A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

[Peter F]

The drug dealers wealth was gotten illegally, Peter. Government should take his wealth.

I can't understand statements like, "His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it". No one "gave" Mr. Ford vast amounts of money. They traded their money for a Ford. I know you understand that because you say he sold vehicles to other folks.

The idea behind society is not to transfer wealth but to exchange what is willing to be exchanged to satisfy the needs of those involved in an exchange. An unwillingness to exchange fairly or to just exchange is an unwillingness to participate in a society.

The concept I am disputing is 'creating wealth'. Yes, we exchange things.

I go on the lecture circuit about my brilliant economic ideas and people pay me 50 bucks each to hear me and I become filthy rich.

What wealth have I created? I'm wealthy because a bunch of people gave me money. They transferred some of thier wealth to me

If thier wealth remained the same and mine increased - then, yes, wealth would have been created. But my wealth increase is in direct proportion to my audiences decrease in wealth.

JBG posted an example of wealth being 'created' earlier - Walmart exploits production facilities far away and organizes the shipment of the cheap goods to the North American market. Somehow that logistical feat created wealth. If that is true, would that created wealth still exist if nobody walked into Walmart and exchanged thier own wealth for that stuff? Well no. It would have been a financial disaster for the walmart company.

Of course that never happened. Instead Walmart sells thier goods at an attractive price and consumers willingly part with some of thier own wealth for walmarts stuff. The supposed 'created wealth' is actually a transfer of wealth from the consumer to Walmart.

If Walmart didn't seek any profits whatsoever from its operation but only recovered from the consumer enough to cover their costs, what wealth be created? I suspect every economist in this world would answer that no wealth has been generated.

But, because Walmart marks up the prices of thier goods above and beyond thier own costs to get the stuff to market. What do economists say about that? Do the consumers not pay for Walmarts mark-up? Of course.

So Walmarts wealth gained equals the wealth given up by the consumer. Unless Walmarts wealth somehow exceeds the wealth the consumers give them.

Wealth is not created but transferred...a very socialist concept but also a capitalist one too encompassed in the salesman's saying "Other people's money".

[normanchateau]

Would you have more faith in a Conservative government or an NDP government if you compare the two federal parties?

It would depend on whether the Conservative government was fiscally conservative or merely socially conservative.

[jbg]

JBG posted an example of wealth being 'created' earlier - Walmart exploits production facilities far away and organizes the shipment of the cheap goods to the North American market. Somehow that logistical feat created wealth. If that is true, would that created wealth still exist if nobody walked into Walmart and exchanged thier own wealth for that stuff? Well no. It would have been a financial disaster for the walmart company.

Of course that never happened. Instead Walmart sells thier goods at an attractive price and consumers willingly part with some of thier own wealth for walmarts stuff. The supposed 'created wealth' is actually a transfer of wealth from the consumer to Walmart.

If Walmart didn't seek any profits whatsoever from its operation but only recovered from the consumer enough to cover their costs, what wealth be created? I suspect every economist in this world would answer that no wealth has been generated.

But, because Walmart marks up the prices of thier goods above and beyond thier own costs to get the stuff to market. What do economists say about that? Do the consumers not pay for Walmarts mark-up? Of course.

So Walmarts wealth gained equals the wealth given up by the consumer. Unless Walmarts wealth somehow exceeds the wealth the consumers give them.

Wealth is not created but transferred...a very socialist concept but also a capitalist one too encompassed in the salesman's saying "Other people's money".

The reason that this is the "creation" of wealth (even accepting your pejorative labels) is that some process transforms inputs of material, labor and equipment into usable materials that people are willing to pay for. Without a system that organizes these things the material and labor (the equipment never having been made) just sits there, unused.

What is constructive about that unless you map out a return to the Garden of Eden?

[Renegade]

The concept I am disputing is 'creating wealth'. Yes, we exchange things.

If a farmer plants plows land, plants a crop, tends to the crop, then harvest the crop, has he created wealth by turning something which was useless into something useful?

I go on the lecture circuit about my brilliant economic ideas and people pay me 50 bucks each to hear me and I become filthy rich.

What wealth have I created? I'm wealthy because a bunch of people gave me money. They transferred some of thier wealth to me

If thier wealth remained the same and mine increased - then, yes, wealth would have been created. But my wealth increase is in direct proportion to my audiences decrease in wealth.

Not true. The audience is richer because they value the information you have given them more than the 50 bucks they paid. If the informaiton is of economic value, they can further translate that into monetary wealth.

Wealth is not created but transferred...a very socialist concept but also a capitalist one too encompassed in the salesman's saying "Other people's money".

Presumably before man was on this earth, no "wealth" existed. If it exists now it somehow must have been created. Please explain how this is possible since "Wealth is not created but transferred".

[Pliny]

The Conservatives are in a strange position where they have to be socialist in order to make the country more non-socialist.

By the way people, in case you haven't heard, socialism does NOT work. I repeat, socialism does NOT work. This is the reason why the Soviet Bloc went to ratshit and the good ole USA reigned supreme. If you do not believe this then I suggest you take a trip to a former socialist country in Eastern Europe to open your eyes. Canada is absolutely foolish to take it's policies from such a completely failed system.

I have to make a qualification on your statement that socialism does not work.

I will agree that socialism does not work as a form of government however, Families, business, in fact any organization or enterprise has a socialist structure. The difference between government and any other organization is that government is an agency of force and coercion. It does not invite voluntary co-operation it compels it. If we, as citizens, were briefed upon every law and agreed to it then it would be workable as a government. This is my opinion at the moment.

Remember, Capitalists love a monopoly, if they could ever have one. Socialists do too, but they legislate them.

[Pliny]

The concept I am disputing is 'creating wealth'. Yes, we exchange things.

I go on the lecture circuit about my brilliant economic ideas and people pay me 50 bucks each to hear me and I become filthy rich.

What wealth have I created? I'm wealthy because a bunch of people gave me money. They transferred some of thier wealth to me

If thier wealth remained the same and mine increased - then, yes, wealth would have been created. But my wealth increase is in direct proportion to my audiences decrease in wealth.

JBG posted an example of wealth being 'created' earlier - Walmart exploits production facilities far away and organizes the shipment of the cheap goods to the North American market. Somehow that logistical feat created wealth. If that is true, would that created wealth still exist if nobody walked into Walmart and exchanged thier own wealth for that stuff? Well no. It would have been a financial disaster for the walmart company.

Of course that never happened. Instead Walmart sells thier goods at an attractive price and consumers willingly part with some of thier own wealth for walmarts stuff. The supposed 'created wealth' is actually a transfer of wealth from the consumer to Walmart.

If Walmart didn't seek any profits whatsoever from its operation but only recovered from the consumer enough to cover their costs, what wealth be created? I suspect every economist in this world would answer that no wealthwealth has been generated.

But, because Walmart marks up the prices of thier goods above and beyond thier own costs to get the stuff to market. What do economists say about that? Do the consumers not pay for Walmarts mark-up? Of course.

So Walmarts wealth gained equals the wealth given up by the consumer. Unless Walmarts wealth somehow exceeds the wealth the consumers give them.

Wealth is not created but transferred...a very socialist concept but also a capitalist one too encompassed in the salesman's saying "Other people's money".

As jbg asked, "What is wealth?". I am going to explain it in terms of it being the individual's own consideration and valuation system.

In your example above where a person is earning fifty dollars/person speaking about economics you say there is no wealth generated. The wealth is not in the money. It is in the value of the information that people are willing to exchange their $50 for. That fifty dollars worth of information, if they use it in their lives, is going to increase their feeling of wealth more than the fifty dollars will. Remember, the fifty dollars is only a measure, a yardstick that most people can use to figure out value. If the information improves their lives more than the fifty dollars does than wealth is generated - Not just transferred. The Economics professor believes his wealth to be in that information and it is useful to him in trade. Education has a high value, it is wealth in that it increases one's ability to provide for himself and his family and contribute to the community, society, nation, mankind - Now I am not talking about a public education here, that is less valuable than a private education and a private education is less valuable than a private tutor.

A $250 chainsaw isn't worth a nickel to me. I have no use for one. I would prefer the $250 and would probably consider an offer of $100. Wealth is not the money itself nor the goods and services but in their utility as judged by the individual. The consideration that one's life has been benefitted in a trade is an increase in that person's wealth. And he is the sole judge of that. Mistaking wealth as being in the possession of a fiat currency or a plus sign in your bank account is where the error lies, it is a measure or yardstick we all use but we know intuitively that possession of it is superficial to real "wealth".

Edited March 26, 2008 by Pliny

[Blur]

It was created with items like electricity, aluminium, chemical fertilizer, penicillian and indoor plumbing.

Proof that wealth is not a zero sum game.

[thermo]

By the way people, in case you haven't heard, socialism does NOT work. I repeat, socialism does NOT work. This is the reason why the Soviet Bloc went to ratshit and the good ole USA reigned supreme. If you do not believe this then I suggest you take a trip to a former socialist country in Eastern Europe to open your eyes. Canada is absolutely foolish to take it's policies from such a completely failed system.

There is a difference between socialism and communism, you know.

I think this whole argument going on right now on this thread, in the context of what the thread is about, is ridiculous. If we're going to lump the NDP in as communists then we might aswell be arguing the merits of authoritarianism (in the case of the conservatives). I think if there's a style of government the dippers would model themselves after it would probably be that of Sweden or Finland.

So why don't you go over there and tell me how they're doing.

[normanchateau]

If we're going to lump the NDP in as communists then we might aswell be arguing the merits of authoritarianism (in the case of the conservatives).

Stephen Harper authoritarian? His supporters have argued he's libertarian despite his socially conservative policies.

[thermo]

Stephen Harper authoritarian? His supporters have argued he's libertarian despite his socially conservative policies.

I'm saying equating the ndp with communism is as off the mark as calling the cons authoritarians.

[Alta4ever]

I'm saying equating the ndp with communism is as off the mark as calling the cons authoritarians.

Taken from the Regina Manifesto. A document created by the CCF, which is were the NDP was born in SK.

"We (the CCF) aim to replace the present capitalist system...by a social order... in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition..."

" No CCF government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full program of socialized planning..."

No I don't know what that sounds like to you, but to me it sounds very close to communism.

[Alta4ever]

I'm saying equating the ndp with communism is as off the mark as calling the cons authoritarians.

The cons have never writen documents like the Regina Manifesto that would advocate an authoritarian government.

[M.Dancer]

The cons have never writen documents like the Regina Manifesto that would advocate an authoritarian government.

It wasn't that many years ago that the NDP advocated nationalizing one of the banks....

[pfezziwig]

The NDP aren't gaining votes, the Liberals are losing them, once the Liberals get their act together watch Layton's numbers tank.

[White Doors]

Thats good, socialists don't understand how wealth is generated in society.

A wealthy person has generated thier wealth. I will agree with that. A drug dealer (a wealthy one) has certainly put in a lot of time and effort generating his wealth. But that wealth was not created - it was simply transferred from others. A bit of reality many don't quite understand.

The great pioneering entrepreneur Mr Ford himself simply sold vehicles to other folks and generated a vast amount of wealth. His wealth was generated by other people giving him money - vast amounts of it - wich they had taken from somebody else.

Wealth is not generated - it is transferred.

surely this is a joke, right?

The man who invented the assembly line just transferred wealth? Didn't make any?

Un.be.liev.eable.

[M.Dancer]

By all rights then, since if you are making money then someone MUST be losing money...there can only be justice if we are all unemployed.

[thermo]

Taken from the Regina Manifesto. A document created by the CCF, which is were the NDP was born in SK.

"We (the CCF) aim to replace the present capitalist system...by a social order... in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition..."

" No CCF government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full program of socialized planning..."

No I don't know what that sounds like to you, but to me it sounds very close to communism.

That was 1933! NINETEEN THIRTY THREE!

ONE

NINE

THREE

THREE

In that order! NDP is not the CCF. That was 75 years ago! Seventy five!

Some minor things that have happened since then:

• World War II

• Newfoundland joins Canada

• Korean war

• CCF decides communism, `not so great'

• Vietman

• U.S. forces Iraq out of Kiwait

• Cretien chokes a guy

• Sept 11th

• U.S. invades Iraq

I mean - i hope to god no one tracks down some of the dumb crap I wrote back in highshcool and that was only 25 years ago!

[eyeball]

A wealthy person has generated thier wealth. I will agree with that. A drug dealer (a wealthy one) has certainly put in a lot of time and effort generating his wealth. But that wealth was not created - it was simply transferred from others. A bit of reality many don't quite understand.

Wealth is not generated - it is transferred.

Wealth is wealth, deciding whether it was generated or created seems like a pretty subjective excersize. Its all just so much GDP in the end isn't it? Are the wages that are paid to police, prosecuters, judges...the entire industrial-complex surrounding the War on Drugs, created wealth or generated wealth?

One thing the drug dealer proves is how easily a government policy can distort the market, in this case to the dealers advantage. I suspect many a wealthy person has generated/created their fortunes by taking advantage of similar distortional loopholes in the free-market.

[MontyBurns]

There is a difference between socialism and communism, you know.

I think this whole argument going on right now on this thread, in the context of what the thread is about, is ridiculous. If we're going to lump the NDP in as communists then we might aswell be arguing the merits of authoritarianism (in the case of the conservatives). I think if there's a style of government the dippers would model themselves after it would probably be that of Sweden or Finland.

So why don't you go over there and tell me how they're doing.

There is no difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a path on the road to communism. I do not think Sweden or Finland are sucesses in my opinion. They are somewhat successful because of their capitalistic market system not because of their socialist policies. All countries that have tried socialism have gone down the toilet. Even the Chinese only became successful after they copied the US open market system.

[thermo]

There is no difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a path on the road to communism. I do not think Sweden or Finland are sucesses in my opinion. They are somewhat successful because of their capitalistic market system not because of their socialist policies. All countries that have tried socialism have gone down the toilet. Even the Chinese only became successful after they copied the US open market system.

a path on the road, eh?

so consistently ranking among the highest in quality of life and having some of the most content citizens in the world does not make a country a success?!

i'm rather new to this board - but getting the impression trying to discuss anything with you is going to be a waste of my time, isn't it?

[M.Dancer]

a path on the road, eh?

so consistently ranking among the highest in quality of life and having some of the most content citizens in the world does not make a country a success?!

I like the path on the road myself....

That aside, finland has one of the higher suicide rates inthe western world, while the swedes....

....it might be from the lack of sun though...

[MontyBurns]

a path on the road, eh?

so consistently ranking among the highest in quality of life and having some of the most content citizens in the world does not make a country a success?!

i'm rather new to this board - but getting the impression trying to discuss anything with you is going to be a waste of my time, isn't it?

These ratings are made by left-wing organizations such as the UN. I'm not saying that these ratings are totally meaningless but I take them with a grain of salt.

Look at the results of this poll. Ask yourself, do you really want a system where all your money is taken in taxation in order to further "disadvantaged" groups? Do you really want to spend all your time listening to feminists and gays whining? Myself, I would prefer a system where my hard work is rewarded by me getting ahead. I am sure you want the same as well. Just think about it.

[thermo]

I like the path on the road myself....

That aside, finland has one of the higher suicide rates inthe western world, while the swedes....

....it might be from the lack of sun though...

I was not aware of this fact. when i lived in London i dated a Finish girl. if i had to guess the alcoholism could also be a factor in that (the suicide rate not my choice in girls).

Do we have ignore or killfile options or on this board?

[Alta4ever]

That was 1933! NINETEEN THIRTY THREE!

ONE

NINE

THREE

THREE

In that order! NDP is not the CCF. That was 75 years ago! Seventy five!

Some minor things that have happened since then:

• World War II

• Newfoundland joins Canada

• Korean war

• CCF decides communism, `not so great'

• Vietman

• U.S. forces Iraq out of Kiwait

• Cretien chokes a guy

• Sept 11th

• U.S. invades Iraq

I mean - i hope to god no one tracks down some of the dumb crap I wrote back in highshcool and that was only 25 years ago!

It may have been 75 years ago, but that was what spawned the NDP, those were the principals that party was founded on. May of the people were at the heart of the CCF were also at the heart of the NDP and their legacy lives on through those that have suceeded them.

[thermo]

That aside, finland has one of the higher suicide rates inthe western world, while the swedes....

ok - i looked it up and the Fins are behind such dens of misery as Belgium, Hungary and Latvia! So they're not that bad!