PDA

View Full Version : Why I support Democratic Socialism



GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:09 PM
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Needs no explanation.

Boffothe
02-03-2011, 07:13 PM
I find it interesting that you choose to ignore all of the CEOs that use their high incomes to directly benefit the community ie Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark

GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:14 PM
I find it interesting that you choose to ignore all of the CEOs that use their high incomes to directly benefit the community ie Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark
Yeah i heard a fundraiser with some of their buddies will fix you up for life..

DavidJr74
02-03-2011, 07:15 PM
What the hell happened in 1996 to start that skyrocket.

AllFapInsurance
02-03-2011, 07:17 PM
What the hell happened in 1996 to start that skyrocket.

The dot com boom?

AllFapInsurance
02-03-2011, 07:17 PM
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Needs no explanation.

So let's get this straight.....

Because CEO's make a lot of money, you're for socialism?

Notsureifserious.jpg

GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:18 PM
So let's get this straight.....

Because CEO's make a lot of money, you're for socialism?

Notsureifserious.jpg

Democratic Socialism, i.e. Marxism that focuses on the working class by virtue of Democratic ownership.

AllFapInsurance
02-03-2011, 07:19 PM
Democratic Socialism, i.e. Marxism that focuses on the working class by virtue of Democratic ownership.

So because of one aspect of economics (CEO pay) you're for an entire labeled system of "democratic socialism".......

Ok.

GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:20 PM
So because of one aspect of economics (CEO pay) you're for an entire labeled system of "democratic socialism".......

Ok.
No one said this argument was rooted in any type of economic theory (I would have attacked Free market capitalism if that was one of my points). My point is regarding the social welfare of ALL Americans by virtue of Democracy.

Your illogical fallacies astound me...

AllFapInsurance
02-03-2011, 07:23 PM
No one said this argument was rooted in any type of economic theory (I would have attacked Free market capitalism if that was one of my points). My point is regarding the social welfare of ALL Americans by virtue of Democracy.

Your illogical fallacies astound me...

It should be "logical" fallacies, not "illogical" fallacies. Just sayin'

Also, saying phrases like that doesn't make you sound smart. You labeled yourself as a follower of democratic socialism based off of a chart that shows CEO's make a lot of money now compared to pre-1996. That's a pretty shallow reason to follow a movement. Whatever though, I'm sure you want to beat your dikk thinking about how smart you are so I'll leave you to that.

JB05
02-03-2011, 07:24 PM
I don't dispute that this is occurring.

But I DO dispute that it's the proper role of government to correct it. Even if it were the proper role of government to correct the imbalance, the solution would cause more problems than it would solve. If anything, the shareholders of the company should be the ones getting concerned. If the shareholders are fine with it, or it's a privately held company, what business is it of yours?

Are you yourself willing to operate under a pay cap, OP? Or is it "myself & present company excluded" as it is with most socialist issues?

DavidJr74
02-03-2011, 07:25 PM
The dot com boom?

ah that makes sense cause the graph correlates with the bubble burst as well...surely that can't be the only reason though.

GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:25 PM
It should be "logical" fallacies, not "illogical" fallacies. Just sayin'

Also, saying phrases like that doesn't make you sound smart. You labeled yourself as a follower of democratic socialism based off of a chart that shows CEO's make a lot of money now compared to pre-1996. That's a pretty shallow reason to follow a movement. Whatever though, I'm sure you want to beat your dikk thinking about how smart you are so I'll leave you to that.

MORE fallacies. Ad hominem, straw-man...

Just fuk off if you have no argument :rolleyes:

r0gue6
02-03-2011, 07:26 PM
I don't dispute that this is occurring.

But I DO dispute that it's the proper role of government to correct it. Even if it were the proper role of government to correct the imbalance, the solution would cause more problems than it would solve. If anything, the shareholders of the company should be the ones getting concerned. If the shareholders are fine with it, or it's a privately held company, what business is it of yours?

Are you yourself willing to operate under a pay cap, OP? Or is it "myself & present company excluded" as it is with most socialist issues?

Sure, I'll work for 24 times average worker pay no problem.

Goin by the lowest point on the chart.

Then, it would actually benefit me to raise the average pay of my workers....pretty cool concept.

GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:27 PM
I don't dispute that this is occurring.

But I DO dispute that it's the proper role of government to correct it. Even if it were the proper role of government to correct the imbalance, the solution would cause more problems than it would solve.
I think this is one of those misconceptions that simply because we think then it surely means it will. Know what I'm saying?

A properly balanced government (Democratic) in theory, causes no problems since it appeals the majority of people (as opposed to a centralized Federal bureaucracy catering to large corporations, viz; U.S. Congress).

r0gue6
02-03-2011, 07:31 PM
I think this is one of those misconceptions that simply because we think then it surely means it will. Know what I'm saying?

A properly balanced government (Democratic) in theory, causes no problems since it appeals the majority of people (as opposed to a centralized Federal bureaucracy catering to large corporations, viz; U.S. Congress).

The problem with our country is money in politics.

Right now, Democracy is controlled by money, and those with all the money don't represent the country at all.

JB05
02-03-2011, 07:32 PM
A properly balanced government (Democratic) in theory, causes no problems since it appeals the majority of people

Umm.. no. Direct democracy satisfies as little as 51% of people. By your logic, it "causes no problems" that about a dozen US states have had referendums and decided gay marriage should be illegal, right? It appeases the majority of the people, so everyone should be happy.

GMayne
02-03-2011, 07:33 PM
Umm.. no. Direct democracy satisfies as little as 51% of people. By your logic, it "causes no problems" that about a dozen US states have had referendums and decided gay marriage should be illegal, right? It appeases the majority of the people, so everyone should be happy.
that doesn't make any sense

JB05
02-03-2011, 07:37 PM
Sure, I'll work for 24 times average worker pay no problem.

Goin by the lowest point on the chart.

Then, it would actually benefit me to raise the average pay of my workers....pretty cool concept.

Would you apply that to wealthy liberal CEOs as well, such as Bill Gates, Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffet?

What about CEOs such as Ted Turner and Jon Huntsman who plan to die penniless as they give to charity? What good would that serve?

Also, what in the Constitution allows for the government to dictate pay to workers in privately held companies? If they could cap CEO pay, why couldn't they cap the pay of all workers, creating a de facto caste system?

These are big issues, you need to get past the unfairness and class envy emotions and think things through.

JB05
02-03-2011, 07:39 PM
that doesn't make any sense

Is direct democracy good?

If yes, you should be happy about slim majorities of voters banning gay marriage

If no, you just contradicted yourself

r0gue6
02-03-2011, 07:40 PM
Would you apply that to wealthy liberal CEOs as well, such as Bill Gates, Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffet?

What about CEOs such as Ted Turner and Jon Huntsman who plan to die penniless as they give to charity? What good would that serve?

Also, what in the Constitution allows for the government to dictate pay to workers in privately held companies? If they could cap CEO pay, why couldn't they cap the pay of all workers, creating a de facto caste system?

These are big issues, you need to get past the unfairness and class envy emotions and think things through.

Brah, this is like calling someone a racist, it's dumb as ****.

I don't care that there are rich people, they work hard and made some cash, good on them, I'd apply the rule to every person in the USA. Max pay you can receive is 25 times the average salary in your company, don't see why it would be an issue.

What we have now is insane though, it's well beyond greed and corruption.

stevarius
02-03-2011, 07:44 PM
MORE fallacies. Ad hominem, straw-man...

Just fuk off if you have no argument :rolleyes:

Give ****ty argument.

Label every attack against said ****ty argument a logical fallacy even when it's irrelevant because a single chart showing CEO pay in relation to workers is not enough to justify the encouragement of use of an alternative economic system.


Want to know what's illogical? Encouraging people to disprove your argument based off this terrible chart that serves as nothing to make your point in any way valid.

JB05
02-03-2011, 07:45 PM
What we have now is insane though, it's well beyond greed and corruption.

That may be true. But what gives you, or the U.S. government under our current Constitution, the right to do anything about it?

If you don't like it, become a major shareholder in the corporation in question, make your position known, and vote in a supportive board of directors. Let me know how your stock does when you can only attract a 3rd string CEO.

How does this affect you, or anyone else not affiliated with the corporations in question, in any sort of negative way? It doesn't.

sportsfan7
02-03-2011, 07:45 PM
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Needs no explanation.

you realize CEO pay is a drop in the bucket on an entire payroll????????????

i seriously don't get why this stat is cited so much. CEOs could make twice what they do now and no one would be worse off..

sportsfan7
02-03-2011, 07:47 PM
That may be true. But what gives you, or the U.S. government under our current Constitution, the right to do anything about it?

If you don't like it, become a major shareholder in the corporation in question, make your position known, and vote in a supportive board of directors. Let me know how your stock does when you can only attract a 3rd string CEO.

How does this affect you, or anyone else not affiliated with the corporations in question, in any sort of negative way? It doesn't.

Um, if it would help so much, start a company where you pay your CEO that. Obviously, you have a superior business model; you should have trouble finding investors and getting a great CEO. Right?

r0gue6
02-03-2011, 07:55 PM
That may be true. But what gives you, or the U.S. government under our current Constitution, the right to do anything about it?

If you don't like it, become a major shareholder in the corporation in question, make your position known, and vote in a supportive board of directors. Let me know how your stock does when you can only attract a 3rd string CEO.

How does this affect you, or anyone else not affiliated with the corporations in question, in any sort of negative way? It doesn't.

This post is so full of retard I don't know where to begin.

1. If a Federal Minimum Wage has been upheld by the SCOTUS I don't see why a Federal Maximum Wage wouldn't be.

2. I have a huge list of CEO's of major companies that ran them into the ground, also, if the rules were applied to all, then it makes the whole attracting A list CEO's a moot point anyway.

3. How does what affect me? A maximum pay?

JB05
02-03-2011, 07:59 PM
Um, if it would help so much, start a company where you pay your CEO that. Obviously, you have a superior business model; you should have trouble finding investors and getting a great CEO. Right?

No. CEOs don't work somewhere because of a "great business model" nor are they particularly concerned about investors when deciding where to work. The primary way most rational individuals make employment decisions is on the basis of compensation (and other, lesser factors).

When Company A pays their CEO $6.8 Million, and Company B pays their CEO $7.5 Million, and you're looking for a CEO who will work for $800,000, guess who gets the better CEO?

JB05
02-03-2011, 08:08 PM
This post is so full of retard I don't know where to begin.

1. If a Federal Minimum Wage has been upheld by the SCOTUS I don't see why a Federal Maximum Wage wouldn't be.

2. I have a huge list of CEO's of major companies that ran them into the ground, also, if the rules were applied to all, then it makes the whole attracting A list CEO's a moot point anyway.

3. How does what affect me? A maximum pay?

1. I don't think thats likely.

2. Say we were to cap CEO pay @ $2 Million. Where is the challenge? Where is the risk and reward? What about age, experience, wisdom, know-how, reputation? Why would anyone want to work for difficult companies like AIG? Prestige?

3. No, how do exorbitant CEO pays affect you? Unless you're a shareholder, they don't. I'm not concerned about the price of wool in Pakistan, because it doesn't affect me. It's not rational to be concerned with things that don't affect you. You must either be concerned out of envy or an incorrect view of society based on Marxist notions or zero-sum economics and the treatment of people as classes.

GMayne
02-03-2011, 08:12 PM
2. Say we were to cap CEO pay @ $2 Million. Where is the challenge? Where is the risk and reward? What about age, experience, wisdom, know-how, reputation? Why would anyone want to work for difficult companies like AIG? Prestige?

SOMEONE is bound to compete hard for that 2 million job, believe me.

Some might not, but you're gonna get a guy out there who will be as qualified and as motivated to get that position.

Christanie
02-03-2011, 08:14 PM
Also, what in the Constitution allows for the government to dictate pay to workers in privately held companies? If they could cap CEO pay, why couldn't they cap the pay of all workers, creating a de facto caste system?

^^
This.

Be thankful that what you have is a minimum wage, instead of a wage cap. If they can cap CEO wages, then they'll be able to cap blue collar workers as well. Inb4 $2 a day.

The fact that there is no ceiling is what allows you to be able to rise out of your class. That was why the 90's kicked so much a** for so many people.

Beatitude
02-03-2011, 08:21 PM
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.jpg
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Needs no explanation.

So as the US has gradually moved closer to the democratic socialism spectrum over the last few decades, while CEO salaries likewise go up... you conclude that you should support democratic socialism??



Note that I am not claiming that democratic socialism is the reason that CEO salaries have become more and more obscene, but it does suggest that perhaps the reason is independent from market liberalism / socialism and is instead rooted in the fact that over the last few decades we've experienced more and more company mergers, and thus less CEOs with the remaining CEOs naturally having much larger salaries?

If I was feeling ambitious I might argue that decreased market labor freedom contributed toward these higher salaries, but I'll leave it here.

Christanie
02-03-2011, 08:28 PM
The reason salaries have risen is because of inflation.

If the prices of goods and services gets higher, then salaries have to rise to match that (so people can still buy them).

It doesn't necessarily mean that those CEOs are *richer* though. It just means that the purchasing power of our dollar has eroded. (no bueno) That's what happened in 1996.

bradlehman
02-03-2011, 08:32 PM
Democratic Socialism, i.e. Marxism that focuses on the working class by virtue of Democratic ownership.

"Working class" is a non-term. We have no "idle rich" noble class like existed in feudal England. Fewer than 2% of millionaires inherit their money. CEOs work very hard and have an enormous amount of responsibility, far more responsibility than some unskilled union laborer hitting a button all day at the GM plant. Corporations are created to make money for their shareholders. If the shareholders reward the CEO with $40 million, who cares? It's their money being given away. They might think that's a fair reward for bringing in $8 billion in profit. If you want to benefit, become a shareholder, an employee with stock options, or CEO.

CEOs are responsible for the company 24 hours a day, every day of the year. An hourly worker at a mechanic's shop goes home at 4 or 5 and doesn't have to worry about work until the next day. The hourly worker doesn't manage interactions with the media, participate in high-level talks with the government and other corporations, or have to answer to thousands of angry shareholders if the number of oil changes decreases from year to year.

Jealousy and an unwarranted sense of entitlement are all that fuel this sort of ideology. Political proponents of this ideology already have money so they play the poor and ignorant against the wealthy in order to get votes. No one gives a **** about you.

Edit: Another prime example of this vote-seeking behavior is the movement to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Do you honestly believe that a major political party in the United States is genuinely so sympathetic with the plight of poor, uneducated Central Americans that they want to flood our system with them? Isn't it more likely that they want to flood the system with a lot of poor, uneducated people who will vote for them?

hooked4life
02-03-2011, 08:34 PM
The reason salaries have risen is because of inflation.

If the prices of goods and services gets higher, then salaries have to rise to match that (so people can still buy them).

It doesn't necessarily mean that those CEOs are *richer* though. It just means that the purchasing power of our dollar has eroded. (no bueno) That's what happened in 1996.

Naaaa, there has been very little inflation in the past decades. Like absurdly low inflation.

AllFapInsurance
02-03-2011, 08:34 PM
MORE fallacies. Ad hominem, straw-man...

Just fuk off if you have no argument :rolleyes:

Steps:

1) Make a post that has little or no relevance to an entire system of government
2) Get questioned on why that is
3) Throw words like "fallacy" around while saying it wrong in the first place to look dumb
4) Get questioned again
5) Use words like straw man and ad hominem

^-----Thanks for the heads up




Idiot: HEY GUYS, I SAW A VIDEO OF SOMEONE KILLING A COW YESTERDAY SO I'M AGAINST PEOPLE EATING MEAT!!!!!!

Person: Uh, shouldn't you have more reasoning than that?

Idiot: FALLACY!!!! AD HOMINEM!!!!! STRAWMAN!!!!!!!!!

Person: Dude, I'm just saying you shouldn't label yourself as something because of one video.

Idiot: FALLACY!!!! AD HOMINEM!!!!! STRAWMAN!!!!!!!!!

Christanie
02-03-2011, 09:05 PM
Naaaa, there has been very little inflation in the past decades. Like absurdly low inflation.


Sorry about that. Should have clarified. I was talking about the inflation of real estate prices specifically with the real estate bubble.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/united_states.png

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/united_states.png

r0gue6
02-03-2011, 10:05 PM
The reason salaries have risen is because of inflation.

If the prices of goods and services gets higher, then salaries have to rise to match that (so people can still buy them).

It doesn't necessarily mean that those CEOs are *richer* though. It just means that the purchasing power of our dollar has eroded. (no bueno) That's what happened in 1996.

lol, post some facts then instead of this stupid bull****.

Show me how inflation has gone from 24:1 CEO to average worker pay to 300:1 in 30 years, considering average worker pay should also increase with inflation.....

Did you even think before saying anything?

hooked4life
02-03-2011, 10:07 PM
Sorry about that. Should have clarified. I was talking about the inflation of real estate prices specifically with the real estate bubble.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/united_states.png

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/united_states.png

So CEO salaries are a result of housing prices going up?

Christanie
02-03-2011, 10:08 PM
lol, post some facts then instead of this stupid bull****.

Show me how inflation has gone from 24:1 CEO to average worker pay to 300:1 in 30 years, considering average worker pay should also increase with inflation.....

Did you even think before saying anything?

Cool it muffinhead!

Look at the post above you.

All my love,
Christanie

r0gue6
02-03-2011, 10:11 PM
So CEO salaries are a result of housing prices going up?

Yah dude didn't you know....CEO pay is now based on a ratio of CEO pay:average home price.

CoolStoryBros
02-03-2011, 10:17 PM
I find it interesting that you choose to ignore all of the CEOs that use their high incomes to directly benefit the community ie Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark

Go away, Ralph.

http://www.viren.ca/images/reagonomics.jpg

leafs43
02-03-2011, 10:24 PM
You support democratic socialism because of the popularization of stock options?

That is kind of a weak argument.

Christanie
02-03-2011, 10:44 PM
So CEO salaries are a result of housing prices going up?

Numerous factors really. All play a role in feeding off each other. The corporation's desire to remain competitive and attract top notch CEOs (the creme de la creme), the increase in home prices, The Fed issued more money in 1996 --> more $ in circulation --> people spent more $ --> corporation made more profits --> had more $ to offer CEOs, etc.....

What are your thoughts?

hooked4life
02-03-2011, 10:48 PM
Numerous factors really. All play a role in feeding off each other. The corporation's desire to remain competitive and attract top notch CEOs (the creme de la creme), the increase in home prices, The Fed issued more money in 1996 --> more $ in circulation --> people spent more $ --> corporation made more profits --> had more $ to offer CEOs, etc.....

What are your thoughts?

I feel that a ballin CEO in the US is way richer than they were 50 years ago. I feel that this is not a result of CEOs today being better, or adding mroe to society than 50 years ago. I feel it's result of policies the demos has allowed (executed under our elected leadership), and thus they have no more 'right' to make 300 times more than the average American than the demos says they do.

Edit: the above is posted by a guy who will spent friday, saturday, and sunday night pouring over books in an attempt to become a partner in big-law firm.

Who?
02-03-2011, 10:53 PM
I think this is one of those misconceptions that simply because we think then it surely means it will. Know what I'm saying?

A properly balanced government (Democratic) in theory, causes no problems since it appeals the majority of people (as opposed to a centralized Federal bureaucracy catering to large corporations, viz; U.S. Congress).

This post cannot be serious....

Christanie
02-03-2011, 10:55 PM
I feel that a ballin CEO in the US is way richer than they were 50 years ago. I feel that this is not a result of CEOs today being better, or adding mroe to society than 50 years ago. I feel it's result of policies the demos has allowed (executed under our elected leadership), and thus they have no more 'right' to make 300 times more than the average American than the demos says they do.

Edit: the above is posted by a guy who will spent friday, saturday, and sunday night pouring over books in an attempt to become a partner in big-law firm.

In comparing today's CEOs to 50 years ago, do you think that's partially due to technology? Mass production of goods has become much easier (less manpower).

Additionally, since our population is larger ---> more consumers.

Pump that iron!
02-03-2011, 10:58 PM
Democratic Socialism, i.e. Marxism that focuses on the working class by virtue of Democratic ownership.

That isn't democractic socialism. Democractic socialism, as opposed to Marxist socialism, is the achievement of socialism through democractic means. So the focus is not necessarily on the working class but everyone. Furthermore, it differs from Marxist socialism in that Marx believed that socialism was only a temporary stage of economic development which would eventually lead to full out communism. I could be wrong about this latter statement but I don't think so.


No one said this argument was rooted in any type of economic theory (I would have attacked Free market capitalism if that was one of my points). My point is regarding the social welfare of ALL Americans by virtue of Democracy.

Your illogical fallacies astound me...

Well, it should be logical fallacies - that which is fallacious is illogical so it is a bit redundant to describe a fallacy as illogical lol.

Your point about concern for the social welfare of all people (why just Americans, brah? lol) here is more in line with democractic socialist ideals so glad you corrected your earlier mistake.

hooked4life
02-03-2011, 11:21 PM
In comparing today's CEOs to 50 years ago, do you think that's partially due to technology? Mass production of goods has become much easier (less manpower).

Additionally, since our population is larger ---> more consumers.

I don't see why that's the case. Kings and Lords had more comparative wealth than the CEO's of today.

I'm trying to find it, but there was a really compressive study done a few years ago about world trade, and country by country it directly correlated to identifiable policies. I see no reason why CEO wealth wouldn't be the same.

Another edit: do you think it's impossible for the comparative wealth of the rich to be a direct product of national law and regulation?

Christanie
02-03-2011, 11:50 PM
I don't see why that's the case. Kings and Lords had more comparative wealth than the CEO's of today.

I'm trying to find it, but there was a really compressive study done a few years ago about world trade, and country by country it directly correlated to identifiable policies. I see no reason why CEO wealth wouldn't be the same.

Another edit: do you think it's impossible for the comparative wealth of the rich to be a direct product of national law and regulation?

Not impossible at all. So many variables to take into consideration. Tax brackets and rates play a huge role.

In 1960, the marginal tax rate for Married filing Jointly with $300,000-400,00 was 90%. (91% for anything over)

In 2011, marginal tax rate for Married filing Jointly with $373,650+ is 35%.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

(I think the difference between kings and lords and CEOs is that the former had more direct authority over the peasants and lower classes. So their wealth was more acquired by force and seizure than by fair transaction).

Penile_Dementia
02-04-2011, 02:00 AM
[img]http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060621.
Needs no explanation.

It is completely insufficient in comparing democratic socialism to any alternative system, including capitalism or/and the system where CEO pay rose like that, therefore, if your thread title is true, your support of democratic socialism is a non sequitur.

I support social democracy, partially because almost all developed countries (and probably all with high levels of social freedom), well, are social democracies. It's a proven system, unlike the rather different democratic socialism.