Can rational self interest and socialism be reconciled?

[BrokenDaniel]

Here in the Uk we pay into state pensions and we can also if we want open a private pension policy

Private pension policies are often gambled as investments and people often lose them and the state pensions are being taken away from us because they keep raising the retirement age

By the time i retire i won't be allowed to retire! (depsite having paid money into the pot all my life)

This...
My country is a scam that way. If you choose not to invest on a private pension the minimum that you'll get from the state it's a joke, which forces many actually retired persons to keep on working and generating sources of income.

 

[Skarekrow]

This...
My country is a scam that way. If you choose not to invest on a private pension the minimum that you'll get from the state it's a joke, which forces many actually retired persons to keep on working and generating sources of income.

This is the same thing here in the US too….except, Wall Street collapses and basically ‘steals’ a huge percentage of that income you had saved.
Absolute fucking insanity.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

 

[Lark]

Will you please translate for me?

The people who disbelieve in democracy usually instead believe in capitalism, I think capitalism is the greater lie.

 

[finifugal]

Not everything can be planned for. Some day you may learn just how wrong you are and youll be grateful for a system that can lend a helping hand.

If my son had a life threatening illness, then yes, I would ask for any hand out needed. My pride would fall silently. But that is not quite what I meant. Whether or not I'd like being SOL, it would still be wrong of me to take help if I didn't try to plan for the "rainy days." People who don't plan at all are selfish. People who saved and still come up short may be deserving.
Now what of those who cannot save at all? Do they exist? Is it really impossible for some to save? Are there those who are too poor despite trying? Should we carry them?? Is it for the greater good to let them go? Or do we need them? We can't save everybody, can we? I wonder..

 

[finifugal]

The people who disbelieve in democracy usually instead believe in capitalism, I think capitalism is the greater lie.

What if I have little faith in both? I see everything as us chasing our tails anyways.

 

[CogentPursuit]

What if I have little faith in both? I see everything as us chasing our tails anyways.

Have faith in neither. Have faith only in Both where applied in the appropriate places.

 

[Skarekrow]

For example...

 

[Skarekrow]

[video=youtube;TKKsXLtovm4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TKKsXLtovm4[/video]

 

[Lark]

Those are funny, where are they from?

I actually do think that the gay feminist aesthetic in many ways buried the left wing permanently, Marxism and other mainstays are only really registering in the popular psyche as things to make fun of these days.

 

[Lark]

What if I have little faith in both? I see everything as us chasing our tails anyways.

I think the fundamental nature of economics is that it is, by this stage, a mixing of public and private sectors, a successful economy is also mixed within each sector, it is not a mono-economy supplying nothing but cash crops, mined natural resources etc.

It is the forces which fundamentally deny this and instead engage in very binear logic, private good, public bad for instance, who vex me the most. The privatisation mania which exists on both left and right is about shirking responsibility and leaving it with anyone but politicians, it sets no example to anyone despite the fact that those who are the greatest fans of it are those, ironically, most comfortable talking about personal responsibility.

I wouldnt say that this mixed economic reality is either socialism or capitalism, increasingly it can not even stabilise itself and the remedies which approximate one or the other exclusive ownership model are likely to make things worse. Hilaire Belloc wrote about this in The Servile State, he was a fan of something called distributivism, which is parodied in the remark "three acres and a cow" which favoured a minimal state intervention in economic affairs once the widest possible dispersal of property to all was achieved. He was an interesting thinker.

 

[Skarekrow]

New study they just talked about on the news… Americans aged 65 and older who cannot afford to retire will rise from 13% to 20% in the next couple decades…and in fact are living on $36,000 a year or less.
That’s 72 MILLION adults.
I’ll look for the actual study to link to.
http://www.urban.org/retirees/
http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Page...ericans-attitudes-on-work-and-retirement.aspx

So something is going to have to address this issue…otherwise we will be throwing the Boomer Generation out in the street….not that they don’t deserve that once you understand how this generation destroyed most of the social safety nets our country has….maybe they do deserve it.
But I will never side with letting people suffer….even if it is justified.

 

[Lark]

New study they just talked about on the news… Americans aged 65 and older who cannot afford to retire will rise from 13% to 20% in the next couple decades…and in fact are living on $36,000 a year or less.
That’s 72 MILLION adults.
I’ll look for the actual study to link to.
http://www.urban.org/retirees/
http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Page...ericans-attitudes-on-work-and-retirement.aspx

So something is going to have to address this issue…otherwise we will be throwing the Boomer Generation out in the street….not that they don’t deserve that once you understand how this generation destroyed most of the social safety nets our country has….maybe they do deserve it.
But I will never side with letting people suffer….even if it is justified.

That is interesting, I think its flawed too, having read Simone Weil's book Oppression and Liberty in which she posits that a worthy goal for socialists (or anyone if you ask me) is removing avoidable suffering but that not all suffering is avoidable and its important to know the difference I think natural and logical consequences for some decisions should be left in place most of the time.

Although, there's a possible caveat to that, what is important is that the same natural or logical consequences are recognisable either to the individual or others (I'm open to the idea that some people, through their own consistent choices, will only serve as cautionary tales to others). There's got to be teachable moments in life and that's just the way things are. If someone learns from their misadventure and that's a pretty sure thing then I'd say they have my sympathy and I'd be more likely to try and mitigate the consequences and relieve the suffering but the idea that bad decisions are consequence free would be the worst possible lesson to learn.

 

[Skarekrow]

That is interesting, I think its flawed too, having read Simone Weil's book Oppression and Liberty in which she posits that a worthy goal for socialists (or anyone if you ask me) is removing avoidable suffering but that not all suffering is avoidable and its important to know the difference I think natural and logical consequences for some decisions should be left in place most of the time.

Although, there's a possible caveat to that, what is important is that the same natural or logical consequences are recognisable either to the individual or others (I'm open to the idea that some people, through their own consistent choices, will only serve as cautionary tales to others). There's got to be teachable moments in life and that's just the way things are. If someone learns from their misadventure and that's a pretty sure thing then I'd say they have my sympathy and I'd be more likely to try and mitigate the consequences and relieve the suffering but the idea that bad decisions are consequence free would be the worst possible lesson to learn.

Well, if it were true that it were only because of the poor choices that they made in life I would say “Sucks doesn’t it?” But that doesn’t mean I would still leave them to rot.
But as a matter of fact, the employers who are the big businesses in the US hold some responsibility.
Programs that once were almost free, because allowing them to be almost free, allowed the US to continue win in the world market…like higher education.
College was never free (unless you had a scholarship) but it was easily affordable for someone working part-time minimum wage.
Now, you are practically taking out a mortgage. You know where the root of that word came from? It means “Death pledge” in other words “in debt till death”.
That is this country now…everything has been privatized for profit…and more and more people are being priced out of the market.

I say I wouldn’t let them suffer because it is needless. We have the ability to keep our elderly from being homeless in the street.
So as much as I hate the Boomer Gen. for all they have done to tear this country apart…it is those who are reaping the benefits of the Wall Street collapse who should be made to pay. They have systematically destroyed the unions…medical benefits…retirements savings….pensions.
It is also those who have not raised wages in 30 years while EVERYTHING else in this country inflated.
People like Wal-Mart who made $17,000,000,000.00 in profit last year….where is the social responsibility? They are also the largest employer recipient of food stamps because they purposefully keep their employees from reaching the hours where things like benefits would kick in.
Just a couple days ago they announced they were cutting 30,000 employees and their families off their already scarce health insurance at the same time they announce their stores would be selling health insurance.
This is the attitude here in the US…the majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck…they are in debt….they cannot save...

 

[BrokenDaniel]

Those are funny, where are they from?

I actually do think that the gay feminist aesthetic in many ways buried the left wing permanently, Marxism and other mainstays are only really registering in the popular psyche as things to make fun of these days.

I saw them in an article in the internet a few days ago. I'm not sure where they came from, the name stuck after i saw them so i just searched cosmarxpolitan and i got many results.

 

[muir]

This...
My country is a scam that way. If you choose not to invest on a private pension the minimum that you'll get from the state it's a joke, which forces many actually retired persons to keep on working and generating sources of income.

Since i said that about the pensions the papers have a run a story about how the government have now admitted that future generations will not get any state pension

 

[muir]

The people who disbelieve in democracy usually instead believe in capitalism, I think capitalism is the greater lie.

As some commmentators like chomsky are saying certain terms like 'socialism', 'capitalism', 'communism' and all the usual -isms are losing their meaning because different people are using these terms in different ways

But the real litmus test...the way to cut through all the bullshit is to find out if a person is for centralisation or decentralisation of power

If a person believes in centralisation of power then they basically believe in handing over all decision making power to other people and just hoping that those people won't be evil oppressors

Those that believe in decentralisation understand that unfortunately there are some evil people in the world and that the only way we can protect ourselves is to have a say in the decision making process

People wonder why our countries have become so oppressive and the answer is simple....we have given away all decision making powers to centralised authority

The swiss on the other hand have regular referendums on all sorts of issues and as such are able to ensure a greater degree of democracy

The solution to all these problems is for the people to demand that they have a greater say in the decision making process. At the moment though money talks and money controls politics in the US and UK. The richest section of society dictate policy by bribing politicians

This doesn't need violence on the part of the people it just needs peaceful non-compliance; it needs the public to act in concert, as one, to down tools until a new political system is created whereby decisions are made by the public not by politicians ruled by powerful lobby groups. In the internet we have the perfect tool to do this

If the people decide the shape of their communities then their world will be more in accord with their needs...it's that simlple

If we continue to let the corporations dictate policy then the world will become increasingly harsh to the public as the corporate network seek to hoard the wealth...it's that simple

So what we need is MORE democracy not less

We simply must not let a central authority make all the decisions because as sure as night follows day that authority will be oppressive and dictatorial

 

[SlowUpTake]

Since i said that about the pensions the papers have a run a story about how the government have now admitted that future generations will not get any state pension

which part of the government does Michael Johnson of Centre for Policy Studies work for? or his he only and advocate of decentrilised Business-managed democracies ?

 

[muir]

which part of the government does Michael Johnson of Centre for Policy Studies work for? or his he only and advocate of decentrilised Business-managed democracies ?

Who's he?

 

[SlowUpTake]

State pensions handed out to future generations will be ‘derisory’, with cash reserves set to run out as soon as next year, a report has warned.
A ‘serious flaw’ in the national accounts will leave the Government short of funds to pay pensioners within the next year, according to the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank.
As a result, the Treasury will soon be forced to raid income tax receipts in order to keep up the payments, it said.
An academic at the CPS warned that the research shows the current level of state pension is ‘unsustainable’.
Michael Johnson called for urgent government action to prevent pensions being ‘watered down to a basic subsistence’.
He said the research suggested that the millions of taxpayers who are currently aged under 45 would face sharp tax increases and would have to wait longer to receive their state retirement income.
Those aged under 35 should prepare for state pensions to be scrapped altogether by the time they retire, he claimed.
An ageing population will see the state pension bill quadruple to £420billion over the next 60 years, official figures released this week show.
Mr Johnson told the Daily Telegraph: ‘It doesn’t matter which government is elected next year, the state pension age will have to go up much faster and sooner than anyone expects to cover the funding deficit.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...flaw-Government-s-accounts.html#ixzz3FlWk6thg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

i figured since you said the gov admitted it that he was a g-man