Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

I'm sick of young Americans obsessing over communism!

Page 11 of 17 [ 258 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 17  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

15 Dec 2023, 2:45 am

Nades wrote:
Doctors, engineers, police officers, teachers, all get paid fairly decently.

I have a new idea: If this part of the system is retained, including the existing wages of these professional and unskilled jobs,
shareholders are abolished, the means of production are nationalized, and experts in various fields decide where limited resources should be invested
Do you agree with the plan? The difference with the current system is that the shareholders’ luxury cars will be turned into People’s Park.
In fact this is the world I want.
I thought about this because I noticed that these professions you mentioned are what we call the proletariat.And you said they have a salary gap but it's within an acceptable range.


_________________
For I so loved the world, that I gave My theory and method, that whosoever believeth in Me should not be oppressed, but have a liberated life. /sarc


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,065
Location: wales

15 Dec 2023, 8:32 am

Nope it sounds like a terrible idea. The government is a lot less in touch with what society wants than shareholders and CEO's.

A stock market also allows for the poor to become rich ironically.



belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

15 Dec 2023, 10:30 am

Is it not feasible for shareholders to serve the government in the short term and let the whole people choose the direction of development in the future? This stumped me, I still need to learn more.


_________________
For I so loved the world, that I gave My theory and method, that whosoever believeth in Me should not be oppressed, but have a liberated life. /sarc


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,065
Location: wales

15 Dec 2023, 11:01 am

belijojo wrote:
Is it not feasible for shareholders to serve the government in the short term and let the whole people choose the direction of development in the future? This stumped me, I still need to learn more.


Shareholders are the whole people.

Rich or poor, you can buy shares. Many pension schemes, if not all also depend on shares and whether you're rich or poor, you get enrolled on by your employer by law in the UK.



Last edited by Nades on 15 Dec 2023, 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

15 Dec 2023, 11:03 am

I don’t understand. Could you please be more detailed?
I want it to develop a little faster. Do you mean that you have developed to the stage where all people are equal? ​​That is the next step to the communist society I imagined.
Awesome, the Communist Party's mission has been accomplished in Britain in another way


_________________
For I so loved the world, that I gave My theory and method, that whosoever believeth in Me should not be oppressed, but have a liberated life. /sarc


Last edited by belijojo on 15 Dec 2023, 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Readydaer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2022
Gender: Female
Posts: 868
Location: Court of Fontaine

15 Dec 2023, 11:04 am

Nades wrote:
belijojo wrote:
Is it not feasible for shareholders to serve the government in the short term and let the whole people choose the direction of development in the future? This stumped me, I still need to learn more.


Shareholders are the whole people.

Rich or poor, you can buy shares. Many pension schemes, if not all that by default all those who work for an employer are enrolled in depend on shares.


this is disingenuous. the rich are able to buy many, many, many times more shares than the poor and thus control much more.


_________________
My god. jelly donuts are so scary.


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,065
Location: wales

15 Dec 2023, 11:07 am

Readydaer wrote:
Nades wrote:
belijojo wrote:
Is it not feasible for shareholders to serve the government in the short term and let the whole people choose the direction of development in the future? This stumped me, I still need to learn more.


Shareholders are the whole people.

Rich or poor, you can buy shares. Many pension schemes, if not all that by default all those who work for an employer are enrolled in depend on shares.


this is disingenuous. the rich are able to buy many, many, many times more shares than the poor and thus control much more.


Cuts both ways. A poor person making very calculated investments in shares they believe will do well can do far better dollar to dollar wise than a rich person who lobs money at everything and anything with little though.

The poor often don't buy shares......but they should. The argument that the stock market is for the rich just isn't true.



belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

15 Dec 2023, 11:14 am

Indeed, everyone should be involved in setting the direction of development, which in your system is to enter the stock market. Why do they resist? Will the huge risk turn them into bums or some conservative minds? Whatever the reason, I just wanted to speed up the process.


_________________
For I so loved the world, that I gave My theory and method, that whosoever believeth in Me should not be oppressed, but have a liberated life. /sarc


Readydaer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2022
Gender: Female
Posts: 868
Location: Court of Fontaine

15 Dec 2023, 11:20 am

belijojo wrote:
Indeed, everyone should be involved in setting the direction of development, which in your system is to enter the stock market. Why do they resist? Will the huge risk turn them into bums or some conservative minds? Whatever the reason, I just wanted to speed up the process.


they resist partly because of what Nades describes; social stigma making people think only the rich trade stocks. but their argument is still flawed because no matter how smartly the poor man invests in stocks, they will never reach Musk or Bezos levels of riches because those fellows have had specific connections and luck to accumulate wealth. They're so far ahead it's impossible to catch up unless an authority like the government forces them to give it up.


_________________
My god. jelly donuts are so scary.


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,065
Location: wales

15 Dec 2023, 11:28 am

belijojo wrote:
Indeed, everyone should be involved in setting the direction of development, which in your system is to enter the stock market. Why do they resist? Will the huge risk turn them into bums or some conservative minds? Whatever the reason, I just wanted to speed up the process.


"Shareholders" seem to be associated with only the rich now but that shouldn't and isn't the case. Many people who support communism can more than easily buy shares. Any big bank allows people to buy shares. My bank (Halifax) allows people to buy and trade shares and there's zero entry requirements other than simply banking with them.

People resist because they're just told that share holders = rich and if they're poor.....you can't afford shares so many people don't buy them to begin with, usually resulting on missing out on years of potential compounding income in the process, often massive income.

If someone tossed money all over the US stock market even with zero thought, they could expect about 10% return as a general rule of thumb. It can potentially be idiot proof given enough share spreading.



Last edited by Nades on 15 Dec 2023, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

15 Dec 2023, 11:29 am

Nades wrote:

Cuts both ways. A poor person making very calculated investments in shares they believe will do well can do far better dollar to dollar wise than a rich person who lobs money at everything and anything with little though.

The poor often don't buy shares......but they should. The argument that the stock market is for the rich just isn't true.

I noticed that there are some problems here: initial mobilizable resources and capabilities are not necessarily linked, and rich people have more opportunities to improve capabilities while having more initial resources. I may be a little harsh, but I believe you are improving it and it will be eliminated in the future, which is the communism that I have repeatedly mentioned will definitely come.


_________________
For I so loved the world, that I gave My theory and method, that whosoever believeth in Me should not be oppressed, but have a liberated life. /sarc


belijojo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2023
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,109

15 Dec 2023, 11:38 am

Nades wrote:
If someone tossed money all over the US stock market even with zero thought, they could expect about 10% return as a general rule of thumb. It can potentially be idiot proof given enough share spreading.

Even in an ideal situation, where everyone participates and everyone improves by 10%, it is just a recurrence of the Matthew Effect - the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. You can't demand too much from the poor, right? You have great ability to improve the system, but you cannot cover up the shortcomings of the existing system. I believe you will have a bright future, relying on your ability to reform rather than this BS capitalism


_________________
For I so loved the world, that I gave My theory and method, that whosoever believeth in Me should not be oppressed, but have a liberated life. /sarc


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,065
Location: wales

15 Dec 2023, 11:46 am

belijojo wrote:
Nades wrote:
If someone tossed money all over the US stock market even with zero thought, they could expect about 10% return as a general rule of thumb. It can potentially be idiot proof given enough share spreading.

Even in an ideal situation, where everyone participates and everyone improves by 10%, it is just a recurrence of the Matthew Effect - the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. You can't demand too much from the poor, right? You have great ability to improve the system, but you cannot cover up the shortcomings of the existing system. I believe you will have a bright future, relying on your ability to reform rather than this BS capitalism


Not really. The poor never competing with the rich keeps them rich. A poor person biting the bullet but also making great choices netting 30% a year will make an inept rich person doing poorly at 5% nervous.

The poor making good cumulative interest terrifies them and nobody needs much money to start with.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,065
Location: wales

15 Dec 2023, 11:47 am

Readydaer wrote:
belijojo wrote:
Indeed, everyone should be involved in setting the direction of development, which in your system is to enter the stock market. Why do they resist? Will the huge risk turn them into bums or some conservative minds? Whatever the reason, I just wanted to speed up the process.


they resist partly because of what Nades describes; social stigma making people think only the rich trade stocks. but their argument is still flawed because no matter how smartly the poor man invests in stocks, they will never reach Musk or Bezos levels of riches because those fellows have had specific connections and luck to accumulate wealth. They're so far ahead it's impossible to catch up unless an authority like the government forces them to give it up.


Luck should always play a role too. If someone gets lucky, it doesn't mean their luck should be taken away by a government. Their luck is their luck and nobody else's.

On a side note, Bezos still wasn't just lucky, he was very calculated. He made his own luck.



Readydaer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2022
Gender: Female
Posts: 868
Location: Court of Fontaine

15 Dec 2023, 11:49 am

Nades wrote:
Not really. The poor never competing with the rich keeps them rich. A poor person biting the bullet but also making great choices netting 30% a year will make an inept rich person doing poorly at 5% nervous.

The poor making good cumulative interest terrifies them and nobody needs much money to start with.


you're beginning to sound like a "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" type of economist. the original phrase was meant to be an oxymoron by the way, as it's impossible to lift yourself like that.


_________________
My god. jelly donuts are so scary.


Readydaer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2022
Gender: Female
Posts: 868
Location: Court of Fontaine

15 Dec 2023, 11:51 am

Nades wrote:
Luck should always play a role too. If someone gets lucky, it doesn't mean their luck should be taken away by a government. Their luck is their luck and nobody else's.

On a side note, Bezos still wasn't just lucky, he was very calculated. He made his own luck.


so to be clear you are saying that true equality is not ideal?


_________________
My god. jelly donuts are so scary.