[KaiserJeep]

Pops, to what "homeless" are you referring? If you are thinking of California, it is already true that we have redundant programs to return the homeless to society, including food/shelter for all, education and job training, free "Bama phones", and free Internet-connected PCs in public libraries. Soon we will doubtless be adding UBI and copious amounts of new low income housing (they are building three such buildings within one mile of my house).

It's already the case that what we have left on the streets is hardcore homeless, who refuse to live any other way. Mostly drug and alcohol abusers. Not sure anything Socialism can do would improve the situation for the hardcore homeless we have already offered relief under Capitalism.

[Pops]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the homeless at all, I was talking about the people who resent them for getting 'bama phones and free internet at the library.

[KaiserJeep]

I don't think many resent those things, which are intended to make them employable. Substance abusers don't keep the phones long, they get sold or bartered for drugs or drinks.

[Ibon]

"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities."
Abe

Excerpt from Obama's recent speach in South Africa

https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos ... ZU&fref=nf

[Outcast_Searcher]

Socialists end goal is communism, along with the genocide which always follows. What more needs to be said?

I still prefer capitalism, but saying anything is universally bad, when the evidence varies widely, just doesn't hold water. Especially when you claim you know what the goal is, when there is no evidence for that.

Just look at the Scandinavian countries i.e. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland.

Recent reading seems to confirm my belief that these countries seem to employ a sort of socialistic form of capitalism.

And overall, people seem to do reasonably well, kind of like the average person in the US does reasonably well -- but there's a LOT less variability of income, and a lot less stress and worry for people because of a more generous safety net (less likely sickness or retirement becoming a financial nightmare, for example).

Now, reasonable people can argue endlessly about whether that's good or bad, net.

But I don't think there's ANY sign of a general move toward communism and then anything like genocide. Actually, given how many people in the US are in jail for nonviolent crimes, and how its citizens are being snooped on (without proper disclosure) by an ever more aggressive government, or how property rights are eroding (AKA Civil Asset Forfeiture -- WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A TRIAL) in the name of "the drug war" -- I'm a HELL of a lot more concerned about really bad things happening re people's rights and treatment in the US than in "socialist" Scandinavia.

I just don't think it's reasonable to hurl such speculative assumptions at socialism generally, even though SOME socialistic countries do come WAY off the rails.

[onlooker]

Looks like Capitalism isn't doing all that well now in the US

The number of people who live in their vehicles because they can't find affordable housing is on the rise, even though the practice is illegal in many U.S. cities.

The number of people residing in campers and other vehicles surged 46 percent over the past year, a recent homeless census in Seattle's King County, Washington found. The problem is "exploding" in cities with expensive housing markets, including Los Angeles, Portland and San Francisco, according to Governing magazine.
The problem of vehicle residency is national in scope

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-ameri ... 00-10aag7e

[Outcast_Searcher]

Looks like Capitalism isn't doing all that well now in the US

The number of people who live in their vehicles because they can't find affordable housing is on the rise, even though the practice is illegal in many U.S. cities.

The number of people residing in campers and other vehicles surged 46 percent over the past year, a recent homeless census in Seattle's King County, Washington found. The problem is "exploding" in cities with expensive housing markets, including Los Angeles, Portland and San Francisco, according to Governing magazine.
The problem of vehicle residency is national in scope

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-ameri ... 00-10aag7e

You can't look at ONE statistic covering relatively few people, and claim something as broad as "capitalism isn't doing all that well now in the US", and expect to be taken seriously.

How about accelerating economic growth recently? Low unemployment? Rising minimum wage many places? And on and on?

How about a giant number of other factors that vary all over the place? You cherry pick isolated headlines like that. So does zerohedge. Congrats.

Why is it that if people don't want to live in a city with horrendous prices for real estate, they don't consider moving? Maybe because in a place like NYC or SF they like all the social programs (paid for by taxes from US capitalism)?

For every city with horrendous housing prices, there are MANY (and small cities, and towns) with relatively low housing prices. Now, along with that, probably a lower minimum wage and less social programs -- but life is all about trade-offs.

[Pops]

Why is it that if people don't want to live in a city with horrendous prices for real estate, they don't consider moving? Maybe because in a place like NYC or SF they like all the social programs (paid for by taxes from US capitalism)?

So if I searched would I find you say:
"If they don't like starving up the holler why don't they move to the city?"

There have been cornies here since the beginning and just like the doomers the lyrics reprise.

[onlooker]

"You can't look at ONE statistic covering relatively few people" It is also about the degree of dysfunction. When you look at the Drugs epidemic, how many people are on food stamps etc, all the low paying part time work abounding, you get the sense of a System that is leaving people behind in greater and greater numbers. Combine that with the more general macro trends of defense/war spending, a corrupt financial sector that gets favored by the Govt, widespread chronic infrastructure neglect, astronomically high debt levels for small to large entities and you should get a clearer understanding that not all is as rosy as the official statistics paint it

[mmasters]

"You can't look at ONE statistic covering relatively few people" It is also about the degree of dysfunction. When you look at the Drugs epidemic, how many people are on food stamps etc, all the low paying part time work abounding, you get the sense of a System that is leaving people behind in greater and greater numbers. Combine that with the more general macro trends of defense/war spending, a corrupt financial sector that gets favored by the Govt, widespread chronic infrastructure neglect, astronomically high debt levels for small to large entities and you should get a clearer understanding that not all is as rosy as the official statistics paint it

It may have its problems but capitalism works better than anything else that's been tried.

[Ibon]

It may have its problems but capitalism works better than anything else that's been tried.

Is this the best defense we can come up with when discussing the inequities that have grown with capitalism during the past 20 years. Come on guys. Can't we do a little better than just say its better than anything else that's been tried. That sounds lazy and a cop out.

What remedies do you folks propose for the points mentioned above, the growing disparity of wealth and the degree to which corporations influence politics.

How can capitalism be tweaked to address this?

Anyone willing to recommend something concrete?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Why is it that if people don't want to live in a city with horrendous prices for real estate, they don't consider moving? Maybe because in a place like NYC or SF they like all the social programs (paid for by taxes from US capitalism)?

So if I searched would I find you say:
"If they don't like starving up the holler why don't they move to the city?"

There have been cornies here since the beginning and just like the doomers the lyrics reprise.

OK, so what's your solution? High real estate prices in some cities is a "problem". But the "victims" are unwilling to move.

And it's not like government is doing much to help. If anything it makes things worse with restrictive zoning, lots of regulations, and especially "rent control" in some cities where rent is expensive. Somehow, letting landlords know the government might just steal a huge chunk of the income from their rental property (by letting undeserving renters keep a large chunk of the rent) isn't exactly a way to encourage more rental property to be built, now is it?

So whose fault is that? The evil rich?

Or is personal responsibility no longer a valid concept?

Look, when housing/rental prices are outlandish almost everywhere, THEN that's a big problem. We're a long way from that.

...

And I might or might not have said something about people being willing to move, if they're complaining about lack of jobs or services. (I don't remember, and I didn't check). That would be consistent with the idea of taking some personal responsibility for one's situation. But I most certainly NEVER said people should move to very expensive cities, where only rich people can afford to live.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It may have its problems but capitalism works better than anything else that's been tried.

Is this the best defense we can come up with when discussing the inequities that have grown with capitalism during the past 20 years. Come on guys. Can't we do a little better than just say its better than anything else that's been tried. That sounds lazy and a cop out.

What remedies do you folks propose for the points mentioned above, the growing disparity of wealth and the degree to which corporations influence politics.

How can capitalism be tweaked to address this?

Anyone willing to recommend something concrete?

As a matter of principle, I don't see why it's a bad thing to point out that a system people are complaining about is still better than the others.

Second, as I've repeatedly said, I don't think the recent surge in wealth disparity can be blamed on capitalism, overall. If the issue is technology (which I believe much of it is), that would happen under socialism too, for example -- though more of the gains of the rich would likely be taxed away.

There have been periods where wealth disparity increases, and others where it decreases. I'm not convinced this issue SHOULD be addressed via manipulating capitalism.

I've suggested we look at a UBI as a way of setting a floor or a safety net, paid for via a robot tax, and been roundly attacked. Maybe some of the attackers have better solutions?

[onlooker]

We needed to drastically curtail the excesses of Capitalism. Have a resource/asset based Steady State Economy that "progressed ", not grew.We needed Permaculture and its sustainability ethos as a bedrock feature.We needed a form of governance akin to Libertarianism, that empowered individuals as much as possible but coalesced under guiding principles of sustainability and cooperation.
The basic features of Capitalism could be maintained as Adam Smith delineated, free markets, competition, trade, supply/demand price cues etc. The predatory debt system though eliminated for a limited resource/asset based lending system

So, this tweaking was never going to work and of course not now. And of course also population control measures should have been instituted

[KaiserJeep]

Onlooker, the most generalized definition of Facism is "using the powers of government to compel people to behave in ways that they otherwise would not behave". The problem with all forms of Authoritarianism is that such abuses grow without end until the Worker's Paradise becomes the Third Reich. The curtailment of the authority of government is best found in a document, we call ours the US Constitution. It is deliberately limited in scope as it delineates the powers that we the people have entrusted to the government.

Nothing happens here unless you can persuade the majority of people to agree with you, and to include that majority opinion in that document. We can't even agree on a limited and very well contained issue such as whether or not a woman can kill unborn and unwanted children. In fact we can't even agree to call that issue "reproductive rights" or "murdering children". We are not going to agree on FF exhaustion, overpopulation, renewable energies, any of the topics we discuss here at PO endlessly. But oddly enough, it is those excess children, whether wanted or not, that Doom all of us.

There will be Doom as a consequence of our inability to recognize the nature of Doom. In fact, I believe that Doom the process has been happening for over 200 years. But I'm pretty sure that most PO members are oblivious, and still waiting for a recognizable and distinctive event that they can label Doom, and then say with a great deal of satisfaction, "I told you so".

Even though everybody including me has been convinced that Doom will happen, nobody can quite grasp the concept that they - and for that matter their grandparents - have always lived in a world that has Doom in it, doing it's thing. Those who believe in Doom but cannot admit that they have always known it, always suffered from it's effects, and in fact have always been Doomed, cannot live and enjoy life.

So one should periodly raise a glass of spirits and either toast or curse Doom as your mood dictates. Just never forget that he is there and quietly killing you and your descendants.

Another word that is completely synonymous with Doom is Life.

[Ibon]

It may have its problems but capitalism works better than anything else that's been tried.

Is this the best defense we can come up with when discussing the inequities that have grown with capitalism during the past 20 years. Come on guys. Can't we do a little better than just say its better than anything else that's been tried. That sounds lazy and a cop out.

What remedies do you folks propose for the points mentioned above, the growing disparity of wealth and the degree to which corporations influence politics.

How can capitalism be tweaked to address this?

Anyone willing to recommend something concrete?

As a matter of principle, I don't see why it's a bad thing to point out that a system people are complaining about is still better than the others.

I agree but let's face it, the entire planet with varying degrees of functionality is following the capitalist paradigm. The proof is in the pudding that no other system can compete which is why I think we are wasting time comparing this to other systems.

KJ says it is not capitalism but our ape like behavior that has resulted in the imbalances. But I always understood the beauty of capitalism is that it is the closest system to mirroring our ape like behavior :0

So regardless where the fault lies, with capitalism or our ape like behavior, for capitalism to remain robust during the upcoming consequences of human overshoot the system requires some serious tweaking.

Why are we not focusing on that and instead remaining stuck in a 20th century debate that has long been resolved?

[onlooker]

Simply put, you can tweak Capitalism by emphasizing more altruistic cooperative practices and less the selfish greedy aggressive ones
Altruism it turns out is common in the animal kingdom and not just mammals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Mammals
https://www.livescience.com/4515-selfle ... ruism.html

[KaiserJeep]

Well, the point of those articles seems to be that altruistic behavior in Nature is limited to cooperation among social insects, mutual grooming by primates, and fetching sticks by chimpanzees. Altruistic behavior in Nature is thus far rarer than in human society, and very limited in extent.

Capitalism doesn't have rules. Human beings have laws and law enforcement. We have far more laws than are enforced already, because we are unwilling to pay the cost of enforcement. Those rules are there to curb abuses when greedy and selfish primates give in to their desires and act like greedy and selfish primates. Note that there are not very many human societies where altruism holds sway either, although I suppose you don't need to look far to find individual altruistic acts by individual humans.

If your point is that human society will by and large ever act in an altruistic fashion, I don't even begin to believe that. Selfish apes rule and always will.

Ibon, my actual opinion is that Capitalism is a label we apply to natural primate behaviors. That is quite different from your take. Nobody ever wrote a manifesto defining and espousing Capitalism.

[Ibon]

Simply put, you can tweak Capitalism by emphasizing more altruistic cooperative practices and less the selfish greedy aggressive ones
Altruism it turns out is common in the animal kingdom and not just mammals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Mammals
https://www.livescience.com/4515-selfle ... ruism.html

Onlooker you bring up human altruism and empathy as a pathway. I cannot recommend highly enough a couple of books i have mentioned in the past by Frans de Waal .....

Our inner Ape
Age of Empathy

In the book our inner ape De Waal compares humans to our clisest hominids the chimpanzee and bonobo and how our species is an amalgam of selfish and altruistic forces and how like chimps we use cunning Machiavillian
Strategies and real altruism in social interactions.

KJ you should also read his works.

Our species is hardwired in such a way that our survival depends on using the inherent altruism in a way to control the inherent selfish ape.

The real challenge is that this hard wiring evolved as we interacted in small tribal groups. Applying this to balance and regulate a global civilization is no simple matter. Perhaps doable. Perhaps not possible.

[Pops]

OK, so what's your solution? High real estate prices in some cities is a "problem". But the "victims" are unwilling to move.

To where?

I don't have a solution, if I did I wouldn't be trading barbs with you guys, LOL. But I will say I'm pretty sure the problem is not with the people trying to work but not earning enough to find a house.

And it's not like government is doing much to help.

And by and large who controls "government"?

After losing fight to levy 'Amazon tax,' Seattle is back to square one on helping homeless
Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

After a bruising, month-long fight in which Amazon and other businesses squelched a new corporate head tax to fund homeless services, Seattle is struggling to find a path forward to deal with a crisis that has exploded in recent years.

Other metropolitan areas with rapidly rising housing costs also are grappling with residents priced out of the market. But Seattle's tax situation puts it in an especially difficult position when it comes to raising funds to help its homeless residents.

Kind of the point of the thread, no?
.