4 ms·

So I won't say whose side I am on, or where I stand on social policies, but I think it is important for both sides of the aisle to realize that once you give pe

by hpoe 7y ago

So I won't say whose side I am on, or where I stand on social policies, but I think it is important for both sides of the aisle to realize that once you give people any sort of entitlement, it becomes exactly that an entitlement that people feel entitled to. By so doing you make incredibly difficult if not impossible to ever introduce any changes to it later no matter what is going on, wars, natural disasters, etc. In the end short term thinking by politicians wishing to cash in on votes no matter what they are voting for will end up hurting things far more than someone who takes a long term perspective.

tehjoker 7y ago
That's the point. It is the well to do and the bosses that cry over giving the people more, allowing them to relax, allowing them to be free of the tyranny of the markets. To not give the people, meaning the majority, what they demand is profoundly anti-democratic.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > giving the people more, allowing them to relax, allowing them to be free of the tyranny of the markets The only possible way to meet these goals sustainably is to propel economic growth. If you want people to escape "the tyranny of the market", you need more market, not less of it! Work smarter, not harder. And France has a lot of wasted potential for GDP growth, that could be tapped by reforming all sorts of misguided government policies. There's no inherent reason why France couldn't become as wealthy as e.g. the Netherlands, or even more.
  - tehjoker 7y ago
    The inequality charts would beg to differ. We need redistribution. There is an army of unemployed labor and underutilized factories and other facilities. The market is profoundly irrational at allocating resources to meet human need. With a democratically run economy, we will fully utilize the entire working population while cutting individuals some slack by reducing working hours, increasing safety, and ensuring pensions will be kept. We will do away with the unelected oligarchy that rules this planet.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      We need redistribution, but we also need production, i.e. GDP growth. You can't have one without the other. (And it's damn hard to redistribute sizeable fractions of GDP without killing the golden goose. It can be done, but it's the sort of policy that has to be designed with great care.) > The market is profoundly irrational at allocating resources to meet human need. The market in places like France is deeply distorted by misguided government policies, many of them a product of simple corruption and misguided thinking, and not any serious attempt to remedy any market failure or promote social goals. It is "irrational" indeed, but not in the way you assume. This explains why there's so much structural unemployment and wasted and unused capital there, as you point out.
      - tehjoker 7y ago
        Equipment and people exist, they just are. It is the market that decides whether to open a position or to use a piece of equipment is unprofitable. The fact that the market persistently and unresolvably fails to employ everyone that wants a job or produce things that people need is a terrible flaw in the economy and is a condemnation of capitalism.
        zozbot234 7y ago
        I'm pretty sure that equipment doesn't just "exist", that it takes plenty of labor to make those pieces of equipment. Sometimes though pieces of equipment are just uneconomic given the surrounding business environment; "the market" cannot arbitrarily decide to make them profitable. Either people decide to change that business environment for the better, or some expenses will have to be written off and the business will need to move on. This shouln't be a "condemnation" of capitalism, it's a critical part of the system. Mistakes are normal, but they need to be acknowledged, and not stick around as zombies.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      You’re mixing up two different things. You can have redistribution without having the government “run the economy” (which is all “democratically run economy” means).
fishtacos 7y ago
I bet I can guess whose side you are on and where you stand on social policies? The way you framed the situation always leaves little crumbs for others to explore.
skitout 7y ago
What you say also work for corporation (and rich people) and things like tax level, tax break, regulation... The only differences is rich people and some corporation can move to a different country (or threaten to do so), most people can't... That explain why tax had been dramatically reduced for big corp and rich people, and not for average people

by hpoe 7y ago

tehjoker 7y ago

That's the point. It is the well to do and the bosses that cry over giving the people more, allowing them to relax, allowing them to be free of the tyranny of the markets. To not give the people, meaning the majority, what they demand is profoundly anti-democratic.

zozbot234 7y ago
> giving the people more, allowing them to relax, allowing them to be free of the tyranny of the markets The only possible way to meet these goals sustainably is to propel economic growth. If you want people to escape "the tyranny of the market", you need more market, not less of it! Work smarter, not harder. And France has a lot of wasted potential for GDP growth, that could be tapped by reforming all sorts of misguided government policies. There's no inherent reason why France couldn't become as wealthy as e.g. the Netherlands, or even more.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  The inequality charts would beg to differ. We need redistribution. There is an army of unemployed labor and underutilized factories and other facilities. The market is profoundly irrational at allocating resources to meet human need. With a democratically run economy, we will fully utilize the entire working population while cutting individuals some slack by reducing working hours, increasing safety, and ensuring pensions will be kept. We will do away with the unelected oligarchy that rules this planet.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    We need redistribution, but we also need production, i.e. GDP growth. You can't have one without the other. (And it's damn hard to redistribute sizeable fractions of GDP without killing the golden goose. It can be done, but it's the sort of policy that has to be designed with great care.) > The market is profoundly irrational at allocating resources to meet human need. The market in places like France is deeply distorted by misguided government policies, many of them a product of simple corruption and misguided thinking, and not any serious attempt to remedy any market failure or promote social goals. It is "irrational" indeed, but not in the way you assume. This explains why there's so much structural unemployment and wasted and unused capital there, as you point out.
    - tehjoker 7y ago
      Equipment and people exist, they just are. It is the market that decides whether to open a position or to use a piece of equipment is unprofitable. The fact that the market persistently and unresolvably fails to employ everyone that wants a job or produce things that people need is a terrible flaw in the economy and is a condemnation of capitalism.
      - zozbot234 7y ago
        I'm pretty sure that equipment doesn't just "exist", that it takes plenty of labor to make those pieces of equipment. Sometimes though pieces of equipment are just uneconomic given the surrounding business environment; "the market" cannot arbitrarily decide to make them profitable. Either people decide to change that business environment for the better, or some expenses will have to be written off and the business will need to move on. This shouln't be a "condemnation" of capitalism, it's a critical part of the system. Mistakes are normal, but they need to be acknowledged, and not stick around as zombies.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    You’re mixing up two different things. You can have redistribution without having the government “run the economy” (which is all “democratically run economy” means).

fishtacos 7y ago

I bet I can guess whose side you are on and where you stand on social policies? The way you framed the situation always leaves little crumbs for others to explore.

skitout 7y ago

What you say also work for corporation (and rich people) and things like tax level, tax break, regulation... The only differences is rich people and some corporation can move to a different country (or threaten to do so), most people can't... That explain why tax had been dramatically reduced for big corp and rich people, and not for average people