's true that most of those grunt jobs don't pay a livable wage, but they would if the minimum wage was raised to $9/hr as President Obama has proposed. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening because congress answers to billionare CEOs, not to us (sad but true), and their corporate masters will insist that paying their employees more is bad for business, all the while taking larger and larger bonuses for themselves. That's why I'm a socialist, folks. Like I said, it might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than this crap.

First, I would suggest speaking to individuals who lived in socialist societies and now live here to see their comparisons.

As for minimum wage jobs, the idea for those jobs is that you work them until you get something better, and then you move on. It allows a steady flow in the job market of individuals, usually young, with no skills whatsoever to gain an entrance into the working world.

Now raising the minimum wage adds a new level of cost to any business, so now the company has to find ways to either A) make cuts or B) generate more revenue to be able to pay. This means layoffs or increased prices for the general populace. And not all companies make the kind of money to be able to handle that. If a small franchisee who owns three McDonalds gets hit with a federally required minimum wage boost, he's going to have to raise prices and cut personnel, or he will go under, and all of the jobs his business had offered will be lost. Not every company is a major international firm that rakes in billions.

The new healthcare regulations work in a similar fashion, but it requires that companies over a certain size offer healthcare to their employees over 30 hours for a particular value, or else be fined. Depending on the size of your company, you may decide it is more economically feasible to pay the fine or provide the insurance, but you'll still have to find a way to make up for the additional costs you have now had forced upon you.

Now the issue with your pot argument is that it means nothing concerning the quality of your work, your seniority in terms of experience, the materials you use, etc. That idea has been tried, and once people learned they would get the same regardless of the quality and amount of their work completed as long as they were working, they stopped caring about those things. Have you ever worked on an assembly line?

Now yes, I'd say our society has a problem with narcissism, but I don't necessarily find that to be a product of capitalism so much as an issue with upbringing. How many times were we told in school we could be anything, do anything, and that we were special? Our education system glamorizes our selves but doesn't really convey the harsh realities of life.

But as for being too proud to go work in fast food or dead end jobs despite our voluntary degrees...well, I find that a little insulting considering that after grad school with a master's degree, I worked at Waffle House, did third shift at a gas station, tutored foreign children, worked in a pizza kitchen, did Census work, and did whatever I could to cover my (and my now ex-girlfriend's) bills. In fact, I did whatever I could for the seven years getting through school and the two years after before I found a position in my field. And when I wasn't working, it wasn't pride or laziness that kept me from looking for work, it was depression. Now thankfully I've been able to seek treatment for that in the time since then and now have a wonderful career I enjoy. I bitched and moaned, sure, but I never once took unemployment, nor foodstamps. I did take education loans for college, and I'm now paying them back with interest.

Also, there may not be an economic elite in socialist countries (though this isn't true. Organized crime and black marketeers actually become an economic elite within such societies. The "criminal class" never vanishes in society, not even a socialist or communist one), but a political one has never failed to form, and they are perhaps more dangerous than an economic elite because they control not only money, just as an economic elite does, but also the legislative and judicial system, the penal system, the military and police. People don't only like money, they also like power, and the high-level politicians of socialist societies benefit from both. Why else do you think Chavez died sitting on an estimated $2 billion fortune?

[Retrodude]

...a self described Socialist pulling the "people are unemployed because they're too lazy/entitled to work!" card?

They wouldn't feel so entitled if they hadn't had it drilled into their heads their entire lives. As I said, that's a huge area where capitalism has failed. Instead of telling people that enormous wealth is the largest measure of success, we should instead have a society where success is measured by whether or not you can keep the lights turned on and put food on the table. There are always going to be wealthy people in the world, I know that, but our culture has told people for too long that if you're not one of them, you have no value and that's just not so.

There's an episode of The Cosby Show where Cliff gives Theo a lesson in economics after hearing that he has no ambition beyond being a cab driver. It's a funny scene, but Theo's not wrong. If all you want is to make a living, then it shouldn't matter what kind of job you have or how much money you make, but we tell our kids from birth that it does matter and we just go around and around with nothing ever changing or getting better. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer (largely because of the efforts of the rich) and nobody wants to discuss why this is a problem because they don't want to be the one who upsets the applecart.

[Jmustang1968]

Actually, I was a socialist before I saw "Capitalism". Hypocrite propagandist or not, Moore makes a very good argument for why modern capitalism is a very bad thing (and before that he made a very good argument for why we need universal health care, and before that...).

Socialism may not be perfect (what is?), but it would be better than what we've got now. There are actually several ideas for a socialist system and the one I agree with goes like this: Everybody works, everybody pays into one giant pot, and everybody shares that pot equally, but if you don't work, you don't eat. Obviously there would be exceptions for the elderly and disabled like we have now, and there would need to be new laws with harsh penalties to discourage folks from cheating the system (whether by intentionally disabling yourself to avoid working or by hiding massive amounts of income the way many CEOs are already doing), but I honestly don't see why that couldn't work if given a fair chance.

One area where capitalism has largely failed is by convincing people that they're too good for certain jobs. Part of the reason the unemployment rate took so long to drop back down is because many people were too proud to accept grunt work and so continued to collect unemployent (or drop out of the job market altogether) rather than get a job at Walmart, McDonalds, etc, as if it would be beneath them to work in such a place. Remember, getting a degree is a voluntary process. If you can find work in your chosen field, than good for you, but if you can't, you should be willing to accept any job you can find and not be picky about it (this is coming from someone who worked a job I hated for 13 years because it was steady income and I have bills to pay).

It's true that most of those grunt jobs don't pay a livable wage, but they would if the minimum wage was raised to $9/hr as President Obama has proposed. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening because congress answers to billionare CEOs, not to us (sad but true), and their corporate masters will insist that paying their employees more is bad for business, all the while taking larger and larger bonuses for themselves. That's why I'm a socialist, folks. Like I said, it might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than this crap.

There is so much bloat in such a system. The market doesn't drive jobs as much, but instead the government does. What job does a person do if there aren't enough? And everyone gets equal out of the pot? What incentive does one have to be a skilled worker? Or for those who would work a hazardous job? What incentive does one have to do their job well?

And menegro, the big execs aren't necessarily lazy. Most had to work hard to get where they are. Not physical labor, but those with education and a highly specialized skill typically are rewarded more, and most likely had to put in tons of 60+ hour weeks.

[Menegrothx]

And menegro, the big execs aren't necessarily lazy. Most had to work hard to get where they are. Not physical labor, but those with education and a highly specialized skill typically are rewarded more, and most likely had to put in tons of 60+ hour weeks.

It's obvious that entrepreneurs create jobs, make investments, risk their money etc and should be compensated for it. I'm not talking about all corporations, just the elite. The fact is that many people at the top are there due to connections, inherited wealth and the help of the government (again, connections).

It's obvious that the expertise and special skills of CEOs accounts to something, but the question is are they as human beings really as valuable as 100 or 200 or 1000 "normal" workers, are there really no other people who could do their job as competently as they can. There are plenty of incompetant CEOs (looking at the economic situation in the US&Europe and what has been happening during the last 3-6 years or so) who have a salary in the millions and get millions more thanks to bonuses, golden handshakes etc. It's their incompetance that has messed up the economy. But who do the salary cuts and layoffs concern? Not the CEOs, it's the average workers of course. And economic incentives are almost meaningless to those people anyways. If you already have 10 million dollars, a one million more wont really inspire you do your job that much better. But to all those struggling workers, even 50 or 100 dollars a month more could make a huge difference, and due to the size difference (1000 workers vs 1 CEO, 50 000 dollars divided to 1000 people or 50 000 given to one person), giving bonuses to workers has a much larger positive impact on the performance of any given company than giving bonuses to the CEOs.

Again, I'm only talking about the major players, the wealthiest 0.1% of society. For every rotten CEO and corporation there are 1000 that are honest and hardworking. It's crony capitalism and the good old boy network that connects the government and these companies (->corporate welfare and bank bailouts) what I'm talking about.

[Ack]

It's crony capitalism and the good old boy network that connects the government and these companies (->corporate welfare and bank bailouts) what I'm talking about.

Admittedly though, this happens in any type of organization. The small town I went to high school in has a corrupt city council and police force which operates on a good old boy system and at times has been openly racist and sexist. Those police officers who support them get promoted and better beats. Sections of local government that don't end up getting funding cut. Hell, Fastbilly and I were in the same club in college, and there was a running gag amongst the older members that the "gamer illuminati" picked the club officers, which was actually quite true. I should know, I benefited from it. Corruption is a factor in any system involving human beings.