Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?
Comments
-
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.OZONE said:
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?OZONE said:"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"
Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.
Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.
Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move. -
Yes, let's restrict upward mobility by taxing the shit outPurpleReign said:
A hybrid system is almost certainly the future. Some sort of Frankenstein's monster version of a capitalist economy and a socialist welfare state.
I don't see people and/or corporations giving up their property without a fight and at the same time the natural evolution of technology is going to erode a lot of jobs.
Maybe we will have essential breakthroughs in food production and energy storage that will save the day, but I still don't see how you deal with an exploding population and no jobs without some sort of basic handout system to simply keep people alive. Unless letting them slowly starve and die by the millions is acceptable, of course.
It's a lot of mouths to feed.
Yes, as I mentioned earlier, "I got mine, the rest of you, share the rest... fuck off" is exactly where this is headed
#SoylentGreenIsPeople
Newsflash: Ronald Reagan is *not* President.OZONE said:
Actually, I think that gov't services should be paid for as they are provided, and that takes taxes.pawz said:
What in the fuck is wrong with you?OZONE said:
Similar to that yes, but applied more broadly (as I mentioned in my lumber example), and the oil companies would be charged higher rents and their CEOs would be imprisoned if they spilled any oil. And lots of taxes.PurpleThrobber said:
You mean like how private enterprise mines and oil wells are on BLM and USFS properties and pay royalties to the government for the riches they extract?OZONE said:
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?OZONE said:"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"
Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.
Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.
Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
It's like you think economic development is a bottomless reserve to rape and pillage for your masterbatory love affair with the government. If you think its such a grand idea, why don't you voluntarily send the government 90% of your income. Clearly you think they will do better with your money than you will.
FFS
The alternative is what Reagan and Bush 2 did, which is borrow and spend.
-
All the taxi and truck drivers will be extinct in 20 years.
Burger flippers will soon follow.
There will be a lot of dumb, unemployed people with zero skills soon wanting their $15/hour.
Computer processing power passes human processing power in 2048.
Population peaks at 9-10 billion in 2050.
Capitalism doesn't work with a shrinking population base - no more expansion.
And then some organic assimilation will make everyone think the same, so we won't need any politics:
https://youtu.be/TGI8oNcYkXg?t=1m17s
The first country that can manipulate and control people's minds with nanobots will win. There won't be any more feisty Putins to bother with. -
I'm actually looking forward to the U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho administration.priapism said:All the taxi and truck drivers will be extinct in 20 years.
Burger flippers will soon follow.
There will be a lot of dumb, unemployed people with zero skills soon wanting their $15/hour.
Computer processing power passes human processing power in 2048.
Population peaks at 9-10 billion in 2050.
Capitalism doesn't work with a shrinking population base - no more expansion.
-
They are only interested in the health of the land in terms of optimizing it for lumber profits and avoiding lawsuits from the fishing industry about fish habitat destruction or lawsuits from various green movements. It is all profit driven. There are other drivers that should be considered with regards to the health of the land -- besides lumber profits.HuskyInAZ said:
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.
Anyway, the debate as to whether or not this should be the economic future is a different debate. I was just explaining my prediction -- and answering another poster's question about what constitutes free market socialism. -
Lucky for J and freeme that rent boys are unionized and aren't threatened by automation? No machine can ever replace the feel of a real dickus in your fungus bungis! Shake them hips and make them tips boys! Rub some glitter on your twatz and celebrate flamboyantly! U GO GURL!!!!
-
Bank of England issued report predicting as many as 15 million in the UK and 80 million in the USA could lose their jobs to automation in the next 20-30 years.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/robots-could-steal-80-million-us-jobs-bank-of-england.html -
Ozones tribal idiot leaders all but locked up BLM land in Oregon in the 90s Their grand plan was to just sit and let undergrowth run rampant in the forests leading to record amount of disease and fires. It doesn't matter what the Weyerhausers motivation for caring for the forests are. Grandpa Sankey can see that managing forests is healthier than locking them down.HuskyInAZ said:
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.OZONE said:
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?OZONE said:"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"
Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.
Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.
Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move. -
Nice cherry picked factoid that means nothing.salemcoog said:
Ozones tribal idiot leaders all but locked up BLM land in Oregon in the 90s Their grand plan was to just sit and let undergrowth run rampant in the forests leading to record amount of disease and fires. It doesn't matter what the Weyerhausers motivation for caring for the forests are. Grandpa Sankey can see that managing forests is healthier than locking them down.HuskyInAZ said:
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.OZONE said:
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?OZONE said:"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"
Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.
Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.
Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move.
The best lumber we've every seen came out of the unmanaged forrest over 100 years ago.
Weayerhoser is been managing those forests for 100 years since, and the lumber coming out of them now is shit.
Probably because they cut down all the old growth as part of their "management process" and all that's left is 2nd and 3rd growth shit.
Looks fine for Weayerhoser's bottom line, but ask a craftsman that build's fine houses, and he will tell you the lumber they sell today is crap.
BTW, I've stayed the weekend at the Weayerhoser's former CFOs Chelan house (his daughter and my wife used to work together). I've had dinner with him (he is a Stanford alumni). He'll be the first to admit that their "management" is designed to optimize profit, not the forest quality or the quality of the lumber they produce.
The biggest thing that got them to improve their management of the land, was lawsuits from fisherman because their harvesting practices were fucking up the streams and rivers.
-
No more old growth, no more managed forest... just say no to renewable building materials???OZONE said:
Nice cherry picked factoid that means nothing.salemcoog said:
Ozones tribal idiot leaders all but locked up BLM land in Oregon in the 90s Their grand plan was to just sit and let undergrowth run rampant in the forests leading to record amount of disease and fires. It doesn't matter what the Weyerhausers motivation for caring for the forests are. Grandpa Sankey can see that managing forests is healthier than locking them down.HuskyInAZ said:
Your example of Weyerhaeuser is way off base. Because they own the land, and have for decades, they are highly interested in the health of that land, be it reforestation, logging practices, logging roads, etc. Put that land in the hands of the federal government, I guarantee they would not be the stewards that Weyerhaeuser or any other non-governmental organization would be, nor would the forests be anywhere near as productive as they are today.OZONE said:
The markets are free, but more of the means of production, such as land, are owned by the society. Individuals or companies can rent it as part of their business plan.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
Free market socialism? What the fuck is that?OZONE said:"Is Socialism Inevitable? Is it Humanity's destiny?"
Not pure socialism, no; it has the same flaws as pure capitalism. But some kind of free market socialism, or democratic socialism, yes I think it is where we are headed, but it will be a couple of generations away still.
For example, instead of Weyerhaeuser owning millions of acres of land, the land would be owned by the people, and Weyerhaeuser would pay to harvest trees from it.
Gets tricker when you are talking about intellectual capital (rather than land), and of course the various types of capital in between. Progressive economists have a model for it. Probably shorter periods for copyrights and patents.
Of course, a healthy tax structure is in place.
As for copyrights and patents, lessening the effective time period lessens the incentive to pour money into R&D. Probably not a smart move.
The best lumber we've every seen came out of the unmanaged forrest over 100 years ago.
Weayerhoser is been managing those forests for 100 years since, and the lumber coming out of them is shit.
Probably because they cut down all the old growth as part of their "management process" and all that's left is 2nd and 3rd growth shit.
Looks fine for Weayerhoser's bottom line, but ask a craftsman that build's fine houses, and he will tell you the lumber they sell today is crap.
BTW, I've stayed the weekend at the Weayerhoser's former CFOs Chelan house (his daughter and my wife used to work together). I've had dinner with him (he is a Stanford alumni). He'll be the first to admit that their "management" is designed to optimize profit, not the forest quality or the quality of the lumber they produce.
