BeermatTrue – but you pre-suppose that control of the public (in this case their spending) is a feature of a socialist approach, and one desired by those in charge of it. (“A ‘socialist’ government could control all these activities in addition to ‘collectively’ investing in industry“
It’s Stalinist, totalitarian, all those things, yes. But my initial posting was about exactly this – how has the presupposition of state control over lives being a feature of socialism itself come to be common received wisdom even though its not based on anything?
Why would a socialist government in particular want to do that? Or control guns? Or restrict low flying? (That one’s for Tomahawk, should he emerge from his troll cave). None of this is about ‘ownership of the means of production’, the central precept of Socialism, and which sounds bizarre only because smoke and mirrors have hidden the importance of this bit.
Maybe I am answering my own question about where the confusion has come from.. Stalin was big on limiting freedoms and calling it ‘Socialism’.
BeermatSigned
Nice one Mark
Beermat..or at least seem to do if you’re a Conservative voter 😉
(Joke)
Beermat..or at least seem to do if you’re a Conservative voter 😉
(Joke)
BeermatYes, absolutely. But a socialist would argue that the investment could be collective. State investment. Not advocating, just trying to define socialism.
…and wealth creation.
After all, isn’t it the case that a private investor has the choice of putting his money into Vidget gmbh, while a UK govt wouldn’t?
BeermatYes, absolutely. But a socialist would argue that the investment could be collective. State investment. Not advocating, just trying to define socialism.
…and wealth creation.
After all, isn’t it the case that a private investor has the choice of putting his money into Vidget gmbh, while a UK govt wouldn’t?
BeermatNo again, John. Think about where the earnings go. On widgets, at a price that pays interest to the investor in widgetco. It’s a money-go round, and a layer to the system of industry that doesn’t create wealth by itself, just by virtue of being private and individualistic.
You make widgets more cheaply because you have brought a widget-o-matic with investors money? That’s fewer employees, not more. I could head off all your lines like that, but it’s easier just to say follow the money, John. At what point does it appear from nowhere? (clue – added value)
The best documentary I have seen on it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY_ehvuWt7E
Not saying it doesn’t function, it just doesn’t create wealth for society, instead it concentrates it in a gravitational way where the capital already exists. A minority get significantly wealthier, the majority are fractionally poorer because they have to pay off the investment when they buy the widgets, however cheaply or expensively they are made. There is no overall gain, apart from the added value of widget manufacture – the added value of a widget having a bearing on the share price of widget co, and NOT the other way around.
In other words, its a mechanism to channel some of the added value across to the shareholder. The shareholder does not add value. Not a moral judgement, just an observation.
It’s not magic, it’s smoke and mirrors.
BeermatNo again, John. Think about where the earnings go. On widgets, at a price that pays interest to the investor in widgetco. It’s a money-go round, and a layer to the system of industry that doesn’t create wealth by itself, just by virtue of being private and individualistic.
You make widgets more cheaply because you have brought a widget-o-matic with investors money? That’s fewer employees, not more. I could head off all your lines like that, but it’s easier just to say follow the money, John. At what point does it appear from nowhere? (clue – added value)
The best documentary I have seen on it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY_ehvuWt7E
Not saying it doesn’t function, it just doesn’t create wealth for society, instead it concentrates it in a gravitational way where the capital already exists. A minority get significantly wealthier, the majority are fractionally poorer because they have to pay off the investment when they buy the widgets, however cheaply or expensively they are made. There is no overall gain, apart from the added value of widget manufacture – the added value of a widget having a bearing on the share price of widget co, and NOT the other way around.
In other words, its a mechanism to channel some of the added value across to the shareholder. The shareholder does not add value. Not a moral judgement, just an observation.
It’s not magic, it’s smoke and mirrors.
BeermatNo, John, This is nonsense. A company’s turnover does not improve because an individual has bought shares in it. Its sales do not increase because someone has bought shares. There is absolutely no mechanism whereby people will buy more gas, or pay a higher price for the gas they need, just because someone has bought shares in the gas company, or because those shares have become more valuable.
The widget company will not sell more widgets because it has floated. You have it *rse-backward. The flotation might be successful IF they then sell more widgets, but that is far from the same thing – and the excess wealth goes to the investor. Yes, the company makes money too, but think where the profit comes from – it comes from making and selling widgets. It’s just that some of the income is pre-loaded (and the widgets have to cost more to give the investors their dividends).
The share price going up does not create wealth. The money comes from the difference between what it cost to make the widgets and what people are paying for them. It comes out of the pocket of the widget consumer, it doesn’t appear from nowhere.
It’s like you don’t want to understand.
I thought you went to a good school?
BeermatNo, John, This is nonsense. A company’s turnover does not improve because an individual has bought shares in it. Its sales do not increase because someone has bought shares. There is absolutely no mechanism whereby people will buy more gas, or pay a higher price for the gas they need, just because someone has bought shares in the gas company, or because those shares have become more valuable.
The widget company will not sell more widgets because it has floated. You have it *rse-backward. The flotation might be successful IF they then sell more widgets, but that is far from the same thing – and the excess wealth goes to the investor. Yes, the company makes money too, but think where the profit comes from – it comes from making and selling widgets. It’s just that some of the income is pre-loaded (and the widgets have to cost more to give the investors their dividends).
The share price going up does not create wealth. The money comes from the difference between what it cost to make the widgets and what people are paying for them. It comes out of the pocket of the widget consumer, it doesn’t appear from nowhere.
It’s like you don’t want to understand.
I thought you went to a good school?
BeermatHold on though
2 things this raises:
Equalising everything surely won’t stop an individual from wanting to improve their lot (a hypothetical point, I admit).
Whether the activity engaged in by the individual to do this actually improves the lot of society as a whole is surely at least debatable, and is the question I was asking previously.
Inventing the bronze arrowhead, the jethro tull or the bagless vacuum cleaner might do this, and earn you a handsome reward (nothing wrong with that).
You could do any of these in an hypothetical socialist state (and the two things are far from being mutually exclusive). Using that wealth to get even wealthier by buying shares in a retail multinational or a utility company (something you couldn’t do under hypothetical socialism) will not improve the lot of society in general one iota. The share price might go up, but (and this is the bit no politician, chancellor or news editor seems to get) nothing else does. The lot of nobody is improved other than the shareholder when its time to sell (see your earlier analysis, CD). There is a parallel observable in the housing ‘market’.
Self-advancement does not, in itself, drive societal advancement. Acquiring a larger slice of the cake does not make the cake bigger, though that mad-hatter version of reality has been peddled for decades now. It has led to a couple of minor crashes, and it will get worse.
BeermatHold on though
2 things this raises:
Equalising everything surely won’t stop an individual from wanting to improve their lot (a hypothetical point, I admit).
Whether the activity engaged in by the individual to do this actually improves the lot of society as a whole is surely at least debatable, and is the question I was asking previously.
Inventing the bronze arrowhead, the jethro tull or the bagless vacuum cleaner might do this, and earn you a handsome reward (nothing wrong with that).
You could do any of these in an hypothetical socialist state (and the two things are far from being mutually exclusive). Using that wealth to get even wealthier by buying shares in a retail multinational or a utility company (something you couldn’t do under hypothetical socialism) will not improve the lot of society in general one iota. The share price might go up, but (and this is the bit no politician, chancellor or news editor seems to get) nothing else does. The lot of nobody is improved other than the shareholder when its time to sell (see your earlier analysis, CD). There is a parallel observable in the housing ‘market’.
Self-advancement does not, in itself, drive societal advancement. Acquiring a larger slice of the cake does not make the cake bigger, though that mad-hatter version of reality has been peddled for decades now. It has led to a couple of minor crashes, and it will get worse.
BeermatIt’s worth noting that the theoretical / hypothetical socialist state is not one where everyone is equal.. Even Marx said that complete equality would be absurd, even under communism, never mind a socialist government.
BeermatIt’s worth noting that the theoretical / hypothetical socialist state is not one where everyone is equal.. Even Marx said that complete equality would be absurd, even under communism, never mind a socialist government.
Beermat🙂 🙂 Sorry! Was before my first coffee of the day!
Sign In
