I’m surprised u sustain a position as absurd as this one .
I guess it’s pushing examples to the maximum to show how ideological ideas/ theories breaks down ….

So you are saying rich people would gladly spend 40 hours a weak picking garbage , cut hair , washes dishes etc just for the fun of it ?

Or u calling people winning 45-50k+ annually are considered “rich” people ?

Rich people is someone who got enough money for not having the need to work and have a relative good life .
In society u need working people for it to function .
So no , not everyone can be rich at the same time and it’s obvious there wouldn’t be enough money existing to make it so anyway ….

But the minimum society can do is to make sure those hard working people at the bottom , putting 40h a week , should at least be able to live over the line of poverty ….

This is an area controlled by vietborg and the north Vietnamese

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
How do you resolve this?

easily.
socialism has a tremendously large range of meaning when u speak of means of production.
socialism controlling 100% of production is called communism not socialism.
But surprisingly, it is not a necessity to live in the absolutism of 1 and 0, there is a large range in there that can chosen to make everyone happy.

But a little competition for the private sector certainly can never be wrong right ?
looking at the US, seem a little competition from the state in the health care system for example would be a good thing with the money it cost over there.....

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequa...-to-inequality

https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequa...mic-growth.htm


i guess u will tell me the IMF and OCDE are left wing entity ?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKCN1RN2WL

"IMF chief bashes economic theory embraced by U.S. leftists"


https://www.theguardian.com/business...ism-right-wing

"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development loathes being characterised as a right-wing thinktank. The Paris-based organisation, born in the aftermath of the second world war as an adviser to western governments, promotes market capitalism"

The market is out for itself. The market is controlled by a few people with outsized money and power. If it were profitable for them and for the market for the poorest in society to do well out of it, they would do so, but that's money and power that they don't need to give away. So they don't. There's no logical or evidential rationale for why the market doing better improves the lives or well-being in general of the poorest in society without intervention. And so it doesn't. We've seen productivity skyrocket over the last 50 years, but the number of those in work and in poverty conditions go up significantly too. The only way to argue for such a system is based on a manipulation of data, and the only reason to argue for such a system is if you think the economic liberty of a small handful of people is worth more than the wellbeing of the vast number of people that they control.

You said:

Then I posted the wiki definition which EXPLICITLY says socialism is AS OPPOSED to private ownership.

This does not address the discrepancy.

Communism is a form of socialism. This does not address the discrepancy.

There maybe a large range but you haven't addressed how you don't understand that socialism means no private property and wiki EXPLICILTY says this as well.
You don't know what socialism is. Why does the wiki says 'AS OPPOSED TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

And so you want to give control of the market to the government

Somethings aren't intuitive and you are running on pure intuition.

How would we feel about maximum inequality but no one lives in poverty?

Unacceptable

This is one of the simplest exampls of why economics cannot be reduced too far.

Raising the wealth of the poorest is good. Inequality is bad. There is no reason to believe there isn't a trade off. At least not as a static solution.

For starters, You have all the information available to you for free (through technological advancements) to look into this with an impartial mind and find the answers to how the bottom 20% have done in the last 20, 50 years both comparably and singularly and how and why the stock market moves and what that means to people of different income brackets.

It's fine to express different philosophical economic opinions but that should include posting information concluding that what you're saying is correct and positing an alternative system that supersedes what we have now with by supplying that information. Because I've seen these arguments before and it pretty much always end up coming from a place of envy and resentment and never actually gathers any footing other than far left leaning talking points. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are going to be different from the others.

Not for fun but rather for the utility of all of it. For instance, if it's just Buffett and Gates: what % of Buffett's wealth would he be willing to give to Gates to clean his house that Gates would be willing to accept? Probably no amount especially considering that Gates would prefer someone to clean his house as well. And so if he wants a clean house, he'll likely have to become a de facto housekeeper for a few hours. Same goes if everyone is rich: irrespective of their wealth, if they want a clean house they'll either need to clean it themselves or offer to clean another's house or do some other household chore in exchange.

What about as per the topic when no human labour is needed to clean our houses etc?

The increasing reduction in human labour/skills adding value is one of the the key economic/political issues we are facing.

So not everyone can be rich at the same time unless u want to semantically distort the meaning of what being rich means .

So the concept of anyone can be rich if they want to and if it’s not happening it’s because people don’t work hard enough is horsesh*it .

Not all can be rich at the same time .
Society need a “ranking” of social class to complete every needed functions it requires to operate .
If everyone would be “rich” it would just equal as being communist because everyone would be the same .

Rich as nothing to do on how much nominal money u have but where you are in the ranking system of society .

According to Marx:

That's essentially the opposite of modern egalitarianism that instead seeks to employ Marx's end (material equality) as a means to its socialist end (democracy). Still, everyone's rich (by the important meaning of the word).

Ability will approach zero

Costs of supplying need will approach zero (relative to the abundance)

Now what are we going to do?

I agree with your use of 'rich' by the way. But rich is not everything even where we achieve it

Your post is so strange to me that it makes me curious how you would answer this question:

If the US government gave every US citizen a billion dollars what would happen to the poverty rate in the US?

Take off your tin foil hat, please.

There is a shade of truth to this if when you mean "poorest in society" to mean the poorest 1% of the population. However, it is complete nonsense when you look at the poorest 20% of the population. Rich people would greatly prefer that poor people do well because that means those people are working which is good for the economy and rich people.

The economy doing well helps poor people because that means more job prospects.

Why do you think the poorest of the poor aren't better off today - remember these are the people who don't have jobs and are homeless. Do you think there are more or less government and private assistance for these people today?

Why do you think the poorest of the working class aren't better off today? Think about life 50 years ago for some in the 20th percentile of income vs someone in the 20th percentile then. Make a pros and cons of both of these people and see how it shakes out.

I couldn't parse the logic here. So it must be unacceptable to you then that everyone would be above poverty but inequality were at a maximum (or high etc).

If there is no reason to believe there is not a trade off. Then we would assume there is a trade-off. If there is a trade-off and we want to have no poverty then I would think you would accept inequality.

What don't I understand?

It's because he's counting head and not percentages and has no metric for quality of life that is observable as a metric over time.

He can say anything he wants without such a metric, and then make it correct in his head.

The stability of the metric, or one that is ultra-stable for this regard...nash calls Ideal.

No idea what u trying to say .
There is vast degree (as in 0-100%) of socialism a country can adopt .
And capitalism can live side by side with socialism at different portion of the economy .
Many European country does it .

Btw for a guy being a big proponent of Friedman , are u calling him or thinking all is work is non socialist even tho he agreed to have a form of UBI in the economy ?

https://basicincome.stanford.edu/about/what-is-ubi/

“The economist Milton Friedman famously defended a cousin of UBI, the Negative Income Tax (NIT). He held that the NIT would raise the floor without negatively affecting the price system and market mechanisms, and that it would reduce the paternalistic and intrusive state bureaucracy required to decide who, among the poor, merits assistance (Friedman 1962, 1968).”

Here’s a thought .
What do u call a country trying , with taxes and social programs, to aim of achieving some kind of equal opportunities for everyone ?
A socialist country ?

How would u achieves this ?

We will get to that, Its going to take a moment for me to address your question here.

But I just had this a few weeks ago. Basically I lost a buddy for telling him that he doesn't know the definition of socialism. He defines his world view by a definition that is in contrast with the wiki definition.

I think you were mistaken and didn't know that in socialism there is no private ownership. If you can't admit at least that wiki says this, then how can we move forward reasonably?

Remember, I'm claiming to be Nash's top student, he was an economics genius and spent his whole life on the works Ideal Money. I am the expert.

edit: is it semantics, have i not spoken accurately?

The IMF is an institution that lends based on leftist social policies. Its function is to believe that inequality should be fixed by lending etc. It is as if citing from the nato, keynesian, non-austrian view etc.
The non-keynesian side looks like this:

I'd accept some inequality for a sufficient gain in the wealth of the poorer. How much is the issue. Other's might have a different line to me. There is no maths solution to this disagreement. It's a qualitative judgement.

i.e if you believe maximising the wealth of the poorest is best and I'd prefer a little less wealth for a lot less inequality then it is not about who is correct.

You aren't using the same definition that wikipedia gives. You are using the same definition my buddy uses. Once you confirm this, your brain will change. He refused, and stopped talking to me instead.

Friedman was explicit in saying that his program is in contrast to the social welfare programs of their time. He explains its a lesser evil that is meant to be able to transition the current system. Its not UBI, and he's not pro socialism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Its a really good intro into Friedman. He's just one of many Nash had me study.
No, thats not the proper definition of socialism. You are using a different definition. Go read the wiki so you understand what I'm pointing out. You can still have your definition, but I'm telling you, do yourself a favor and understand the difference. It will change you.