exploration of what good and evil is

[Jude]

I feel like you aren't really addressing my points of contention.  It seems to me that are ignoring many of them as unimportant inconveniences and then introducing ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis to bandage up your wounded theory in small ways and continuing on as if nothing has happened.  As such, I feel this discussion is unfruitful and I will regrettably have to depart from this discourse.

[Cooper5362]

Actually, Jude, I would be interested in hearing your construct of good and evil.  I already know mine looks invalid to you.  That does not mean yours would not look invalid to me.

[Zakharra]

U.S. History of Capitalism and Socialism:  The U.S. was founded under capitalism and the government only taxed citizens about 10% without using a federal income tax.  Federal income tax was in fact illegal.  It is interesting that the current U.S. tax system does not actually draw any authority from laws.  Many people have demonstrated that the IRS is actually unconstitutional, despite the fact it is necessary and the U.S. has no intention of dissolving the IRS. [/quote]

Incorrect. The federal income tax is legal. It's an amendment in the Constitution. The 16th amendment.

The early 1900s brought about the company store, where business leaders discovered they could trap their employees in a false kind of debt by paying them less than they could live from and work for the company under corporately run communities.

An example of unregulated capitalism. It's a good thing that kind is gone.

They also discovered they could take unsecured loans (called stocks) from the public and then pocket the money by not paying back the value of the stock.

They can sell that stock at any time. The value is there.

These two strategies under capitalism, in the interest of personal profit, created a very powerful money elite and put about 40% of the work force idle and starving to death since the elite had no use for them by the time of the Great Depression.

I'm not sure how you jump from the fact there were wealthy people to them being responsible for the unemployment of the Great Depression. That seems like a pretty big leap.

 

The financial elite were forced to spend a lot of their ill gotten gains to stop the Nazis when the Nazis decided to use their new found economic power to militarily try to take over Europe.  In the U.S., socialism stabilized for a time because of all the money put back in circulation to stop the Nazis and imperial Japan.

Ill gotten gains? They earned it by being successful business men. It's not ill gotten unless they stole it. Which most did not do. They worked hard to get it.

[Cooper5362]

Jude, reading your earlier post, my basic understanding of your premise is that good and evil are merely products of social contracts.  Does that sound accurate, or am I off in understanding your position?

[Cooper5362]

Zakharra, I hope you are right in that the legal system is good, but I have lost my faith in it as it stands now.  The monetary system seems to be a weak compromise to me as well, but I do hope that the proponents of it can make it work for a change if we are going to be stuck with it.

I agree the federal income tax was legalized.  I had been illegal originally was my point.  The IRS has never been "legal" per se, but exists strongly under current U.S. social contracts.

We agree capitalism doesn't work unregulated.

When stocks carry the same guarantees as a home mortgage, they'll impress me as legitimate.

You can't employ a person if you don't have money to pay them.  Unemployment is a direct result of no money circulation.  If money is stuck in a deposit, we all know the size of the bank accounts that do that.

Capitalism fails because all profit is guaranteed to be unfair.  Just by quantization error along, a monetary trade for goods is guaranteed to short change one party or the other.  Most successful businessmen have only figured out ways to consistently short change their customers.  They are ill gotten gains in the end.  If profit were fair, leaders would have the same amount of personal income as their followers.  There is a reason money goes out of circulation and depression ensues.

It's obvious to me good and evil play out in our legal and monetary systems.  Depression is a sure sign of greed and evil.  Wrongful convictions and repeat offenders also demonstrate evil at play in our legal system.

[Oniya]

When stocks carry the same guarantees as a home mortgage, they'll impress me as legitimate.

Have you been looking at the housing market in the last two years?  O_o

[mystictiger]

It's obvious to me good and evil play out in our legal and monetary systems.  Depression is a sure sign of greed and evil.  Wrongful convictions and repeat offenders also demonstrate evil at play in our legal system.

Or just... errors and mistakes.

[Zakharra]

Zakharra, I hope you are right in that the legal system is good, but I have lost my faith in it as it stands now.  The monetary system seems to be a weak compromise to me as well, but I do hope that the proponents of it can make it work for a change if we are going to be stuck with it.

It's the only way to effectively give value for work. The barter system will never work for a high tech society. Which this is.

I agree the federal income tax was legalized.  I had been illegal originally was my point.  The IRS has never been "legal" per se, but exists strongly under current U.S. social contracts.

The IRS IS legal.

When stocks carry the same guarantees as a home mortgage, they'll impress me as legitimate.

If you have enough stock,  yes they can match a home mortgage, but no one stock share will ever equal that. Nor should it.

You can't employ a person if you don't have money to pay them.  Unemployment is a direct result of no money circulation.  If money is stuck in a deposit, we all know the size of the bank accounts that do that.

You also cannot hire/pay people if no one is buying your product. The lack of money works both ways and you are forgetting that the wealthy spent money too. They do not horde it and keep it safe and unspent.

Capitalism fails because all profit is guaranteed to be unfair.  Just by quantization error along, a monetary trade for goods is guaranteed to short change one party or the other.  Most successful businessmen have only figured out ways to consistently short change their customers.  They are ill gotten gains in the end.  If profit were fair, leaders would have the same amount of personal income as their followers.  There is a reason money goes out of circulation and depression ensues.

Then by your definition, every single business man, stockholder and shareholder in a company is evil. Why do you see profits as unfair? People are willing to pay the cost for the item/service. What makes it unfair and evil?  Most successful businessmen give their product for a FAIR price. They do not gouge people. They are not shortchanging them.

I do not see how profits can be fair if the owners of the company make the same income as the employeers. That's hardly fair. The owners deal with a lot more issues than  the employees do and the most successful ones put a lot of work into making their business successful.

And again you're forgetting, or ignoring that wealthy people spend a LOT of money.

It's obvious to me good and evil play out in our legal and monetary systems.  Depression is a sure sign of greed and evil.  Wrongful convictions and repeat offenders also demonstrate evil at play in our legal system.

So far you've only posted stuff that shows your view of the 'evils' of the economy. There have been business tycoons that have gone to jail in the last few years.

[Asuras]

When stocks carry the same guarantees as a home mortgage, they'll impress me as legitimate.

When you buy a stock you are buying a piece of the company. You get a piece of its profits, and (with common stock) you get the right to fire the managers of the company if they aren't doing well enough for you.

If you want the security of a mortgage, then you can buy corporate debt or preferred stock. If the company goes bankrupt owners of corporate debt and preferred stock get first dibs on the company's assets. You will have a measure of protection, but you will pay for the protection.

On average, holders of equity (stocks) vastly outperform holders of debt (mortgages, bonds, loans...). Stocks get around 10% a year because the people who own them bear greater risk; the people who own corporate debt get around half that.

In order to have a growing economy - one that invests in new factories, new technologies, whatever - you need to be able to take risk. There must be places for people to invest in that risk, and stocks are probably the best way for a company to get financing for investment, and also the best way for investors to get returns.

[Apple of Eris]

Socialism is the hybrid of communism versus capitalism.  It becomes necessary to get a real measure of a particular nation's economic control to determine just how much of the money flow is taxed.  I put socialism at the balance point of 50%.  My normal assumption is a 25% tax or lower for the capitalist end of the spectrum and 75% or higher for the communist end since both communities tend to be staunch in their idealism and loyalty to their systems.  33% or lower for capitalism and 67% or higher for communism is still a fair line to draw on the spectrum, giving each method of economic control a fair share of the spectrum, though.

So... you're taking terms that all ready have definitions, and redefining them?

The Germans, who were the worst off from the starvation, actually rose up and took the money not in circulation by force and put it back in circulation in their country.  They implemented a kind of communism called Nazism, but the strategy received a socialist label in the history books because the Germans did not want to associate their communism with the Soviets.  The financial elite were forced to spend a lot of their ill gotten gains to stop the Nazis when the Nazis decided to use their new found economic power to militarily try to take over Europe.

I suggest reading a book on the rise of Nazism in Germany. The 'people' did not rise up and steal money from the elite to put it into circulation. Nazi leaders began printing currency at reckless levels, the also began several credit-swapping programs trading one form of junk money for reichmarks that were essentially worthless. It is likely, that had WWII not started when it did, Germany would have endured a financial collapse greater than any in today's Europe. If you want references for this so that you know I'm not just making this up, I suggest reading Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Also Nazism was -not- communism in any form. Nazi's had socialist in the name, that's it. They promised a number of socialist types reforms, but as soon as money stated coming from conservative elites in Germany, the socialst planks of the Nazi party were convienently forgetten at best, or considered an embarassment at worst.

[Oniya]

Also, communism does not equal socialism.  One is a type of economy, the other is a type of government.  Also, there are at least half a dozen forms of communism, ranging from Marxism to Maoism, to whatever North Korea has.