Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[Kutnupe14]

So, the father of codified Communism, who titled his most infamous work "The Communist Manifesto" and then made many references to his ideas as laid forth in said titled work as "socialist", then both are not in fact the same? Now ad to that, that the #2 man in communist history, Lenin, actually stated that "the goal of socialism is communism". Certainly sounds to me like while they may be in the slightest way different, mainly in the means of implementation, they can at least be called twins.

Negative ghostrider. What you are doing, is taking Marx's works (communism) and trying to shoehorn the entirety into socialism, and say they are a mirror's reflection. It doesn't work that way. Marx's ideals can be titled socialist, but it would be incorrect, to assume that all of his ideals ARE socialism. Much of Marx's beliefs, need not be present in order for as system to be titled socialist. To give you an example, the slave based economic system held in our nation's past, was undoubtedly a capitalist system. However, no one would say slavery is indicative of capitalism.

 

[Hohn]

Crops aren't products where the farmer sets prices. They are a commodity where the market sets prices. The farmer could refuse to sell his crop for whatever the market price is, but then he gets to eat it himself.

In many cases subsidies are there to prop up prices, not keep them down.

Actually, in ALL cases, a subsidy is there to keep up a price. Either it is the intended effect, or not--but it is always the result.

Consider the ethanol subsidy. Now, the subsidy is technically for ethanol, but it ends up being a corn subsidy. This raises the price of corn by raising the demand for it. However, since there are only so many acres under cultivation, and farmers can only grow one crop at a time, it ends up raising the price for all agricultural products. Soybean prices rise because there are now fewer soybeans grown, displaced by corn. Meat prices rise, as corn is a major feedstock for most meat producers. High fructose corn syrup ends up costing even more, so processed food prices rise.

The effect of an ethanol subsidy is that all all taxpayers pay to make gasoline poorer quality, cars wear out more quickly, and prices rise for almost every consumable good they care to purchase. But because some people (notably, well-connected agribusinesses) get rich off it, and it makes farmland worth more per acre (so farmers get richer off it). It is a complete scam of the highest order. And that was the purpose all along-- a move my the Environmentalist Left to corrupt the farmer-conservative Right and make inroads into flyover country. It appears to have been a resounding success.

There are other subsidies that are just naked wealth transfers. The Fanjul brothers sugar subsidy is arguably the most egregious. This article puts their annual taxpayer haul at $60million.


Then there the things where a subsidy is not intended to raise prices. Medicaid. Medicare. Student loans. Yet, it clearly has the same effect, medical expenses and education expenses have exploded and risen far faster than the cost of living in general.

Yet it is absolutely the result. And our political class expects us to believe that you can raise the price of labor (minimum wage) with no effect on demand for that labor (i.e. creating unemployment). It also expects that we can increase the demand for a good or service (education, medical care) without increasing the price.

Indeed, many Americans or so incredibly ignorant of even basic economics that this kind of nonsensical government policy is not only tolerated, but we ask for more of it!

 

[Hardscrable]

If the cost of gas quadruples for all the farmers, they have to make that up somehow. By raising prices.
A farmer can not raise his prices when no other farmers are.
But if they all lose their subsidy, then they are in the same boat. The price will have to go up.

From reading your posts over time and meeting/talking with you at the INGO get together recently in S.B. I believe you to have a lot of knowledge on a lot of subjects but I think you do not have an accurate understanding of how farm prices work. This not intended as a negative reflection on you at all so do not take it as such. In general ( not all instances but most ) farmers do not set the price they receive for a given product...when selling you either accept the price offered or you do not sell.

Side note - also for the most part farmers unlike other businesses buy at retail and sell at wholesale.

None of this is intended as comments pertaining to the subsidy discussions just the statement concerning farmers setting their selling prices.

 

[Hohn]

Follow up-- can a subsidy lower the price of anything?

Maybe, but it is never both the stated aim of a policy and the actual goal. Consider the hypothetical case of the government capping the price of new vehicles at $20k under a "making cars affordable' bill. (unrealistic, given the power of UAW, but this is just an example). What is the effect of this price cap? First, we know that every car that costs more than $20k to make will disappear from the market. Instantly, the vehicle market has much fewer choices offered to a consumer. Second, we know that every buyer who would like to buy a car that's more expensive will have to buy a cheaper car. This shift in demand will bid up the price of vehicles that were previously under the $20k cap. So all your $18k cars are now selling for $20k. And maybe even your $16k cars sell for $20k.

Before you know it, we all end up driving one of only 2 or 3 different cars that are total junk, and we ended up paying for $20k for what we'd normally not even pay $8k for.

This is how rent control works. By setting a maximum price for housing in a segment of the market, you end up with a shortage of options in the market and the consumers end up overpaying for completely substandard housing. Ask anyone who's lived in Rent Control area of NYC. This is how it works every place and any time.

Nixon capped prices of oil. This is why we had the long lines and shortages that were conspicuously absent in 2008 when prices were MUCH higher (because high prices create production incentive).

 

[jamil]

Negative ghostrider. What you are doing, is taking Marx's works (communism) and trying to shoehorn the entirety into socialism, and say they are a mirror's reflection. It doesn't work that way. Marx's ideals can be titled socialist, but it would be incorrect, to assume that all of his ideals ARE socialism. Much of Marx's beliefs, need not be present in order for as system to be titled socialist. To give you an example, the slave based economic system held in our nation's past, was undoubtedly a capitalist system. However, no one would say slavery is indicative of capitalism.

Progressive tax in socialism is not analogous to slave trading in capitalism. As I said before, a progressive tax rate is a component of socialism and, therefore also communism. Probably a better way of stating it is, progressive tax rates are to socialism/communism as a clutch is to a manual transmission. A clutch is not a transmission. A transmission has a clutch. A "socialist" system isn't very socialist if it doesn't have a progressive tax rate because the very goal of socialism is to create a system of equal outcomes.

 

[Hohn]

Negative ghostrider. What you are doing, is taking Marx's works (communism) and trying to shoehorn the entirety into socialism, and say they are a mirror's reflection. It doesn't work that way. Marx's ideals can be titled socialist, but it would be incorrect, to assume that all of his ideals ARE socialism. Much of Marx's beliefs, need not be present in order for as system to be titled socialist. To give you an example, the slave based economic system held in our nation's past, was undoubtedly a capitalist system. However, no one would say slavery is indicative of capitalism.

Communism is that natural and inescapable outgrowth of socialism, and only by being NOT socialist are 'democratic socialist' countries not communist.

The defining element of socialism is that government controls the means of economic production. In traditional socialism, this means action government ownership. It's like the gas stations in most oil-rich countries. Since the oil industry is nationalized, there is no profit or loss consideration, and that's why you hear of absurdly cheap prices in places like Kuwait or Venezuela.

Once you have stipulated that there is no right to private property, that the government should own all means of production, you have removed any limiting principle to the power of government. If the government supplies all medical care, then it must necessarily control all the medical schools. And the pharmaceutical industry. And it will determine which diseases are worth treating. And which PEOPLE are worth treating.

You cannot give a goverment control of all the MEANS of production without also giving it control over the MORAL ENDS as well.

 

[Hohn]

Progressive tax in socialism is not analogous to slave trading in capitalism. As I said before, a progressive tax rate is a component of socialism and, therefore also communism. Probably a better way of stating it is, progressive tax rates are to socialism/communism as a clutch is to a manual transmission. A clutch is not a transmission. A transmission has a clutch. A "socialist" system isn't very socialist if it doesn't have a progressive tax rate because the very goal of socialism is to create a system of equal outcomes.

Socialism is partial redistribution, but some private property rights remain. Communism is complete redistribution, no private property exists. At some point, it is self contradictory, because you cannot progressively tax someone who owns no property or anything of economic value. Under communism, then, there are no taxes. There's only "transfer pricing"-- like one division of a company might charge another division of the company as an internal measure to allocate fixed costs. But it's still the same company.

 

[Hardscrable]

Actually, in ALL cases, a subsidy is there to keep up a price. Either it is the intended effect, or not--but it is always the result.

Consider the ethanol subsidy. Now, the subsidy is technically for ethanol, but it ends up being a corn subsidy. This raises the price of corn by raising the demand for it. However, since there are only so many acres under cultivation, and farmers can only grow one crop at a time, it ends up raising the price for all agricultural products. Soybean prices rise because there are now fewer soybeans grown, displaced by corn. Meat prices rise, as corn is a major feedstock for most meat producers. High fructose corn syrup ends up costing even more, so processed food prices rise.

The effect of an ethanol subsidy is that all all taxpayers pay to make gasoline poorer quality, cars wear out more quickly, and prices rise for almost every consumable good they care to purchase. But because some people (notably, well-connected agribusinesses) get rich off it, and it makes farmland worth more per acre (so farmers get richer off it). It is a complete scam of the highest order. And that was the purpose all along-- a move my the Environmentalist Left to corrupt the farmer-conservative Right and make inroads into flyover country. It appears to have been a resounding success.

There are other subsidies that are just naked wealth transfers. The Fanjul brothers sugar subsidy is arguably the most egregious. This article puts their annual taxpayer haul at $60million.


Then there the things where a subsidy is not intended to raise prices. Medicaid. Medicare. Student loans. Yet, it clearly has the same effect, medical expenses and education expenses have exploded and risen far faster than the cost of living in general.

Yet it is absolutely the result. And our political class expects us to believe that you can raise the price of labor (minimum wage) with no effect on demand for that labor (i.e. creating unemployment). It also expects that we can increase the demand for a good or service (education, medical care) without increasing the price.

Indeed, many Americans or so incredibly ignorant of even basic economics that this kind of nonsensical government policy is not only tolerated, but we ask for more of it!

Subsidies are a "carrot on a stick." Some are $$$ transfer driven most definitely. Some use $$$ mainly to change behaviors. Some are well intended...some not so much. In general, subsidize anything and you will get more of it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Communism is that natural and inescapable outgrowth of socialism, and only by being NOT socialist are 'democratic socialist' countries not communist.

The defining element of socialism is that government controls the means of economic production. In traditional socialism, this means action government ownership. It's like the gas stations in most oil-rich countries. Since the oil industry is nationalized, there is no profit or loss consideration, and that's why you hear of absurdly cheap prices in places like Kuwait or Venezuela.

Once you have stipulated that there is no right to private property, that the government should own all means of production, you have removed any limiting principle to the power of government. If the government supplies all medical care, then it must necessarily control all the medical schools. And the pharmaceutical industry. And it will determine which diseases are worth treating. And which PEOPLE are worth treating.

You cannot give a goverment control of all the MEANS of production without also giving it control over the MORAL ENDS as well.

Ok, perhaps there's some things that need to be understood:
-Socialism does not need govt to exist
-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property
-Socialists societies can be democratic
-Communism has never existed, as the process to achieving it always stalls with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
-Capitalism, has proven itself to be as equally a threat to liberty as pure capitalism has never existed due to similar faults.

 

[Hohn]

Kut, I guess you must have read different textbooks than I had as a political science major.

Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of socialism

• 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
• 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
• 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Without government, Socialism isn't socialism-- it's just sharing.

 

[indiucky]

Marx's ideals can be titled socialist, but it would be incorrect, to assume that all of his ideals ARE socialism. Much of Marx's beliefs, need not be present in order for as system to be titled socialist. To give you an example, the slave based economic system held in our nation's past, was undoubtedly a capitalist system. However, no one would say slavery is indicative of capitalism.

I always thought of communism (in a Marxist sense) as more a form of Feudalism than Socialism...Almost a cross between Japanese feudalism and European feudalism...

To be a smart a$$ in 7th grade we were allowed to write to the country of our choice to learn about their culture..My social studies teacher (we are now both on the town Historical Preservation Board together) let me send a letter to the USSR asking for information on their missile programs...She said I could send it but if they didn't send a package back I would get an F for that project...One month later I got a huge box from the USSR full of information about their space program, their version of "scouting", Karl Marx's red book, Mao's book, a comic book about the first dog in space, another comic book explaining to me how we kids are actually starving in the US, etc....About 30 books overall It was during the Carter years and I am sure that put me on some list somewhere...

 

[actaeon277]

From reading your posts over time and meeting/talking with you at the INGO get together recently in S.B. I believe you to have a lot of knowledge on a lot of subjects but I think you do not have an accurate understanding of how farm prices work. This not intended as a negative reflection on you at all so do not take it as such. In general ( not all instances but most ) farmers do not set the price they receive for a given product...when selling you either accept the price offered or you do not sell.

Side note - also for the most part farmers unlike other businesses buy at retail and sell at wholesale.

None of this is intended as comments pertaining to the subsidy discussions just the statement concerning farmers setting their selling prices.

Ok. I'm weak on this part because I am not a farmer. I will admit that.
But, if a subsidy across the US is discontinued, and the farmers then refuse to sell at the stated price (as mentioned) nationwide, what will happen to the price on the market?
Nationwide, no selling of produce. I'm pretty sure (but I'll admit I can be wrong) the cost of food will go up.

Oil is also traded as a commodity. If a refinery hiccups, the price is reflected in the market. Why not food since it is also traded as a commodity?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, I guess you must have read different textbooks than I had as a political science major.

Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of socialism

• 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
• 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
• 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Without government, Socialism isn't socialism-- it's just sharing.

Lol, did you really pull that card? I guess you did have different textbooks than I had, as a political science graduate.

 

[jamil]

jamil (is rolling eyes at this entire discussion)

 

[Kutnupe14]

jamil (is rolling eyes at this entire discussion)

Kut (approves of Jamil's format)

 

[Hohn]

Ok. I'm weak on this part because I am not a farmer. I will admit that.
But, if a subsidy across the US is discontinued, and the farmers then refuse to sell at the stated price (as mentioned) nationwide, what will happen to the price on the market?
Nationwide, no selling of produce. I'm pretty sure (but I'll admit I can be wrong) the cost of food will go up.

Oil is also traded as a commodity. If a refinery hiccups, the price is reflected in the market. Why not food since it is also traded as a commodity?

There are both short term and long term price effects.

The effect of a subsidy is to increase price by increasing demand, primarily. Ending the subsidy will lower the price to something closer to the actual market price.


Commodity prices are today's expectation of a future price, because most commodities are traded based on a future delivery. Hence the "March Lean Hogs" or 'April Corn' you hear about about on the radio.

In the short term, the price collapse of Corn, say, is initially confined to Corn. Elasticity of supply in crops isn't good-- you can't suddenly switch from uneconomical corn to Soy or wheat or whatever.

But after a couple growing seasons, the supply base can re-allocate the mix of crops supplied to the market to adjust to the absence of subsidy. The reduced supply of corn will let the price recover to it's more natural levels.


That's why it's different than oil. It shares the common nature of a commodity (present value based on future price expections, plus a volatility premium). But the information provided to the market that would drive a change in price is MUCH more frequent with oil than with crop markets. Barring a rare killing frost (like the FL citrus kill a couple years ago) or some other cataclysm, the information that drives a crop price is generally both much less frequent, and less drastic than something like oil pricing.

So those prices behave the same way, just over different periods of time.

 

[Hohn]

Ok, perhaps there's some things that need to be understood:
-Socialism does not need govt to exist
-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property
-Socialists societies can be democratic
-Communism has never existed, as the process to achieving it always stalls with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
-Capitalism, has proven itself to be as equally a threat to liberty as pure capitalism has never existed due to similar faults.

Lol, did you really pull that card? I guess you did have different textbooks than I had, as a political science graduate.

Not intending to play any cards, just demonstrate that your first two points above are not true.

 

[jamil]

Communism is that natural and inescapable outgrowth of socialism, and only by being NOT socialist are 'democratic socialist' countries not communist.

The defining element of socialism is that government controls the means of economic production. In traditional socialism, this means action government ownership. It's like the gas stations in most oil-rich countries. Since the oil industry is nationalized, there is no profit or loss consideration, and that's why you hear of absurdly cheap prices in places like Kuwait or Venezuela.

Once you have stipulated that there is no right to private property, that the government should own all means of production, you have removed any limiting principle to the power of government. If the government supplies all medical care, then it must necessarily control all the medical schools. And the pharmaceutical industry. And it will determine which diseases are worth treating. And which PEOPLE are worth treating.

You cannot give a goverment control of all the MEANS of production without also giving it control over the MORAL ENDS as well.

Communism is just one implementation of socialism. It is not the logical conclusion of socialism. Democratic socialism is another implementation of socialism.

Socialism is partial redistribution, but some private property rights remain. Communism is complete redistribution, no private property exists. At some point, it is self contradictory, because you cannot progressively tax someone who owns no property or anything of economic value. Under communism, then, there are no taxes. There's only "transfer pricing"-- like one division of a company might charge another division of the company as an internal measure to allocate fixed costs. But it's still the same company.

Partial redistribution is partial socialism. The US is not a socialist economy but it does have *some* socialist components. It's mostly capitalist with a bit too much socialism for my world view. Many Social Democracies aren't fully socialist either, but the goal is eventual complete public ownership of the means of production and distribution, as well as no property rights.

Ok, perhaps there's some things that need to be understood:
-Socialism does not need govt to exist
-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property
-Socialists societies can be democratic
-Communism has never existed, as the process to achieving it always stalls with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
-Capitalism, has proven itself to be as equally a threat to liberty as pure capitalism has never existed due to similar faults.

-Socialism theoretically, socialism does not need a government. Just ask the social anarchists. However, it's doubtful such a system could scale to a societal level without eventually forming a government out of necessity.

-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property depending how you define property. If it is involved in the means of production, there's no right to private ownership.

-Socialist societies can be democratic. There are many examples of that in the world.

-True communism has never existed. No "communist" system has ever resulted in the elimination of government as Marx promised.

-That pure capitalism hasn't existed depends on your definition of "pure capitalism". Just as societies need rules for its people to live peacefully with maximum liberty, capitalism also requires rules and some kind of enforcement. So if you mean capitalism without the rules that protect people's individual rights, I'd agree that people tend to lose individual liberty under capitalism, as much as any other system without rules that protect individuals' rights.

 

[jamil]

Kut (approves of Jamil's format)

I typically hate speaking in third person. To me it projects a sentiment that I think too much of myself (have you ever heard Randy Moss speak of himself back in his prime?). But what the hell. Everyone's doing it these days. May as well embrace it.

 

[jamil]

Kut (approves of Jamil's format)

I typically hate speaking in third person. To me it projects a sentiment that I think too much of myself (have you ever heard Randy Moss speak of himself back in his prime?). But what the hell. Everyone's doing it these days. May as well embrace it.

Oh, and I prefer "jamil" over "Jamil".