2012 Edition: What's your raise this year?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Coronita on February 16, 2012 - 7:51am

We use to do this... Are you guys seeing employers giving more, giving less or about the same.

I'll start.
1)Side gig... I didn't give myself a raise this year.

2)In my full time rat race..4% bump,8% bonus cash bonus, and $80k worth of equity that now takes 4 years to vest, so I guess you can say that's about a $20k equity bonus per year. Looks like my bonus was cut in half, the equity was about the same and the base pay raise was about the same.

Submitted by CA renter on February 21, 2012 - 2:42am.

sdrealtor wrote:

I beleive in the risk taking and innovation that is the core of the American Spirit. These are the things that make this the best country in the world. You beleive that everyone should put their head down and work hard as part of a large machine. That work ethic while admirable can be found anywhere in the world. No where else in the world do you find the innovation, creativity and spirit that exists in our country.

I am not a right winged rah rah USA patriot. If anything I am left of center, live and let live liberal. But I am a beleiver in the American Spirit that recognizes the value of someone willing to put their ass on the line and take the risks that create a better world. That can be through pursuing higher education or pursuing an entrepreneurial enterprise. Just being being another cog in the machine is not what got us here nor is it what will keep us here.

Just for fun, let's look at some of the most influential scientists, shall we? Are they all American? Did they come from "capitalist" countries? [FWIW, I did not try to "cherry pick" anything here. Just Googled "top scientists" and did some searches regarding scientific discoveries, without even including country names or political labels of any sort.]

http://listverse.com/2009/02/24/top-10-m...

http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chica...

http://www.unesco.org/bpi/science/conten...

Submitted by CA renter on February 21, 2012 - 3:19am.

Is there a correlation between the relative stability, size, and power of a country's government and the innovations they create? BTW, the US is NOT a low/no tax country, and saw some of the highest tax rates during its most innovative period...and huge amounts of taxpayer money being directed to scientific R&D at the same time, as well.

http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

http://sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2008/08ma...

http://www.sras.org/science_in_russia_an...

Submitted by UCGal on February 21, 2012 - 9:36am.

CA renter wrote:
sdr,

< cut out the stuff putting the over-discussed public/private thing... >

Did you get a raise this year, and if so, how much?


sdr - you mentioned previously that you couldn't say till 12/31/12.
But you can say if your figures for 2011 year were bigger than 2010.
And you can say if your healthcare costs, etc increased in price, or went down in price.

For those of us on salary - our raises are largely based on how the company did, and our personal performance reviews covering the previous year.

So my raise and bonus that will happen in April was based on my performance reviews covering 2011. The paperwork has been done. HR and payroll have the numbers. It's been decided. I just haven't been informed of it yet because they wait till the last minute to inform the employees. We often find out the day it shows in our paycheck.

Submitted by sdrealtor on February 21, 2012 - 10:28am.

I dont do my taxes for a while so I dont know exactly what expenses were but I do know what my revenues were. 2011 was 5% higher than 2010 but 2.5% lower than 2009. My business expenses are likely pretty comparable across all those years. Healthcare was up last year. Bought a car last year so depreciation will pull down taxable income too. All things considered my income has been remarkably consistent the last several years for someone on straight commission.

BTW that bonus you get in April is 2012 earnings even though it was for performance last year. For those of us on commission the lag in pay for performance could be even longer than yours. I end up getting paid 6 to 12 months after starting with most clients. With short sales it can be even longer.

Submitted by harvey on February 21, 2012 - 4:56pm.

CA Renter wrote:
If you're right, then where are these "free market" countries with all the innovation and creativity?

Let's just pause for a moment and consider the magnitude of the ignorance in the words above.

Another thread highjacked by pseudo-religious delusional Marxist nonsense.

The Piggington forum spirals down the toilet bowl...

Submitted by sdrealtor on February 21, 2012 - 6:19pm.

CA renter wrote:
sdrealtor wrote:

I beleive in the risk taking and innovation that is the core of the American Spirit. These are the things that make this the best country in the world. You beleive that everyone should put their head down and work hard as part of a large machine. That work ethic while admirable can be found anywhere in the world. No where else in the world do you find the innovation, creativity and spirit that exists in our country.

I am not a right winged rah rah USA patriot. If anything I am left of center, live and let live liberal. But I am a beleiver in the American Spirit that recognizes the value of someone willing to put their ass on the line and take the risks that create a better world. That can be through pursuing higher education or pursuing an entrepreneurial enterprise. Just being being another cog in the machine is not what got us here nor is it what will keep us here.

Just for fun, let's look at some of the most influential scientists, shall we? Are they all American? Did they come from "capitalist" countries? [FWIW, I did not try to "cherry pick" anything here. Just Googled "top scientists" and did some searches regarding scientific discoveries, without even including country names or political labels of any sort.]

http://listverse.com/2009/02/24/top-10-m...

http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chica...

http://www.unesco.org/bpi/science/content/press/anglo/6.htm

Are you serious? You pull in Da Vinci, Bohr, Curie, Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton. Some of those people pre-date the US. There you go again murdering your case.

Submitted by Myriad on February 21, 2012 - 9:14pm.

Wow... this thread went off topic pretty fast!

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 3:04am.

pri_dk wrote:
CA Renter wrote:
If you're right, then where are these "free market" countries with all the innovation and creativity?

Let's just pause for a moment and consider the magnitude of the ignorance in the words above.

Another thread highjacked by pseudo-religious delusional Marxist nonsense.

The Piggington forum spirals down the toilet bowl...

Once again, can you add anything insightful for a change? Why do you always insist on dragging the converstaion into the ditch with you via your stupid, immature, ignorant comments?

If you disagree with something a poster says, state your case clearly (what, specifically, do you disagree with, and why do you disagree?), address the topic, and BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT WITH FACTS, LOGIC, AND CITATIONS (yes, this means you will actually have to know what you're talking about and you will have to know how to READ AND COMPREHEND written works -- yes, even "long" ones). Stop regurgitating the dogma that other people have told you to believe, do your own research, and think for yourself. So far, you've never done that. If you can't debate intelligently, there's no need for you to add your asinine personal attacks.

One more thing...the reason I include entire posts is so that things are not taken out of context. When quoting me, please include the entire quote. On many occasions, you've tried to twist what I was saying by selectively "editing" my post. Not cool.

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 1:51am.

sdrealtor wrote:
CA renter wrote:
sdrealtor wrote:

I beleive in the risk taking and innovation that is the core of the American Spirit. These are the things that make this the best country in the world. You beleive that everyone should put their head down and work hard as part of a large machine. That work ethic while admirable can be found anywhere in the world. No where else in the world do you find the innovation, creativity and spirit that exists in our country.

I am not a right winged rah rah USA patriot. If anything I am left of center, live and let live liberal. But I am a beleiver in the American Spirit that recognizes the value of someone willing to put their ass on the line and take the risks that create a better world. That can be through pursuing higher education or pursuing an entrepreneurial enterprise. Just being being another cog in the machine is not what got us here nor is it what will keep us here.

Just for fun, let's look at some of the most influential scientists, shall we? Are they all American? Did they come from "capitalist" countries? [FWIW, I did not try to "cherry pick" anything here. Just Googled "top scientists" and did some searches regarding scientific discoveries, without even including country names or political labels of any sort.]

http://listverse.com/2009/02/24/top-10-m...

http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chica...

http://www.unesco.org/bpi/science/content/press/anglo/6.htm

Are you serious? You pull in Da Vinci, Bohr, Curie, Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton. Some of those people pre-date the US. There you go again murdering your case.

The vast majority of the scientists in those links DO NOT pre-date the U.S., most are from the past century. So, did they come from "capitalist" countries, or not? Just look at the ones from the past 100-200 years and ignore the rest. Are they all Americans? Do they all come from capitalist countries? Stay on topic.

Can YOU show us a list of top scientists and/or innovations that proves your assertion that innovation is strictly tied to a capitalist economy -- especially one where the government/taxpayers don't pay for any research? I'd love to see your list.

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 2:50am.

I apologize to the other Piggs for this tired threadjack. I responded to the topic of the thread, but got baited into another private/public sector debate when someone made another false claim about public employees. Needless to say, this "myth as fact" propaganda on the internet is a pet peeve of mine.

I will not respond to any further off-topic comments here.

----------------

sdr and pri,

If you want to continue, we can do it via PM.

Submitted by Coronita on February 22, 2012 - 8:10am.

CA renter wrote:
I apologize to the other Piggs for this tired threadjack. I responded to the topic of the thread, but got baited into another private/public sector debate when someone made another false claim about public employees. Needless to say, this "myth as fact" propaganda on the internet is a pet peeve of mine.

I will not respond to any further off-topic comments here.

----------------

sdr and pri,

If you want to continue, we can do it via PM.

CAR, don't bother apologizing. Most anything goes.. Although, in a few hours this thread is going to be part of The Weekly Piggington Report, Issue #2 :)

Submitted by sdrealtor on February 22, 2012 - 8:43am.

The telephone, personal computer, Microsoft, Apple and for TG the lap dance

Submitted by harvey on February 22, 2012 - 9:14am.

CA renter wrote:
Can YOU show us a list of top scientists and/or innovations that proves your assertion that innovation is strictly tied to a capitalist economy [...]

Wow.

You are still trying to argue that there is no link between capitalism and innovation...using words typed into a computer and posted on the internet?

How could anyone?...I don't even...

(BTW: Don't send me any more PMs.)

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 10:02am.

What PMs have I sent, pri? Hallucinating again?

FYI, the history of the internet (sorry guys, he keeps baiting!):

"The history of the Internet began with the development of computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks.

In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations. Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

"The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
-----------------------

This is what I'm talking about, Pri. You keep talking out your ass, and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Submitted by sdrealtor on February 22, 2012 - 10:04am.

Yes the seeds were sown in government research but it was developed and made what it is by the private sector. That is except for the CIA's extremely successful Facebook initiative

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 10:06am.

The REAL risks were taken by taxpayers/govt. Once the hard (and riskiest and most expensive) work was done, the private sector fine-tuned it and reaped all the rewards that really belong to the taxpayers as well.

Submitted by harvey on February 22, 2012 - 10:49am.

CA renter wrote:
The REAL risks were taken by taxpayers/govt. Once the hard (and riskiest and most expensive) work was done, the private sector fine-tuned it and reaped all the rewards that really belong to the taxpayers as well.

Yes, those NSF employees are taking the "real" risks.

I wonder how many Piggs have worked for a tech company or startup and have lost their job at some point in their careers...

So if all innovation and progress comes from the government, why did every significant technological innovation of the past two centuries come from a capitalist country?

Immunizations, steam and internal-combustion engines, electrical lighting, air travel, automobiles, telecommunications, plastics, microprocessors, heart stents, breast implants, ...

Why do socialist countries and their government-controlled economies always lose the race to invent and develop these things?

More state workers means more innovation!

I know it's a lost cause, but try to understand the meaning of the word "empirical" before you respond.

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 11:01am.

Basic research is where the real risks are taken, and the majority of it is govt-funded.

Before you start listing those items, do check the history to make sure there is no public funding involved at any level.

You should also check your facts before stating that "every significant technological innovation of the past two centuries come[s] from a capitalist country."

Remember, the U.S. isn't really a "capitalist" country in the sense that our government provides for the physical, legal, social, and military infrastructure without which most of this "innovation" couldn't or wouldn't take place. If left to it's own devices, the private market would not be nearly as innovative or productive as it's been. Not only that, but the vast amount of money spent on public education (at all levels) is also a govt-funded "gift" to the private sector. Then, there's the govt-funded R&D...but don't let yourself get bogged down in facts or anything.

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 11:22am.

BTW, meant to include this in my ARPANET post above regarding the Lincoln Laboratory:

"MIT Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center that applies advanced technology to problems of national security."

Some of the work being done by those "state workers":

Technology News
Real-time speech communication on packet networks named an IEEE Milestone
MIT Lincoln Laboratory radar technology improves breast-cancer treatment
New supercomputer at MIT Lincoln Laboratory is "green"
Journal cover image created by MIT Lincoln Laboratory technology
MIT Lincoln Laboratory wins four 2011 R&D 100 Awards
Lincoln Laboratory develops a technique to cure a broad range of viruses
Student interns experiment with satellite building
Recent News and Awards
Engineers help student designers build products of the future
MIT Lincoln Laboratory is awarded Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Flag
MIT Lincoln Laboratory helps celebrate the official unveiling of the Space Surveillance Telescope
Lincoln Laboratory presents the Small Business of the Year Award
Marilyn Wolfson named 2012 Fellow of the American Meteorological Society
MIT Lincoln Laboratory researchers receive NASA award
MIT doctoral students thrive doing research at Lincoln Laboratory
View all news

Features
RAPID Prototyping Technology
All-Weather Hyperspectral Atmospheric Sounding
Wind-Shear System Cost-Benefit Analysis
Rapid Prelaunch Testing of the JPSS VIIRS Sensor
High-Efficiency Error Correction for Photon Counting

http://www.ll.mit.edu/

There are multiple publicly-funded labs and research institutes across the country that are doing the research that serves as a springboard for private industry -- so many of the innovations we enjoy today are a result of R&D done at these labs.

Damn those "state workers"!

Submitted by sdrealtor on February 22, 2012 - 11:36am.

I dont think any of us are advocating for NO Gov't. We get it that the public sector is a vital part of our country but you seem to think its everything. It simply isnt. Its both working together. Both should succeed together and both should suffer together. Our gripe is the inequality between things due to how much more the public sector has grown than necessary.

Submitted by harvey on February 22, 2012 - 12:21pm.

CA Renter wrote:
You should also check your facts before stating that "every significant technological innovation of the past two centuries come[s] from a capitalist country."

Ok. I checked the facts.

And guess what, the facts prove me right!

You need to do more than google/cut/paste when you respond. Your list does nothing to support your thesis that all innovation comes from the government.

The US government did not start funding scientific research in any substantial amounts until about the mid 20th century. Most of the innovations I listed above came before then. The US led the world in innovation and technology long before the NSF even existed.

So let's see if you can answer the question that I asked this time. Here's my question again, the one that addresses the crux of YOUR claim:

Quote:
Why do socialist countries and their government-controlled economies always lose the race to invent and develop these things?

The Soviet Union did lots of "basic research" - they had more government scientists than the US did. North Korea and Cuba have a "physical, legal, social, and military infrastructure" - they actually spend a much higher portion of their wealth on these things.

So why do all innovations come from the capitalist US, Japanese, Korean, and European economies?

The answer is obviously NOT "basic research funding" because both the capitalist and socialist worlds have basic research, and there was plenty of innovation in the capitalist world before any government spent a dime on scientific research.

If you cannot specifically address the failures of the Soviet Union or another non-capitalist economy, then you have not answered the question, and you score a fail.

Submitted by CA renter on February 22, 2012 - 6:34pm.

Pri,

Which "capitalist" countries are you referring to? If you're talking about countries that are 100% dependent on the private market, you have yet to list one.

You do realize that most European nations practice a form of socialism, not capitalism, right? Seems you're confusing socialism with communism. Most "socialists" would not consider themselves communists, and many are as opposed to strict communism as they are to strict capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_I...

...............

Japan:

"Fukoku kyōhei (富国強兵?, "Enrich the country, strengthen the military"), originally a phrase from the ancient Chinese historical work on the Warring States Period, Zhan Guo Ce (Kanjigen, Gakken Co., Ltd.), was Japan's national slogan during the Meiji Era, replacing sonnō jōi ("Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians").

The slogan was the central objective of the Meiji leaders. Fukoku kyohei entailed the formulation of far-reaching policies to transform Japanese society in an all out effort to catch up with the West. Although the government played a major role in providing the setting for industrialization, destroying old institutions that proved obstacles to industrialization and creating new institutions that would facilitate economic and political modernization, private enterprise also played a critical role in the distinctly Japanese combination of public and private sector effort later criticized in the 1980s as "Japan Inc." This symbolized an emerging nationalism in Japan.

Originating from the Iwakura Mission to Europe, the phrase not only demonstrated national objectives, but also revealed awareness of the predatory nature of international politics at the time. Both Okubo Toshimichi and Ito Hirobumi called for the advice of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck; his advice convinced the Meiji leaders of the necessity for a militarily and economically strong Japan and nationalism in order to preserve independence.

The fukoku kyohei objective led to massive governmental overhaul. Okubo thought that the Meiji government had to play a key role and formulate a clear set of policies. He thus espoused mercantilist visions and rejected the free trade ideas of Fukuzawa Yukichi. Ito Hirobumi also cautioned against free trade – he advocated the establishment of a protective tariff to ensure the prosperity of domestic manufactures. However, when the tariff has outlived its usefulness, Japan should imitate England and permit free trade. But before Japan could decide on its own foreign trade policy, it first had to get rid of the unequal treaties imposed by the imperial powers in the 1850s.

The industrial policy that resulted had 5 components:

(1) An active role for the state in the development of the economy;
(2) import substitution for industries that would compete with imports – the most important being cotton goods in textiles, threads and yarns;
(3) adoption of Western technology to increase production of sophisticated products;
(4) export development of crafts, tea and raw silk but also increasingly value-added products;
(5) avoidance of relying on foreign loans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukoku_ky%C...

.....................

Again, where is this "Capitalist Utopia" where the private market creates 100% of all that is good and useful? Where is it? I've never seen nor heard of such a place. The best you can do is name countries that are have either a hybrid/mixed economy or ones that are well-known socialist countries. Other countries have received major assistance from the ***governments*** of other countries (namely, ours). Where are the 100%, free-market countries where the private sector is totally (or even primarily) responsible for a successful middle class and a booming economy. Where are they? Name one.
-----------------

We've already discussed why many communist/socialist nations have failed -- most failed because of trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and wars...most of this initiated by the U.S. in their fight against "communism" (we don't like competition).

Submitted by harvey on February 22, 2012 - 8:17pm.

CA renter wrote:
Which "capitalist" countries are you referring to? If you're talking about countries that are 100% dependent on the private market, you have yet to list one.

I listed them in my prior post: USA, Japan, South Korea, all or Europe. Let's not forget Australia and Canada.

Your definition of capitalism of being "100% dependent on the private market" is completely bogus. It's a pathetic straw man argument that you are contriving because it's the only thing you've got to knock down.

Nobody here (except you), in fact nobody, anywhere, ever, has defined a capitalist economy as one with no government.

CA renter wrote:
You do realize that most European nations practice a form of socialism, not capitalism, right?

You do realize that you are repeating Republican party rhetoric?

What does "practice a form of socialism" even mean?

The vast majority of the European economy is privately owned business. Europe's economy is capitalist, plain and simple. Only Sarah Palin and her ilk believe otherwise.

Ever hear of Shell Oil? Saab? Siemens? How about Nokia?

BP, BASF, Nestle, Phillips, ... these are just a few of the ones familiar to most Americans. There are thousands of private, capitalist companies in Europe, some of them as big as anything here in the US.

I haven't even mentioned the weapons manufacturers. There's a big one with a site right here in San Diego.

And guess where most Europeans work? At private-sector companies:

http://specials.ft.com/ft500/may2001/FT3...

Even IKEA, a symbol of "socialist" Sweeden is completely privately owned and uses a complex web of tax shelters that makes Mitt Romney look like an amateur:

http://www.economist.com/node/6919139

Quote:
Seems you're confusing socialism with communism.

There is no confusion. They are one in the same. You are using an argument that has been completely discredited by history. There has never been a socialist economy that was not communist or a dictatorship. Not one. And there's a very good reason why that is the case.

Quote:
Again, where is this "Capitalist Utopia" where the private market creates 100% of all that is good and useful? Where is it?

Once again, capitalism does not mean "no government." Quit with the straw man.

Need an example of Capitalist Utopia? How 'bout a place called San Diego, California?

Quote:
We've already discussed why many communist/socialist nations have failed -- most failed because of trade embargoes, economic sanctions, and wars...most of this initiated by the U.S. in their fight against "communism" (we don't like competition).

Yeah, they failed because we were not nice to them.

Now do you realize that trade embargoes and economic sanctions work both ways, and that wars have two sides? We didn't trade with them, and they didn't trade with us.

But for reasons you cannot explain, the "superior" socialist system - the one that you claim produces so much innovation and wealth - collapsed while the "broken" capitalist system continues to thrive.

Submitted by CA renter on February 23, 2012 - 1:13am.

"Hasn't socialism been discredited by the collapse of
Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their
bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.”
Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling
classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former
Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic
rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that
struggle throughout the world.
Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all
radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s
ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and
assembly."

http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf

...............

"Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

..................

This article is instructive WRT how some view capitalism, socialism, and communism. It explains why many/most modern socialists disavow communism every bit as much as they disavow "capitalism." It's the concentration of wealth that causes corruption, and it is corruption that causes economies to fail. Whether the elite wear "communist" hats or "capitalist" hats, the actors are invariably the same -- they are the sociopathic megalomaniacs whose sole purpose in life is to amass ever-increasing amounts of wealth and power. Socialism (as many "socialists" view it, including myself), seeks to distribute power among as many citizens as possible, preventing the concentration of wealth/power that corrupts and destroys entire economies and societies.

http://www.progressiveliving.org/economi...
----------------------

Socialism and communism are not at all the same. My entire family on my mother's side is from a socialist country in Europe (one of the countries you would call "capitalist"), and I have relatives who have been in high-level positions in government (Socialist Party). My mother was a card-carrying communist who later became a socialist. I know the difference between the two. You are terribly misinformed regarding this topic.

Submitted by harvey on February 23, 2012 - 8:41am.

CA renter wrote:
[...] is from a socialist country in Europe

There are no socialist countries in Europe. You can't name one, and the fact that you only make a vague reference to "some country in Europe" is proof of that.

One of the key distinctions between socialism and capitalism is ownership of private property.

There are a few small countries in eastern Europe where some large industries are still owned by the state (actually owned by corrupt thugs, but in the name of the state) but their economies are pretty much in shambles.

So let's hear it: What is the name of this socialist European country? A country where the majority of property is owned by the government, where there are no privately owned corporations, where all major economic activity is controlled by the state?

You are so close. You can prove me wrong with one word (no cut and paste required!)

Can you do it?

Submitted by CA renter on February 24, 2012 - 1:43am.

That's communism, not socialism. Please read the above post WRT definitions and the **range** as one moves from pure capitalism to pure communism. Socialism is in between, and the governments in those countries might control the entire economy, or only portions of it.

Again, you can't debate this topic if you don't understand the terms and definitions.

Yes, most countries in Europe have a socialist or mixed economy.

Austria:

"Austria is one of the 12 richest countries in the world in terms of GDP (Gross domestic product) per capita,[7] has a well-developed social market economy, and a high standard of living. Until the 1980s, many of Austria's largest industry firms were nationalised; in recent years, however, privatisation has reduced state holdings to a level comparable to other European economies. Labour movements are particularly strong in Austria and have large influence on labour politics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_...
-------------------

Social market economy:

"The social market economy seeks a middle path between socialism and laissez-faire economic liberalism (i.e. a mixed economy), combining private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services, by using state intervention.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mark...

Submitted by harvey on February 24, 2012 - 7:50am.

CA renter wrote:
Socialism is in between, and the governments in those countries might control the entire economy, or only portions of it.

Using your wish-washy definition above, every country with a government is socialist.

Hey, the US has a government, and we have state-owned businesses. (Post Office)

We live in the Socialist States of America!

Quote:
most countries in Europe have a socialist or mixed economy.

If you want to insist that Europe is socialist, then go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself. There is an upside to this particular ignorance: You'll probably make some friends from the Tea Party.

But why are we talking about "socialist" Europe?

The subject you keep trying to change is this little gem:

CA Renter wrote:
If you're right, then where are these "free market" countries with all the innovation and creativity?

(BTW, Did you type that on a Mac or PC?)

We aren't talking about the definition of socialism at all.

That you actually believe, and continue to defend, the sentence above shows a level of ignorance about the world that is simply astounding.

You can google/cut/paste all night, but I'm afraid it won't get you any closer to having a clue.

Submitted by CA renter on February 24, 2012 - 10:23am.

Once again, include the entire comment instead of selectively "editing" someone else's comments.

If you still don't grasp how different governments and the private market interact within an economy after being spoon-fed all of this info, then I can't help you. The "private market" cannot function successfully all by itself for any length of time. It never has, and it never will.

And did you seriously miss the posts explaining how the GOVERNMENT was involved in the development of computers and the internet. Can you read?

And yes, the US has a "mixed economy," which is a hybrid of captalism and socialism. Most successful countries do.

Submitted by harvey on February 24, 2012 - 10:33am.

CA renter wrote:
The "private market" cannot function successfully all by itself for any length of time. It never has, and it never will.

Another straw man dances past. Nobody ever said private market means "no government." Nobody but you.

How much was the government involved in the first 100 years of US history and innovation? How many government scientists were employed? Who did all the inventing back then?

Before 1900, the government was less than 5% of the US economy. Almost all of that was defense spending. How'd we do up to that point?

Did the government invent the steam engine, or the sewing machine, or the cotton gin, or any of the other dozens of transforming technologies of the 19th century?

Quote:
And did you seriously miss the posts explaining how the GOVERNMENT was involved in the development of computers and the internet.

And did you seriously miss the other 99% of the history of computers and the internet that has nothing to do with government?

Did the government invent the transistor, the microprocessor, the PC, the programming languages, the database, the network router, the fiber-optic cable, ...

Did Steve Jobs and Bill Gates ever work for the government?

Did the government invent the LCD display that you are staring at right now?

Did the government invent the search engine that you are so fond of using to prove how smart you are?

In your world, the thousands of engineers and scientists who work at IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Google, and Oracle, etc. spend their days just waiting for the government to invent things.

Ever drive past the Qualcomm buildings? If your arguments are correct, then nothing has ever been invented inside there. All those engineers working there (some of them are Piggs) just sit around waiting for the next government development to come along so they can sell it. Apparently they don't actually invent anything (and yet they file thousands of patents...)

But of course you don't understand any of this. You have this bizarre, simple-minded notion that only people who get paychecks from the government actually do anything. The other 90% of the economy is just dead weight.

You use lists of "famous scientists" to prove your point. Your depth of knowledge is no more than a 4th grader writing a report on how science works.

So let me take it down to your level:

What government agency did Thomas Edison work for?

Submitted by CA renter on April 6, 2012 - 1:55am.

Once again, since you still don't understand what socialism is (and isn't):

...................

"6. In recent years the peoples in the underdeveloped areas of the world have been finding Socialism a valuable aid in the struggle for national freedom and higher standards of life. Here different forms of democratic Socialism are evolving under the pressure of different circumstances. The main enemies of Socialism in these areas are parasitical exploitation by indigenous financial oligarchies and colonial exploitation by foreign capitalists. The Socialists fight for political and economic democracy, they seek to raise the standard of living for the masses through land reform and industrialisation, the extension of public ownership and the development of producers’ and consumers’ cooperatives.

7. Meanwhile, as Socialism advances throughout the world, new forces have arisen to threaten the movement towards freedom and social justice. Since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Communism has split the International Labour Movement and has set back the realisation of Socialism in many countries for decades.

8. Communism falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition. In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition. It has built up a rigid theology which is incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism.

9. Where Socialists aim to achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men under capitalism, Communists seek to sharpen those class divisions only in order to establish the dictatorship of a single party.

10. International Communism is the instrument of a new imperialism. Wherever it has achieved power it has destroyed freedom or the chance of gaining freedom. It is based on a militarist bureaucracy and a terrorist police. By producing glaring contrasts of wealth and privilege it has created a new class society. Forced labour plays an important part in its economic organisation.

11. Socialism is an international movement which does not demand a rigid uniformity of approach. Whether Socialists build their faith on Marxist or other methods of analysing society, whether they are inspired by religious or humanitarian principles, they all strive for the same goal — a system of social justice, better living, freedom and world peace."

http://www.socialistinternational.org/vi...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.