America: What's wrong with "socialism", anyway?

[theprestige]

You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.

[Dumb All Over]

The problem is that you soon run out of other people's money.

[DavidJames]

Cool, a biodegradable thread, made totally out of straw.

[dudalb]

You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.

It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I prefer utopian socialist ideas with no money. Like Star Trek.

[AvalonXQ]

I prefer utopian socialist ideas with no money. Like Star Trek.

The Federation economy was one of the few concepts in Star Trek less plausible than the transporter.

[The Painter]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

[MarkCorrigan]

It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.

As a socialist I'm against the first part. I know of no Socialist who would cap people's earnings.

On the other hand, I do believe in an increasing tax scale, the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you pay. The really big earners should, in my opinion, be taxed anything up to 50% with maybe more for multi millionaires. That way, no matter how much a person pays in tax as a percentage, the highest earners will still have the most money.

Personally, I see that as a fair system that can afford to support the whole country with support for all.

[The Painter]

As a socialist I'm against the first part. I know of no Socialist who would cap people's earnings.

On the other hand, I do believe in an increasing tax scale, the more you earn, the higher percentage of tax you pay. The really big earners should, in my opinion, be taxed anything up to 50% with maybe more for multi millionaires. That way, no matter how much a person pays in tax as a percentage, the highest earners will still have the most money.

Personally, I see that as a fair system that can afford to support the whole country with support for all.

That ain't' it. That's a progressive tax system

[yomero]

:)It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.

What would happen if there was a poll to see which professions are the least and most attractive? Those jobs least liked (garbage collector, coal miner, undertaker ) woul get the highest income. Movie stars and professional athletes would be the least paid.:)

[yomero]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

OK, so factory worker B works harder and still gets the same paycheck as factory worker A. Factory CEO doesn't make a single Thingamajing and gets paid 50 or more times as much as A or B. If you train A or B for a week, they can do Factory CEO's job.

Factory workers A and B are Teabaggers, so they are proud to accept their lot.

[Number Six]

I prefer utopian socialist ideas with no money. Like Star Trek.

It's easy to live without money when you have replicators and holodeks.

Yeah, I never quite got the bit about bragging about money being abolished by then. And replaced with what? Maybe the idea was to emphasize that people in the 24th century had decided to not be so greedy and just amass as much money as possible, but still going from that to having no money at all is a long step.

Eliminating money is akin to eliminating people putting value on things and that's just not going to happen.

[MattusMaximus]

I think we should get rid of our socialist military. How dare the U.S. government take my hard-earned money to pay for armed forces when there are perfectly good private, mercenary armies available!!!11!1 :jaw-dropp

[JoeTheJuggler]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

And of course this has nothing to do with socialism. You get inequity like this because the invisible hand of the marketplace doesn't always "care" about such inequities.

[theprestige]

Cool, a biodegradable thread, made totally out of straw.
Feel free to replace my straw with your own wood or bricks, and answer the question on your own terms.

Everybody wants to be a big bad wolf. Nobody wants to be a hardworking little pig.

[pipelineaudio]

And of course this has nothing to do with socialism. You get inequity like this because the invisible hand of the marketplace doesn't always "care" about such inequities.

Can you expand on this? It seems to be a contradiction

[Thunder]

ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is that you soon run out of other people's money.

Sort of like Capitalism.. except in Capitalism, the money is horded to a few entities.

[thaiboxerken]

ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.

I've been to the Russian Fed, last year, actually. Capitalism isn't quite addressing all of their social issues either.

And since when was North Korea socialist? They are a dictatorship.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yeah, Russia and North Korea never were socialist in the sense that most people mean it when they wish to apply it to anywhere else.

[theprestige]

Sort of like Capitalism.. except in Capitalism, the money is horded to a few entities.
I think, if you took a moment or two to consider the real world, you would find that the vast majority of capitalists either spend or invest their money. Hoarding does them no good. Spending and investing, on the other hand, does everybody at least some good.

[thaiboxerken]

I think, if you took a moment or two to consider the real world, you would find that the vast majority of capitalists either spend or invest their money. Hoarding does them no good. Spending and investing, on the other hand, does everybody at least some good.

Spending, good. Investing...depends. Didn't something just happen because of crappy investments.. something big?

[tyr_13]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

I see you've worked for Wal-Mart too! Isn't capitalism great? Oh, you were talking about socialism? My mistake.


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


I'm a pragmatist. Some systems work better as capitalist ones, some as socialist ones. Police, military, fire departments, education, and health care are the ones I'd say tend to be better socialist than not. I tend to favor as light a regulation as is needed as well, but in some cases that is a lot of regulation, like with food production and housing.

The important part to remember is that which is better as which can and does change.

[Nursedan]

Just look at Venezuela. Private industry becomes nationalized, therefore competition is killed, therefore incentive is killed, therefore innovation is killed, therefore the economy stagnates, then crumbles. More entities are nationalized to attempt to stop the economic downturn, and things get worse. Do you know that there are daily brownouts there to conserve electricity? It wasn't always this way.

Socialism eradicates competition and rewards those who work less, rather than those who work more.

There are no success stories of socialist economies.

Name one innovation that came from socialist environment... Can't think of one? Okay, think of an innovation that came from a capitalist environment.... Not so hard, is it?

[theprestige]

Spending, good. Investing...depends. Didn't something just happen because of crappy investments.. something big?
Your cherry-pick is showing. If you're going to count the investments that caused the downturn, you should probably also count the investments that produced the heights from which the downturn is turning.

Either that, or stop posting on the Internet, which has been a benefit to people largely through investment.

ETA: Either that, or admit that your only real complaint about capitalism is that it isn't perfect, and your only real reason for preferring socialism is that you have an obvious and unthinking double standard.

[thaiboxerken]

Name one innovation that came from socialist environment... Can't think of one? Okay, think of an innovation that came from a capitalist environment.... Not so hard, is it?

There are quite a few scientific discoveries and innovations that came about because of government funding. I don't think a pure socialist country would work, but neither to I think a purely capitalistic one would either.

[thaiboxerken]

Your cherry-pick is showing.....

Either that, or stop posting on the Internet, which has been a benefit to people largely through investment.

Oh the irony!

[Nursedan]

There are quite a few scientific discoveries and innovations that came about because of government funding. I don't think a pure socialist country would work, but neither to I think a purely capitalistic one would either.

I should've said socialist country, like Venezuela.

[theprestige]

Oh the irony!
So you agree that capitalists don't hoard their money, and that investment is better than hoarding?

[Travis]

I should've said socialist country, like Venezuela.

Way to cherry pick a socialist country that is dysfunctional. We might as well use Somalia as an example that capitalism doesn't work.

Perhaps Sweden and South Korea would be better contrasts.

[Nursedan]

Way to cherry pick a socialist country that is dysfunctional. We might as well use Somalia as an example that capitalism doesn't work.

Perhaps Sweden and South Korea would be better contrasts.

My first post referred to Venezuela.

[MattusMaximus]

Down with our socialist fire departments! :mad:

[Travis]

My first post referred to Venezuela.

I know and you listed a series of events that didn't happen in Sweden which is also a socialist country.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

So you agree that capitalists don't hoard their money, and that investment is better than hoarding?

The problem is that, in reality, "capitalists" don't invest a clear majority of their money. Investment can be very risky and even seemingly smart investments can result in the loss of substantial amounts of money due to a freak accident. So the wealthy, who I would say comprise the majority of the investor class, do tend to hoard great sum os money rather than spending or investing it. That's just smart, imo, rather than investing great sums of money.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you expand on this? It seems to be a contradiction
He described a situation of unfair compensation that leads to the crumbling of society. Since unfair compensation is not unheard of within laissez faire capitalism, that situation had nothing to do with socialism.

[MarkCorrigan]

That ain't' it. That's a progressive tax system

You understand that is only part of it, right? I'm also for nationalised healthcare, transport, some housing for poorer people, education, power and various other things.

The tax is just the start. Mwahahaha.

[MarkCorrigan]

ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.

I really really want to stop people saying this.

The USSR, particularly after the rise of Stalin, bears about as much resemblance to Socialism as the Democratic Republic of Congo does to Democracy.

In order to understand what socialism is, read socialist writings don't just say "Hur hur, USSR".


Oh, and what makes it even funnier is that a lot of people in Russia actually miss the USSR. They want it back.

[Legend]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.

Just look at Venezuela. Private industry becomes nationalized, therefore competition is killed, therefore incentive is killed, therefore innovation is killed, therefore the economy stagnates, then crumbles. More entities are nationalized to attempt to stop the economic downturn, and things get worse. Do you know that there are daily brownouts there to conserve electricity? It wasn't always this way.

Socialism eradicates competition and rewards those who work less, rather than those who work more.

There are no success stories of socialist economies.

Name one innovation that came from socialist environment... Can't think of one? Okay, think of an innovation that came from a capitalist environment.... Not so hard, is it?

It's the first part I have a problem with.
And who decides what is Too Much.
And people are going to resent working harder and getting less.

I am not against a net or social programs per se, but if the above is Socialism then I am against it for the reasons stated and one other big one:It Won't Work. People work better when they will directily profit from it.

Is it just me, or are many people confusing "socialism" with "communism"?

:boxedin:

Alex.

[Blue Mountain]

Is it just me, or are many people confusing "socialism" with "communism"?

:boxedin:

Alex.
An all too common response in the United States. To quite a few, any hint of socialism is merely the snout of the communist bear poking into the sacred tent of American capitalism. The rise of the Tea Party faction in the Republican Party in response to Obama's attempts to bring a small measure of sanity to the U.S. health cars system is one example.

[Legend]

An all too common response in the United States. To quite a few, any hint of socialism is merely the snout of the communist bear poking into the sacred tent of American capitalism. The rise of the Tea Party faction in the Republican Party in response to Obama's attempts to bring a small measure of sanity to the U.S. health cars system is one example.

Ah, yes. Thanks.

I did consider this, I mean, I've always basically considered Australia a socialist country, so to hear these comparisons to Stalin and Korea and workers not being paid the same for equal work had me a little discombobulated. That word is relevant, though totally superfluous; I use because I can :) .

Alex.

[Cleon]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

Here's the thing...Factory workers are paid by the hour. So what you're describing, where A and B make the same paycheck while making a different number of thingamajigs? That's the way things are now.

So...First, I think we can safely say that your conclusion has not come to pass, and is likely flawed.

Second, this is an indictment of socialism exactly how?

[SonOfLaertes]

I really really want to stop people saying this.

The USSR, particularly after the rise of Stalin, bears about as much resemblance to Socialism as the Democratic Republic of Congo does to Democracy.

In order to understand what socialism is, read socialist writings don't just say "Hur hur, USSR".


Oh, and what makes it even funnier is that a lot of people in Russia actually miss the USSR. They want it back.

Of course they want it back. They want it back because the average Russian fared better when their country was able to piggyback their prosperity on the backs of the satellite countries surrounding the Mother Country. Even the Eastern European countries which were techically not part of the "Union" were exploited for the benefit of Mother Russia.

Good times, if you were an ethnic Russian. Not so good for those who weren't, unless you were one of the few who the Russians used to help exploit the satellite "republic".

[Donal]

I know and you listed a series of events that didn't happen in Sweden which is also a socialist country.


Sweden has private property ownership, private investment and disparity of incomes. Not exactly hallmarks of a socialist country.

An extensive social welfare system does not make a country socialist.

[Nursedan]

Sweden has private property ownership, private investment and disparity of incomes. Not exactly hallmarks of a socialist country.

An extensive social welfare system does not make a country socialist.

Way to cherry pick a socialist country that is dysfunctional. We might as well use Somalia as an example that capitalism doesn't work.

Perhaps Sweden and South Korea would be better contrasts.

I feel like we're not on the same page.

It's a complicated subject since most economies are mixed, in that there are some elements of capitalism and some aspects of other economic models, Or or vice-versa. Pure socialism, which is what Venezuela is close to, is setup to fail, largely due to human nature.

That last part is key btw.

[Travis]

Is it just me, or are many people confusing "socialism" with "communism"?

:boxedin:

Alex.

Keep in mind that in the USA we are taught that socialism is communism, communism is socialism and it all leads to Stalin and Gulags. I had a high school history text book that labeled the section on the dissolution of the Iron Curtain as "The Fall of Socialism."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's the thing...Factory workers are paid by the hour. So what you're describing, where A and B make the same paycheck while making a different number of thingamajigs? That's the way things are now.

So...First, I think we can safely say that your conclusion has not come to pass, and is likely flawed.

Second, this is an indictment of socialism exactly how?

Exactly what I was trying to say, but said much more clearly.

[The Painter]

Here's the thing...Factory workers are paid by the hour. So what you're describing, where A and B make the same paycheck while making a different number of thingamajigs? That's the way things are now.

So...First, I think we can safely say that your conclusion has not come to pass, and is likely flawed.

Second, this is an indictment of socialism exactly how?

I guess you've never heard of piecemeal. Not everything is by the hour.

[Donal]

Not to mention bonuses, pay raises, promotions, and other performance incentives companies use for their employees.

[johnny karate]

Other threads to look forward to in this series include "What's wrong with "fascism", anyway?" and "What's wrong with "baby-eating", anyway?".

[uk_dave]

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

How about Factory worker B is the boyfriend of the boss's daughter and is using the Thinga4000Ultima machine with turbo charged Whatsit, whereas Factory worker A is a union rep who is using the Thinga10Basic, which is much slower and keeps breaking down, and the Boss wants to use this as an excuse to sack him, but those damned socialist demagogues in City Hall have passed legislation preventing constructive dismissal....and......and... the daughter is pregnant and the boss's wife is having an affair with the Latvian pool boy.

[AvalonXQ]

Not to mention bonuses, pay raises, promotions, and other performance incentives companies use for their employees.

Exactly. The system as it exists today is set up to allow people to be rewarded if they provide more value. A communist (not socialist, communist) system specifically refutes this idea.

[AvalonXQ]

How about Factory worker B is the boyfriend of the boss's daughter and is using the Thinga4000Ultima machine with turbo charged Whatsit, whereas Factory worker A is a union rep who is using the Thinga10Basic, which is much slower and keeps breaking down,

In a communist country, no one would have ever bothered to create the Thinga4000Ultima in the first place. Who benefits?

[uk_dave]

Socialist, dear. SOCIALIST, not communist.

[Dancing David]

You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.

That is one model, you do not have to have income wealth restricitions, in some you can have progressive taxes or a standard tax.

The goals is not the elimination of poverty in some models but the reduction of the effects of poverty, so if is does not have to be that you have a dole. You can have safe housing, safe education, affordable health care and things like that. The goals being that you not have the crime, despiar and ill health taht poverty causes. (I never said it was realistic either.)

Now personally I do think that the standard models of socialism at work, as in many countries, are much less cut and dried then some would have.

[Dancing David]

Sweden has private property ownership, private investment and disparity of incomes. Not exactly hallmarks of a socialist country.

An extensive social welfare system does not make a country socialist.

Stop making sense, making sense, making sense.

[DDWW]

College professors have a great opportunity to show how Socialism could work in their classroom. Run the semester under Socialism.

The Students are the workers. The products, or the production side, is homework, papers, exams, etc. The rewards or results of the production are the grades.

Put a ceiling on individual wealth.
Put a floor on individual poverty.

Set up a progressive tax.

All “A” students (the rich) will be taxed 2 grades.
All “B” students (the upper middle class) will be taxed 1 grade.
All “C” students (the working class) will not be taxed.
All “D” students (the lower class) will be subsidized 1 grade.
All “E” students (the poor) will be subsidized 2 grades.

Everyone gets a “C”.
No one has to little and no one has to much.
Everyone passes the class.

Utopia achieved!

DDW(one "w" taxed away)

[MikeMangum]

I've been to the Russian Fed, last year, actually. Capitalism isn't quite addressing all of their social issues either.

To be fair, Russia isn't really capitalist, it is mercantilist.

And since when was North Korea socialist? They are a dictatorship.

There's a difference between the two?

[MarkCorrigan]

College professors have a great opportunity to show how Socialism could work in their classroom. Run the semester under Socialism.

The Students are the workers. The products, or the production side, is homework, papers, exams, etc. The rewards or results of the production are the grades.

Put a ceiling on individual wealth.
Put a floor on individual poverty.

Set up a progressive tax.

All “A” students (the rich) will be taxed 2 grades.
All “B” students (the upper middle class) will be taxed 1 grade.
All “C” students (the working class) will not be taxed.
All “D” students (the lower class) will be subsidized 1 grade.
All “E” students (the poor) will be subsidized 2 grades.

Everyone gets a “C”.
No one has to little and no one has to much.
Everyone passes the class.

Utopia achieved!

DDW(one "w" taxed away)

You know that isn't how it would work right?

I mean, seriously, are you people really that ignorant of what you're scared of?

What am I saying, of course you are, now go and hide in the basement because those nasty commies in...somewhere are plotting your downfall.

[uk_dave]

There's a difference between the two?

Ummmmmm yes.

And while we're at it.....

Wanda: ......Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/quotes

[DDWW]

You know that isn't how it would work right?

I mean, seriously, are you people really that ignorant of what you're scared of?

What am I saying, of course you are, now go and hide in the basement because those nasty commies in...somewhere are plotting your downfall.

If you cannot make an intellectual response…..resort to name calling!


Wow, I'm impressed...NOT.

DDWW

[MarkCorrigan]

If you cannot make an intellectual response…..resort to name calling!


Wow, I'm impressed...NOT.

DDWW

It isn't my fault you're so horribly ignorant that you smugly propose a ridiculous thought experiment that bears no semblance to reality.

I would have answered with an actual point, like I did to The Painter, had you not been so horrendously self satisfied. As it was, I can't be bothered to deal with someone so happy with their ignorance.

[DDWW]

It isn't my fault you're so horribly ignorant that you smugly propose a ridiculous thought experiment that bears no semblance to reality.

I would have answered with an actual point, like I did to The Painter, had you not been so horrendously self satisfied. As it was, I can't be bothered to deal with someone so happy with their ignorance.

Wow, condescension on top of name calling!

Really impressive!:D:D

DDWW

[Donal]

So, anyone want to define socialism?

Thats a question I can never get get 2 identical straight answers to.

On the detractors' side, I get a bunch of hyperbole and strawmen regarding human nature and such.

On the supporters' side, I rarely get a straight answer. When I do, it seems that every one of them has their own definition.

[Oliver]

In a communist country, no one would have ever bothered to create the Thinga4000Ultima in the first place. Who benefits?


Wait a second... Inventions are a matter of creative thinking. I don't see why money should be the primary motive in the first place. Those who feel that their way of life is socialism [or communism] may have the same motivation without the primary target of getting rich ... wrong?

[MikeMangum]

Yes, wrong.

[AvalonXQ]

So, anyone want to define socialism?

My definition (as a detractor): The features of a country's economy which are controlled by the government rather than the private sector, and either cannot by law be, or in practice are not, subject to free market forces.

[Oliver]

Yes, wrong.


R U Communist or Socialist? ;)

[theprestige]

Wait a second... Inventions are a matter of creative thinking. I don't see why money should be the primary motive in the first place.
Well, money is just a way of measuring benefit, so you're really saying you don't see why benefit should be the primary motive, which seems... silly.

Then there's the benefit of the resources necessary to bring the creative idea to practical fruition.

The Wright Flyer did not spring fully-formed from the brows of Wilbur and Orville Wright. It required substantial investment of resources--the benefit of the Wright Brothers' hard work in other areas.

Typically, if you want somebody else to give you the benefit of their hard work--their time, their knowledge, the fruits of their labor, etc.--you must offer them some kind of benefit in return. Researchers don't work for free. Neither do investors. Why shouldn't benefit be the primary motive for investors?

[Oliver]

Well, money is just a way of measuring benefit, so you're really saying you don't see why benefit should be the primary motive, which seems... silly.

Then there's the benefit of the resources necessary to bring the creative idea to practical fruition.

The Wright Flyer did not spring fully-formed from the brows of Wilbur and Orville Wright. It required substantial investment of resources--the benefit of the Wright Brothers' hard work in other areas.

Typically, if you want somebody else to give you the benefit of their hard work--their time, their knowledge, the fruits of their labor, etc.--you must offer them some kind of benefit in return. Researchers don't work for free. Neither do investors. Why shouldn't benefit be the primary motive for investors?


Well, that's my "silly" point. If it benefits the whole society, that could be a good goal to some social persons as well - without any personal benefits. And yes, some ideas need to be sponsored to be realized. But that isn't a matter of socialism or capitalism since communist and socialist countries do sponsor research/science etc. as well. So?

[MarkCorrigan]

Wow, condescension on top of name calling!

Really impressive!:D:D

DDWW

Ok, quick explanation then. Your thought experiment is garbage because:

A. Grades are solid single things. It would be more accurate if it was a comparison of percentages.

B. Grades are earned in a different way to money. In order to earn a high grade you must be gifted and a hard worker, not so with money given the wage structure.

C. It ignores the central theme of Socialism in order to go for the emotional "they're stealin' our money!" red herring. That is, that in Socialist states, the method of production is owned by the state on behalf of the people. This leads (in theory) to a fairer system because the state (run by the people) would not shaft the workers in order to squeeze every penny they could out of it. Thus, the Socialist ideal is that there would be no giant businesses working on behalf of tax payers, but a state which is owned and run by and for the people, all people rich or poor, which handles the running of things.

Now, PURE Socialism is rather silly, I admit, because it's so easy for the state to become bloated and corrupt, with people fashioning it into whatever they want and getting jobs for life. Not a good thing. On the other hand, Democratic Socialism, for which I am a proponent, keeps the ideas of the state system, but instead would actually hand control to the people in the form of a proportional electoral system, thus in effect leading to a larger but regulated and changeable government which controls the basics of a country in the healthcare, education, some industry etc.

The idea that everyone gets exactly the same no matter what isn't Socialism, and it isn't even Communism. Instead, it's a pathetic strawman created by people who are scared of something even though they don't know why, so they create a hideous bogeyman and attribute the name of what they fear to it. They attack the object of their revulsion for holding opinions it does not, but that they have instead attributed to it. Thus the fear of something that is misunderstood is born.

Quite frankly, I don't mind if you think my own idea of a Socialist "utopia" is a ridiculous pipe dream, or itself a horrifying vision of dystopia, but please, please, I ask all of you, don't tell me what I believe in is evil when you don't understand it.

Some people would have more champagne in first class, but no one would have drowned on the Titanic.

[GlennB]

Every time the fire crews roar down the road, sirens blaring and lights flashing, to save lives and property we are seeing an element of socialism at work.

They don't stop to ask whether you have insurance or cash to cover the cost. They don't wonder what quality of fire-extinguishing they should apply according to your status. They don't even care if yours is the only house within 5 miles. It's a social benefit, applied equally, organised by the state.

[Darth Rotor]

America: What's wrong with "socialism", anyway?
In moderate amounts, nothing. It's a matter of degree, not kind.

Where to draw the line is where the fun is.

DR

[Cain]

College professors have a great opportunity to show how Socialism could work in their classroom. Run the semester under Socialism.

The Students are the workers. The products, or the production side, is homework, papers, exams, etc. The rewards or results of the production are the grades.

Put a ceiling on individual wealth.
Put a floor on individual poverty.

Typical American grades already have a ceiling (A) and a floor (F).

Set up a progressive tax.

All “A” students (the rich) will be taxed 2 grades.
All “B” students (the upper middle class) will be taxed 1 grade.
All “C” students (the working class) will not be taxed.
All “D” students (the lower class) will be subsidized 1 grade.
All “E” students (the poor) will be subsidized 2 grades.

Everyone gets a “C”.
No one has to little and no one has to much.
Everyone passes the class.

Utopia achieved!


This is a foolish thought experiment and I don't think you understand socialism at all. An ideal grading system would reward people in accordance to their effort. A person with impressive (unearned) native endowments then has an incentive to work her hardest for the highest possible grade; same goes for the C-student who feels, no matter how hard he tries, he'll never get an A, so he'll just attend class and shirk the readings, get a passing grade. Now he has an incentive to put more in. There's a problem when it comes to gauging effort, but this is very different than sheer ability.

I do not see why a socialist feels we should redistribute grades. Besides, the economy is not a zero-sum affair, right?

OP:
You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

I don't see why we should put a ceiling on individual wealth, although I suppose a stronger argument could be made for individual income.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

I do not see why able-bodied people should be entitled to laze around on the public's dime. If you can work, but choose not to, then you're free to starve. Of course, it's not always easy to separate genuine cases from frauds, the world's a messy place, and I have this crazy socialist belief that people should not starve because of circumstances beyond their control.

Fundamentally socialism refers to the idea that the workers own and control the means of production themselves. As noted above, people are generally paid a flat wage, and their only incentive is to avoid getting harassed by their boss. We have all kinds of inefficiencies, especially in the American system, because of our ********** up incentive structure and culture. An old statistic, but I remember reading the Japanese have 1/3 fewer bosses, which means money can be spent in more productive ways rather than surveillance.

In a workplace democracy, everyone shares in the profits, which is ironically regarded by some as ultra-capitalistic because people own stock. Yeah, the people doing the actual labor. I think William Greider had a book five or six years ago about co-ops organized along lines of economic liberty and empowerment.

In the American context, socialism/communism/Marxism is associated with government involvement in health care -- because, you know, universal health care was a vitally necessary precondition for the creation of a Stalinist police state.

All citizens need access to essential primary goods, especially health care and education (almost everyone agrees with police protection).

One of the more interesting things about self-described admirers of capitalism is that they're do not advocate meritocracy. Property rights figures more prominently into their belief system, trumping even merit.

The problem with this overheated rhetoric about "socialism" is that conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, teabaggers -- they're not morally serious people. They have this almost axiomatic belief system about the size of government and the "appropriate" functions of government, but they've never thought about these things for longer than five minutes. If we did have a totally free market in education, would kids receive vouchers? Then you're saying it's OK for the state to "redistribute wealth." Is a consumer protection agency "socialist?" If so, should mattress and pajama manufacturers be allowed to make their products out of flammable materials? Do we allow negative externalities in the form of pollution to go unchecked?

These are just more basic arguments we need to have before anyone can hope of ameliorating hierarchies in the work place.

[Donal]

Every time the fire crews roar down the road, sirens blaring and lights flashing, to save lives and property we are seeing an element of socialism at work.

They don't stop to ask whether you have insurance or cash to cover the cost. They don't wonder what quality of fire-extinguishing they should apply according to your status. They don't even care if yours is the only house within 5 miles. It's a social benefit, applied equally, organised by the state.

It's a little more complicated than that. At least, it is in the US.

Fire fighters, police officers and other services are funded mainly by by real estate taxes. They do receive some federal aid, but its mostly local taxes that cover their day to day expenses.

This means that the nicer the precinct, the more expensive (and valuable) real estate is, the more real estate taxes are collected, the more funding goes to the local fire house, police station, sanitation etc etc.

So, rich people in the nicer areas get better service than poor people in crappy areas.

[DDWW]

Typical American grades already have a ceiling (A) and a floor (F).

An ideal grading system would reward people in accordance to their effort. A person with impressive (unearned) native endowments then has an incentive to work her hardest for the highest possible grade; same goes for the C-student who feels, no matter how hard he tries, he'll never get an A, so he'll just attend class and shirk the readings, get a passing grade. Now he has an incentive to put more in. There's a problem when it comes to gauging effort, but this is very different than sheer ability.



Looks then just like capitalism. :D

Thank-you

DDWW

[JoeTheJuggler]

I guess you've never heard of piecemeal. Not everything is by the hour.

The point is that even in capitalism pay isn't always linked precisely to productivity. I'd say that it's a rather rare situation when it is.

Also, there is nothing inherent in socialism to prevent pay from being linked to productivity (or some other form of merit).

So once again, the situation you describe:

Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

has nothing to do with socialism. And since it happens now without society crumbling, as someone else pointed out, it's wrong on top of being irrelevant.

[uk_dave]

Anyway, it's Piecework.

[Dancing David]

So, anyone want to define socialism?

Thats a question I can never get get 2 identical straight answers to.

On the detractors' side, I get a bunch of hyperbole and strawmen regarding human nature and such.

On the supporters' side, I rarely get a straight answer. When I do, it seems that every one of them has their own definition.

so·cial·ism
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism

NOUN:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


So there can be various mixes of socialism , just as there is with capitalism or democracy.

Now I tend not to favor the state owned bussiness myself, but I feel there are raeas where the for profit solely motive goobers up the works. But on the converse I also don't like the idea of central planing.

Take the development of science and technology, much of that is government funded, as was the space program. There are many areas of the common weal, where it is appropriate to have public funding and oversight, safety for example, bussiness often does not care for teh safety of the product. Now the highways are a good example of socialism, they are government funded and owned.

So you can have both.

[Dancing David]

Well, money is just a way of measuring benefit, so you're really saying you don't see why benefit should be the primary motive, which seems... silly.

Then there's the benefit of the resources necessary to bring the creative idea to practical fruition.



Ah yes, the entrepenurial spirit, which is a good thing. However the entrepenuer is often using the government now a days to fund their research. And the main detraction in capitalism that I have is that capitalism often favors cronies over worthies and often tries to squelch competition. So the free market which is really another name for laissez-faire has often as many impediments to advance as any other form of economy/politics.

When you have Milton Freidman writing about the benefits of not having anti-trust, it is sort of ironic. It benefits the company, it does not benefit the market. He pretends that he favor the comp[etitive markets, except when he says companies can use monopolies to squelch the competition and increas the profit. Just because large corporations exist does not mean that they benefit the economy.

I take a pragmatic approach, if bussiness can't regulate the public weal on its own, which it has shown it doesn't, then some government intervention is merited. So seat belts, and evil socialist imperative, are a good thing.

[Tony]

Name one innovation that came from socialist environment... Can't think of one?

I'll name 2. The internet and GPS.

[Dancing David]

Looks then just like capitalism. :D

Thank-you

DDWW

Except for when capitalism has deals not made for the benefit of the consumer or the shareholder but for the kick back from the buddy, the short term scheme of the executive and the corporate raider. So they buy parts at a higher price and lower quality, not because it favors the company or the consumer but because it benefits the executive. They create deals not to make the company stronger and better but to benefit the executive.

So capitalism does not always make for better products, better prices, better competition , better markets or benefit to the shareholders and consumers.

Both capitalism and socialism have their merits and thier detriments, one is not pure in either form.

[thaiboxerken]

So you agree that capitalists don't hoard their money, and that investment is better than hoarding?

No. There are capitalists, at the "top" of the chain that horde the money. It's because of the hording that they have billion-dollar estates and bank accounts. Investments can be better than hoarding, or worst.

[The Painter]

Originally Posted by The Painter
Factory worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
Factory workers A and B make the same paycheck.
Factory worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.


I see the word "FACTORY" has had a deleterious affect here. Strike the word "FACTORY"

worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
workers A and B make the same paycheck.
worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A.
Entire production drops. Soon there are not enough products for the population. Society crumbles.

Better?

Yes. Yes it is. And much more to the point.

[theprestige]

No. There are capitalists, at the "top" of the chain that horde the money. It's because of the hording that they have billion-dollar estates and bank accounts. Investments can be better than hoarding, or worst.
Ooh, the dreaded "bank accounts"! The dirty hoarders! Why, I bet nothing ever gets done with the money in those horrible hoarding "bank accounts"!

ETA: Seriously, name one capitalist at the top of the chain who hoards his money in a "bank account". Warren Buffet? Oops, no, he's one of the world's most prolific and profitable investors. Bill Gates? Oops, no, he's one of the worlds biggest charitable contributors.

Here's a better question (I hope): What do you think happens to the money in an interest-bearing "bank account"? Follow-up question: Why is it always the low-value "bank-accounts" that earn the least interest (if any at all), and the high-value "bank accounts" always earn the most interest? Bonus question: What do you think happens to accounts at an "investment bank"?

[Random]

Name one innovation that came from socialist environment... Can't think of one?

Manned space flight?

[MikeMangum]

Manned space flight?

Some socialist governments have been fairly decent at producing military technologies. And (hirsute) female olympic teams.

[thaiboxerken]

Ooh, the dreaded "bank accounts"! The dirty hoarders! Why, I bet nothing ever gets done with the money in those horrible hoarding "bank accounts"!

ETA: Seriously, name one capitalist at the top of the chain who hoards his money in a "bank account". Warren Buffet? Oops, no, he's one of the world's most prolific and profitable investors. Bill Gates? Oops, no, he's one of the worlds biggest charitable contributors.

Here's a better question (I hope): What do you think happens to the money in an interest-bearing "bank account"? Follow-up question: Why is it always the low-value "bank-accounts" that earn the least interest (if any at all), and the high-value "bank accounts" always earn the most interest? Bonus question: What do you think happens to accounts at an "investment bank"?

What do you think caused this recession?

[theprestige]

What do you think caused this recession?
Irrelevant.

The recession wasn't caused by capitalists hoarding money, because capitalists mostly don't hoard--they'd hardly be capitalists if they did!.

[Dancing David]

Now on the surface that is reasonable, but how much investment is truly capitalization? IE how much actually goes into means of production.

[thaiboxerken]

Irrelevant.

The recession wasn't caused by capitalists hoarding money, because capitalists mostly don't hoard--they'd hardly be capitalists if they did!.

Isn't the point of capitalism to make the most money? Who ever has the most money wins, right?

[Nursedan]

Well, that's my "silly" point. If it benefits the whole society, that could be a good goal to some social persons as well - without any personal benefits. And yes, some ideas need to be sponsored to be realized. But that isn't a matter of socialism or capitalism since communist and socialist countries do sponsor research/science etc. as well. So?

What you propose goes against human nature. Why would I work if I know I won't be compensated? Another strike against the concept of socialism. Not only is it smart to look after onesself first, it is a very human thing to do. This is probably why people are associating dictatorships with socialism, becuase once the compensation for good work is removed, force must be used in order to make people work.

(The above is a theory not necessarily rooted in fact):D

Edit - I just realized this thread is in the wrong sub-group. It should be in the economics sub forum, since we are talking about an economic model rather than something like communism, which is a political model. Just a thought...

[MikeMangum]

Isn't the point of capitalism to make the most money? Who ever has the most money wins, right?

No. The point of capitalism is the freedom to do what you want with your money, within certain constraints, whether that is "bury it in my back yard so that when I die I know my children will have it" or "invest in a no load mutual fund for my retirement" or "start a company and become the wealthiest person in the world".

Or even "give it a charity that I feel deserves my support".

The "point" of capitalism is economic freedom.

[AvalonXQ]

What do you think caused this recession?

Government-instigated and government-mandated financial interference designed to skew the market to allow low-income families to get mortgages on homes they couldn't afford.

[Newtons Bit]

Except for when capitalism has deals not made for the benefit of the consumer or the shareholder but for the kick back from the buddy, the short term scheme of the executive and the corporate raider. So they buy parts at a higher price and lower quality, not because it favors the company or the consumer but because it benefits the executive. They create deals not to make the company stronger and better but to benefit the executive.

That's a problem with corruption. It could be easily fixed by paying executives a nominal salary and then bonuses in the form of stock options (or something similar) that mature after 5 years. That way they're financially interested in the long-term success of the company.

Much of the recent problems in the financial sector would have been prevented if CEO's were paying more attention to the long-term rather than their quarterly bonuses.

[MikeMangum]

What do you think caused this recession?

There were many causes, the primary cause of which was this (http://www.rapidtrends.com/images-blog/m3b-jan30-2009.png). The 2 people who contributed most were Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke...and no, I'm not an "audit the Fed!" looney. When your M3 money supply is expanding at around a 15% year over year rate, things are not good.

[thaiboxerken]

Funny, I thought it was deregulation of the markets, coupled with corrupt capitalistic practices that caused this recession.

[uruk]

In America:
worker A makes 50 Thingamajigs in a week.
worker B works harder and makes 300 Thingamajigs in a week.
workers A and B make the same paycheck (since they are paid by the hour or a set salary)
worker B sees no benefit for working harder and drops production down to 50 Thingamajigs in a week, like worker A. (unless he is a brown noser and looking for a promotion)
Entire production drops so that prices can be kept at an artificial limit.
Soon the cost of lining increases makes the labor cost affect the profit margin.
Company moves factory to foriegn country to exploit lower labor costs.
Worker A and Worker B are out of a job and go on unemployment.

[Darth Rotor]

Isn't the point of capitalism to make the most money? Who ever has the most money wins, right?
If that is your understanding, then taking a class at a higher level of economics might be a good idea.

DR

[MikeMangum]

Funny, I thought it was deregulation of the markets, coupled with corrupt capitalistic practices that caused this recession.

Then you thought wrong.

[thaiboxerken]

Then you thought wrong.

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

[MikeMangum]

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

Haven't heard of it, but that surely does not support your point. Was this previously illegal and is now legal? That's called deregulation.

[thaiboxerken]

Funny, I thought I said deregulation AND corrupt practices. If not, that's what I meant.

So you don't think Wall Street practices had anything to do with the recession?

[Dancing David]

Government-instigated and government-mandated financial interference designed to skew the market to allow low-income families to get mortgages on homes they couldn't afford.

Nice bullflop, the high risk mortages were not instigated by the gubermmint, nor were they bundled by the government, nor were they part of the CRA, nor were credit default swaps started by AIG.

But please continue.

[Dancing David]

That's a problem with corruption. It could be easily fixed by paying executives a nominal salary and then bonuses in the form of stock options (or something similar) that mature after 5 years. That way they're financially interested in the long-term success of the company.

Much of the recent problems in the financial sector would have been prevented if CEO's were paying more attention to the long-term rather than their quarterly bonuses.

I understand that (and I agree), however the 'free market fixes all ills' is a common argument, I am pointing out that all systems are capable of fault and therefore the 'free markets' self correct is a fallacy.

There is currently this meme running around started by Friedman but it has wide acceptance, it seems to say that 'capitalism is all good', which is untrue, I also have stated that socialism is not all good.

[Dancing David]

Then you thought wrong.

Questionable securities that were over rated ,high risk mortgages, sovereign wealth flowing into them, credit default swaps, they were all that chart, cool!

[jimbob]

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

Haven't heard of it, but that surely does not support your point. Was this previously illegal and is now legal? That's called deregulation.

Bloomberg's link to this story (http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-24/-frankenstein-derivatives-described-in-e-mail-by-goldman-s-fabrice-tourre.html) (so not some left-wing source)

In a March 7, 2007, e-mail Tourre describes the U.S. subprime mortgage market as “not too brilliant” and says that “according to Sparks,” an apparent reference to Daniel Sparks who ran Goldman Sachs’s mortgage business at the time, “that business is totally dead, and the poor little subprime borrowers will not last too long!!!”

The timing of the e-mails overlaps with his work on the Abacus 2007-AC1 bond that is at the center of the SEC’s lawsuit. The Abacus deal was sold to IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and ACA Management LLC between January and April 2007.

A few months later, a June 13, 2007, e-mail shows Tourre claiming, “I’ve managed to sell a few Abacus bonds to widows and orphans that I ran into at the airport, apparently these Belgians adore synthetic ABS CDO2,” using short-hand for asset- backed collateralized debt obligations squared, or CDOs made up of tranches of CDOs containing asset-backed securities.


Sold as low-risk investments.

I would consider this as immoral, regardless of the legality.

[theprestige]

Isn't the point of capitalism to make the most money? Who ever has the most money wins, right?
No. Wrong. That point is so stupid that even capitalists don't believe in it.

[AvalonXQ]

Nice bullflop, the high risk mortages were not instigated by the gubermmint,
Yes, they were. So much so, that banks were bullied by groups like ACORN into making them.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, they were. So much so, that banks were bullied by groups like ACORN into making them.

Wrong.
Also, this doesn't even make any sense. The government bullied banks so much taht ACORN made them make risky investments and mortgages? Huh?!

[AvalonXQ]

Wrong.
Also, this doesn't even make any sense.

ACORN lobbied the government for years to get legislation favorable to subprimes. Then they used the CRA as a club to force banks to make these loans.
At the same time, others capitalized on the government's implied safeguard for these investments; when the government decided that encouraging low-income home ownership was extremely important, they pushed to make it more likely.
The economic disaster hinged on government interference in the housing market.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertions, or is this something you hear from Rush?

[AvalonXQ]

Rush Limbaugh is a first-class entertainer; he's not much of a news source.

This is equally true of CNN, by the way.

[Dancing David]

Yes, they were. So much so, that banks were bullied by groups like ACORN into making them.


Data ,evidence?


The eternal cry of the JREF.

[Dancing David]

ACORN lobbied the government for years to get legislation favorable to subprimes. Then they used the CRA as a club to force banks to make these loans.
At the same time, others capitalized on the government's implied safeguard for these investments; when the government decided that encouraging low-income home ownership was extremely important, they pushed to make it more likely.
The economic disaster hinged on government interference in the housing market.

Data, evidence?

BTW: Most sub-prime loans were originated by insititutions not covered by the CRA, so what percentage are you talking about?

[Cobalt]

I swear I read this thread like, what, eight months ago?

[Rolfe]

It's kind of fun, though, trying to make sense of what those wacky Americans think....

:popcorn1

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

College professors have a great opportunity to show how Socialism could work in their classroom. Run the semester under Socialism.

The Students are the workers. The products, or the production side, is homework, papers, exams, etc. The rewards or results of the production are the grades.

Put a ceiling on individual wealth.
Put a floor on individual poverty.

Set up a progressive tax.

All “A” students (the rich) will be taxed 2 grades.
All “B” students (the upper middle class) will be taxed 1 grade.
All “C” students (the working class) will not be taxed.
All “D” students (the lower class) will be subsidized 1 grade.
All “E” students (the poor) will be subsidized 2 grades.

Everyone gets a “C”.
No one has to little and no one has to much.
Everyone passes the class.

Utopia achieved!

DDW(one "w" taxed away)



Should a E student get an A grade because their parents were A students?

[Mark6]

Well, that's my "silly" point. If it benefits the whole society, that could be a good goal to some social persons as well - without any personal benefits. And yes, some ideas need to be sponsored to be realized. But that isn't a matter of socialism or capitalism since communist and socialist countries do sponsor research/science etc. as well. So?
Problem is that communist and socialist countries tend do sponsor research/science in big and exciting things like hydroelectric dams and manned spaceflight. Someone has to decide what will "benefit the whole society" and what will not -- and they overlook research into small things that actually improve individuals' lives. In Soviet Union, tampons did not exist. (Unless brought from the West and sold on black market.) For that alone, state-planned research deserves to be "guilty until proven innocent" -- be limited to whatever private enterprise demonstrably will not do.

[ExTechOp]

My personal experience (having visited the Soviet Union, while it still was there) is that the socialist system seemed to erode people's motivation and somehow made the society more susceptible to slip into totalitarianism merely posing as socialism/communism.

This of course does not mean that all socialist ideas are bad, just as it does not automatically mean robber baron capitalism (eg. China and Russia right now) is automatically good. I tend to think there are places for both approaches.

Specially I believe that in this era, it is morally reprehensible to leave humans without health care just because it costs money, just like destroying the environment for temporary capital gains is incredibly short-sighted.

(climbing off soapbox)

[DDWW]

Should a E student get an A grade because their parents were A students?

No. But an E student should get at least a C if he can throw a football accurately 80 yards.;)

DDWW

[Undesired Walrus]

ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.

As someone who self identifies as a social democrat, I'm surprised to hear this.

The reason the USSR and North Korea practiced/practices a bastardised version of socialism (And yes, I know I'm venturing into 'No true Scotsman' territory, but just because it's a cliche it doesn't mean it cannot be applied to some cases) is that it was/is a totalitarian dictatorship, which forgoed/forgoes democracy. To take private enterprise into the arms of the state will only be for the people if the people are able to hold the state to account. Under a dictatorship there is nothing to stop the dictator from doing what they wish with the institutions.

[Beerina]

You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.


The real problem, in effect, is when it goes beyond nibbling at the edges to address this or that small issue, and just starts doing things like you say, such as a "ceiling on individual wealth". That is contrary to actual concepts of freedom. "So what?" you say? Well, for one, think about that. And two, the effect is to drive hard work away since the harder people work, and are rewarded, the less and less they get from their hard work, making it less and less attractive as an effort.

This theory has been tested again and again and again. Too many people, for whatever reason (and "the poor" are a minority of this burden nowadays, keep in mind) are extracting money from the producers that they slow down. Nobody works hard to enrich other people. Or empower other peoples' "necessary programs".

One might cynically suggest that a free country, where you could pursue, oh, say, wealth and happiness (i.e. life and happiness) would raise up everybody more, and faster, than a socialized system. One might, if one were cynical. Or a scientist who pays attention to theories and outcomes analysis.


Here is a recent, huge medical study that was contrary to expectations: Red meat does not, in fact, cause cancer. It's still horrible for heart disease. But not cancer. No talking heads attacking this one. I wonder why they're so selective when a cherished belief is swatted away?

[mike3]

OK, so factory worker B works harder and still gets the same paycheck as factory worker A. Factory CEO doesn't make a single Thingamajing and gets paid 50 or more times as much as A or B. If you train A or B for a week, they can do Factory CEO's job.

Factory workers A and B are Teabaggers, so they are proud to accept their lot.

So why not make it so the CEO gets paid the same or less than the others?

[mike3]

It's easy to live without money when you have replicators and holodeks.

Yeah, I never quite got the bit about bragging about money being abolished by then. And replaced with what? Maybe the idea was to emphasize that people in the 24th century had decided to not be so greedy and just amass as much money as possible, but still going from that to having no money at all is a long step.

Eliminating money is akin to eliminating people putting value on things and that's just not going to happen.

Yeah, it just doesn't plain make any freaking sense at all. Where and how are they supposed to get the stuff they need? One can be not greedy, yet still make use of money.

[mike3]

I feel like we're not on the same page.

It's a complicated subject since most economies are mixed, in that there are some elements of capitalism and some aspects of other economic models, Or or vice-versa. Pure socialism, which is what Venezuela is close to, is setup to fail, largely due to human nature.

That last part is key btw.

Which therefore suggests the need for some kind of middle-ground, and if other countries use that, and some (i.e. not complete) socialism would be good, then why do we moan about it? Too much black-and-white thinking? Think it has to be all one or the other?

[mike3]

Also, I'm curious, why couldn't one have some kind of "half socialism" (per the "definition" given in the opening post) where there's a "base" below which you can't go, but there's no hard and fast cap on the wealth? (Note that to fund the "base" you'd need to pull some money out of the wealthier segments, but it would not create a hard & fast cap.)

[The Painter]

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

Yes. Which one was it? Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Try Goldman Sachs

[daenku32]

Can you expand on this? It seems to be a contradiction

It means you haven't worked in a real manufacturing environment.


Other items of real world:

You have two workers in a shop that makes bikes (motor and pedal). Person A has an comparative advantage in making pedal bikes. Person B has comparative advanatage in making motor bikes. Both people love their respective comparative advantages and the work that comes with it. But both work in an environment where both workers may build motor and pedal bikes.

Manager X tracks production on the floor. He knows everyone has an equal opportunity to choose what to build, so he tracks their production by numbers only. But because Person A builds pedal bikes which are faster to build than motor bikes, he "outperforms" person B every single day in production numbers. However, since company makes a profit off the motor bikes as well, it is only reasonable that he person B should dedicate himself to his comparative advantage and just build the motor bikes.

However, the Manager, after tracking the numbers for a month, notices that person B has been trailing person A for the entire time. And trailing significantly. So, come review time person A receives a raise and bonus, while person B is placed on "probation" and told to bring his numbers up. So, person B stops building motor bikes alltogether and concentrates on pedal bikes. Trouble ensues as motor bike orders pile up and excess capacity on pedal bike production causes reduction in person A's performance. He picks up a few motor bikes to build even though he is not very good at it.

The numbers even out and Manager X taps himself on the back for motivating person B to work 'harder'.

And yes. This is a real world observation (with the product type changed).

[Dancing David]

Which therefore suggests the need for some kind of middle-ground, and if other countries use that, and some (i.e. not complete) socialism would be good, then why do we moan about it? Too much black-and-white thinking? Think it has to be all one or the other?

For a long while in US politics the goal has been to brand the opposition and to make the brand seem just terrible.

Haymarket riot on forward. The populism of certain things has always sort of threatened the US way of doing things: Shay's rebellion, whiskey taxes and the like, then there came the russian revolution.

[Dancing David]

Also, I'm curious, why couldn't one have some kind of "half socialism" (per the "definition" given in the opening post) where there's a "base" below which you can't go, but there's no hard and fast cap on the wealth? (Note that to fund the "base" you'd need to pull some money out of the wealthier segments, but it would not create a hard & fast cap.)

I believe that is not what I would want, safe housing, equal education and medical care.

Now my defintion of safe housing might seem a wee bit draconian to some, in that I believe that heavily structured shelters and better public housing would be essential. To just cram people into a building is not really safe housing, but if you screw up out the door you go. Then the shelters would be even stricter, but currently the number of family shelters and shelters for women and their children is very very very small.

[Dancing David]

Yes. Which one was it? Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac?

BAM BAM BAM another senseless drive by posting.

[jimbob]

Yes. Which one was it? Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac?

Try Goldman Sachs


It isn't as if we haven't given this out before in this thread:

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

Haven't heard of it, but that surely does not support your point. Was this previously illegal and is now legal? That's called deregulation.

Bloomberg's link to this story (http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-24/-frankenstein-derivatives-described-in-e-mail-by-goldman-s-fabrice-tourre.html) (so not some left-wing source)

In a March 7, 2007, e-mail Tourre describes the U.S. subprime mortgage market as “not too brilliant” and says that “according to Sparks,” an apparent reference to Daniel Sparks who ran Goldman Sachs’s mortgage business at the time, “that business is totally dead, and the poor little subprime borrowers will not last too long!!!”

The timing of the e-mails overlaps with his work on the Abacus 2007-AC1 bond that is at the center of the SEC’s lawsuit. The Abacus deal was sold to IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and ACA Management LLC between January and April 2007.

A few months later, a June 13, 2007, e-mail shows Tourre claiming, “I’ve managed to sell a few Abacus bonds to widows and orphans that I ran into at the airport, apparently these Belgians adore synthetic ABS CDO2,” using short-hand for asset- backed collateralized debt obligations squared, or CDOs made up of tranches of CDOs containing asset-backed securities.


Sold as low-risk investments.

I would consider this as immoral, regardless of the legality.

[mike3]

I believe that is not what I would want, safe housing, equal education and medical care.

Now my defintion of safe housing might seem a wee bit draconian to some, in that I believe that heavily structured shelters and better public housing would be essential. To just cram people into a building is not really safe housing, but if you screw up out the door you go. Then the shelters would be even stricter, but currently the number of family shelters and shelters for women and their children is very very very small.

1. You mean you don't want people to have "equal" medical care, or at least enough to be capable of catching/curing serious disease?

2. What do you define as "screw up"?

[Dancing David]

1. You mean you don't want people to have "equal" medical care, or at least enough to be capable of catching/curing serious disease?

I would like UHC, but no longer think it is feasible, at least for twenty years. So I would prefer to start somewhere else.

2. What do you define as "screw up"?

There are many ways, most people who get tossed get done so for good reason, I for one would prefer to see a rent vouchers, which landlords usualy don't like. :(

But the lawless nature of many housing complexes and shelters is a real problem.

There needs to be a larger and better safety net than our country has, especially for juveniles. Currently if you are 14 or older you get to stay with abusive families or be homeless.
The foster care system and CPS/DCFS system is very broken and needs fixing badly. But better shelters would mean fewer peopel at risk, I do not believe in 'wet' houses, but family shelters would be a start as would very strict and avaiable safe housing for homeless individuals.

But I am not a screaming meemee either, I have worked with shelters and at shelters, they need strict guidelines and hard boundaries.

[MikeMangum]

Here is a recent, huge medical study that was contrary to expectations: Red meat does not, in fact, cause cancer. It's still horrible for heart disease. But not cancer. No talking heads attacking this one. I wonder why they're so selective when a cherished belief is swatted away?

Completely OT, I know...but no, red meat is not "horrible" for heart disease. In fact meat (and especially red meat) is actually very good for heart health. The "read meat is evil" meme is one of those cherished beliefs that is being fiercely defended in the face of overwhelming evidence by authoritative groups like the American Heart Association and the National Institute of Health. These are the same groups that told us to cut out fat and gave us a food pyramid with 30% or less of calories coming from fat and most of the rest coming from carbs. They told us to stop eating butter, to reduce our consumption of eggs, red meat, etc., etc.

They were wrong, and their recommendations caused a massive spike in metabolic syndrome, non alchoholic fatty liver disease, diabetes, heart disease, and osteoperosis, for a whole host of reasons, but primarily 1) carbs are bad ummkay, and 2) our primary sources of vitamin K2 are eggs, meat, and dairy, specifically fats from those items, as K2 is a fat soluble vitamin.

Increased K2 intake showed a 51% decrease in heart attack mortality and a 26% decrease in mortality from all causes - link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282). K2 is even showing up as having significant impacts on chances of getting various cancers and there is even evidence showing that K2 is usefull in treating (http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/13/3259.pdf) (pdf) cancer. Another study (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/5/1348) showed that people with the highest average intakes of vitamin K2 were 14 per cent less likely to develop cancer, compared to people with the lowest average intakes and a 28 per cent reduction in cancer mortality was observed for people with the highest average intakes.

There are alot of other reasons why the myth of "red meat bad" is just that, but I'm not going to detail them here.

The people in charge at the NIH should be shot.

[BeAChooser]

All “A” students (the rich) will be taxed 2 grades.
All “B” students (the upper middle class) will be taxed 1 grade.
All “C” students (the working class) will not be taxed.
All “D” students (the lower class) will be subsidized 1 grade.
All “E” students (the poor) will be subsidized 2 grades.

Everyone gets a “C”.

Well one socialist country seems to be working towards that goal:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5993026&postcount=1

:D

[BeAChooser]

Should a E student get an A grade because their parents were A students?

No, but the parents who were A students should be punished.

[The Painter]

Try Goldman Sachs

I really need sarcasm tags. BTW what's happening with that? Oh that's right, nothing. Goldman Sachs is embedded in the Obama administration. Nothing will happen to them.

[DC]

I really need sarcasm tags. BTW what's happening with that? Oh that's right, nothing. Goldman Sachs is embedded in the Obama administration. Nothing will happen to them.

aint that strange for a Socialist like Obama? ;)

[AvalonXQ]

aint that strange for a Socialist like Obama? ;)

He's a hypocrite as well as an idiot.

[Rolfe]

Completely OT, I know...but no, red meat is not "horrible" for heart disease. In fact meat (and especially red meat) is actually very good for heart health. The "read meat is evil" meme is one of those cherished beliefs that is being fiercely defended in the face of overwhelming evidence by authoritative groups like the American Heart Association and the National Institute of Health. These are the same groups that told us to cut out fat and gave us a food pyramid with 30% or less of calories coming from fat and most of the rest coming from carbs. They told us to stop eating butter, to reduce our consumption of eggs, red meat, etc., etc.

They were wrong, and their recommendations caused a massive spike in metabolic syndrome, non alchoholic fatty liver disease, diabetes, heart disease, and osteoperosis, for a whole host of reasons, but primarily 1) carbs are bad ummkay, and 2) our primary sources of vitamin K2 are eggs, meat, and dairy, specifically fats from those items, as K2 is a fat soluble vitamin.

Increased K2 intake showed a 51% decrease in heart attack mortality and a 26% decrease in mortality from all causes - link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282). K2 is even showing up as having significant impacts on chances of getting various cancers and there is even evidence showing that K2 is usefull in treating (http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/13/3259.pdf) (pdf) cancer. Another study (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/5/1348) showed that people with the highest average intakes of vitamin K2 were 14 per cent less likely to develop cancer, compared to people with the lowest average intakes and a 28 per cent reduction in cancer mortality was observed for people with the highest average intakes.

There are alot of other reasons why the myth of "red meat bad" is just that, but I'm not going to detail them here.

The people in charge at the NIH should be shot.


This is interesting enough for its own thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177245).

Rolfe.

[thaiboxerken]

He's a hypocrite as well as an idiot.

A fundamentalist Christian posting this is really funny.;)

[GreNME]

Goldman Sachs is embedded in the Obama administration.

You mean the way Haliburton was embedded in the Bush administration?

[Dancing David]

You mean the way Haliburton was embedded in the Bush administration?

Joe Biden is a huge stock holder of Goldman-Sachs, cool!

[DC]

A fundamentalist Christian posting this is really funny.;)

:jaw-dropp

i thought its sarcasm lol

[The Painter]

You mean the way Haliburton was embedded in the Bush administration?

No. Much more extensive.

[Dancing David]

No. Much more extensive.

How so?

[AvalonXQ]

A fundamentalist Christian posting this is really funny.;)

:) I'm glad I amuse you. I stand by my opinion that President Obama is both a hypocrite and an idiot.

[Jekyll's Guest]

:) I'm glad I amuse you. I stand by my opinion that President Obama is both a hypocrite and an idiot.

I find 'idiot' to be just in front of 'socialist' on the list of mind bogglingly ridiculous things certain folks call Obama.

I think he's a flim-flam man that spun a everyman hero persona about his business as usual 100% politician self, but that's just another example of how smart and slick he is.

[mhaze]

The real problem, in effect, is when it goes beyond nibbling at the edges to address this or that small issue, and just starts doing things like you say, such as a "ceiling on individual wealth". That is contrary to actual concepts of freedom. "So what?" you say? Well, for one, think about that. And two, the effect is to drive hard work away since the harder people work, and are rewarded, the less and less they get from their hard work, making it less and less attractive as an effort.

This theory has been tested again and again and again. Too many people, for whatever reason (and "the poor" are a minority of this burden nowadays, keep in mind) are extracting money from the producers that they slow down. Nobody works hard to enrich other people. Or empower other peoples' "necessary programs".....Which seems in the last six months, to actually be happening in the US. It's slowing down, on numerous dimensions in measurable amounts.

[BeAChooser]

I find 'idiot' to be just in front of 'socialist' on the list of mind bogglingly ridiculous things certain folks call Obama.

I think he's a flim-flam man that spun a everyman hero persona about his business as usual 100% politician self, but that's just another example of how smart and slick he is.

Why can't he be a socialist (or even a communist), as well?

Afterall, he grew up in a family full of them. That's a little unusual in America. More than a little of that philosophy had to have rubbed off.

He went to schools that had a higher number of socialist and communists as teachers or professors than is usual in America.

Those were schools where the curriculum delved more into socialism and communism than is usual, too. One was even referred to as the Little Red Schoolhouse.

He was mentored (that's his own description) by numerous socialists and communists over the years. People he said he admired and respected.

He moved to the city and neighborhood that can arguably be called one of the most socialist in America. That was a choice.

He's initiated and maintained friendly relationships with numerous socialists and communists over the years. Scores and scores of them. You won't find many other Americans, outside of the group he associated with, that have as many such relationships.

He worked side by side with socialists and communists prior to entering politics on numerous occasions. The Chicago Anneburg Challenge. His activities associated with ACORN.

He was sought out and willingly accepted donations from individuals and groups that are amongst the most radical in America ... run by hardcore socialists and communists.

He entered politics through the efforts of socialists and communists, even joining a political party founded by socialists and communists.

His rhetoric has espoused socialist/communist ideas on numerous occasions. His speeches are filled with socialist and communist expressions.

As President he's brought into the administration numerous people with clear socialist and communist backgrounds and agendas. Far more than any President in history.

His ultimate agenda is clearly socialist in nature. I've no doubt that if he thought he could get away with achieving that end goal in one step he would do it. You've just been fooled into thinking he's not socialist because he's smart enough to know that wouldn't succeed so he's adopted an incrimental and long term strategy to reach that objective.

Given all that, I think that the fact you can claim with a straight face and with absolute certainty that he's not a socialist is what is truly "mind bogglingly ridiculous". :D

[thaiboxerken]

I would think if Obama was a socialist, he'd be pushing more socialists ideas. Instead, he seems to be centrist in his policies.

[Wildy]

I would think if Obama was a socialist, he'd be pushing more socialists ideas. Instead, he seems to be centrist in his policies.

I wonder if this whole "socialist" thing comes down to where you sit on the political spectrum, because what's centrist to you might be socialist to BeAChooser.

[BeAChooser]

Instead, he seems to be centrist in his policies.

You really think that? LOL! Just what do you consider centrist ideas?

The majority of Americans were against the health care bill that was passed.

The majority of Americans want to see illegal immigration stopped.

The majority of Americans want smaller, not larger government.

The majority of Americans are against the additional debt Obama's policies are now creating.

The majority of Americans were against his Stimulus package and indeed think that whatever stimulus funds have not been spent should be returned.

The majority of Americans do not want a socialist government, which is why he and you are so touchy about the label.

Just because the Obama administration rammed through unpopular measures with the help of a bunch of other socialists in Congress doesn't make his policies "centrist".

If you want a measure of whether his policies are "centrist", you need only look at his negative approval rating:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


Saturday, June 05, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17


:D

[Bob Blaylock]

I would think if Obama was a socialist, he'd be pushing more socialists ideas.


…For example, he might put forth a takeover, by the federal government, of a major automotive manufacturer, such as General Motors.

…Or he might try to have the federal government take charge of the health care industry.

…Or perhaps have the government take control of several major financial institutions, under the guise of “bailouts”.

Socialist is as socialist does.

[steph]

:)

What would happen if there was a poll to see which professions are the least and most attractive? Those jobs least liked (garbage collector, coal miner, undertaker ) woul get the highest income. Movie stars and professional athletes would be the least paid.:)

though i see that everyone has a good arguement on this subject i think this guy hit the nail on the head. I know he meant it as a joke, but i love it!

However i do have to say that something does need to be done, maybe not socialism (even though i have to admit it would be better then where we are at now) something has to be done. Politicians, actors, directors, ceos etc make millions to billions of dollars every year (if not months for some) while the little guys bust thier asses off to make ends meet from paycheck to paycheck and still have taxes to pay. Some kind of cap of certain proffesions that doesnt really deserve the money they are making wouldnt be a bad idea. i mean hell put that money in the government tax fund (or whatever its called) we would be the richest country in the world! Yes we would have to hear complaints about no more gold toilets or personal jets, but at least our economy wouldnt be so ******. At least people will be able to survive without government help and such.

That is my rant for tonight, thank you, i feel soooo much better now that i got that off my chest

[steph]

Also i want to ask, why is it everytime i hear the word socialism, barrack obama's name is followed soon after? I dont think he is really doing anything that would be considered "socialist". Rich republicans keep saying and spreading that because they are pissed that they might have to be giving up a couple million to save our country and if you ask me it is people who believe that what he is doing isn't right are just as unpatriotic as them

Mind you i am not a very patriotic person, i think this country and most of the people in and running it are the worst, immoral people ever. So it is alot for something like my previous statement to come out of my mouth

[dafydd]

Socialist, dear. SOCIALIST, not communist.

Americans do seem to have a problem in distinguishing the two.

[AvalonXQ]

Rich republicans keep saying and spreading that because they are pissed that they might have to be giving up a couple million to save our country and if you ask me it is people who believe that what he is doing isn't right are just as unpatriotic as them

Can I have ten thousand dollars, please? It will really help me, I promise.

[BeAChooser]

However i do have to say that something does need to be done, maybe not socialism (even though i have to admit it would be better then where we are at now) something has to be done. Politicians, actors, directors, ceos etc make millions to billions of dollars every year (if not months for some) while the little guys bust thier asses off to make ends meet from paycheck to paycheck and still have taxes to pay. Some kind of cap of certain proffesions that doesnt really deserve the money they are making wouldnt be a bad idea.

Well I certainly hope you don't think the European socialists have the answer. Because they certainly have their privileged class too. In fact, income disparity in those countries is still just as great as here. Consider this. The Netherlands, which is often held up as a model by socialists (afterall, it has UHC!), still has a very lopsided distribution of income, despite the high taxes. The top 10 percent earn about 25% of the total income. The top 20 percent earn about 40% of income. And the next 20 percent earn about 23% of total income. Compare that to the US (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/9427120.gif and http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/4/G/003_money_income.png ) where the top 5 percent earn about 22% of total income. The top 20 percent in the US earn about 50% of total income. The next quintile earns about 23%. In other words, the distribution of income between the two countries is rather similar. Also, about 10% of the Dutch live below the poverty line, which isn't all that different from the US (which has a much larger poor illegal immigrant problem). Some 14% of Dutch can't afford a week's vacation away from home (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/dutch_unlikely_to_live_below_p.php).

Furthermore …

http://www.enotes.com/poverty-article


most poor American families own more luxury items and consumer appliances than average Europeans do. According to Human Development Report, the average per capita income in the Netherlands is $17,330, approximately three times larger than the per capita income of the poorest one-fifth in the United States. However, in 1994, nearly 93 percent of poor American families had a color television, almost 72 percent had at least one car, and approximately 60 percent had a microwave and a VCR. In comparison, in 1991 only 50 percent of all households in the Netherlands had a VCR and just 22 percent owned a microwave. Hence, as Bruce Bartlett writes, “Insofar as consumption is a truer measure of living standards than income, . . . many low-income Americans are far better off than their reported income suggests.”


The consequence of European socialist policies has been to make everyone poorer through substantially lower GDP growth over many years. The difference is now so large that the average American can buy all things that European governments supply for *free* and still have enough left over to take a nice vacation and/or buy a few toys each year. :D

[BeAChooser]

Also i want to ask, why is it everytime i hear the word socialism, barrack obama's name is followed soon after? I dont think he is really doing anything that would be considered "socialist".

Do you honestly believe that Obama isn't trying to turn this country into another Eropean-style social(ist) democracy?

And do you think all is well in Europe as a result of their system? :rolleyes:

And do you have anywhere near the number of connections to socialists and communists that Obama does? :D

[DC]

Do you honestly believe that Obama isn't trying to turn this country into another Eropean-style social(ist) democracy?

And do you think all is well in Europe as a result of their system? :rolleyes:

And do you have anywhere near the number of connections to socialists and communists that Obama does? :D

sometimes you sound like Stephen Colbert, but he is at least making fun.

[Jekyll's Guest]

The consequence of European socialist policies has been to make everyone poorer through substantially lower GDP growth over many years. The difference is now so large that the average American can buy all things that European governments supply for *free* and still have enough left over to take a nice vacation and/or buy a few toys each year. :D

Total, unadulterated pap.

Your 'average' American can easily be driven in to huge debt by even relatively minor illnesses, avoids doctor visits because of the cost, works harder and has less vacation that his European counterpart, and how many people do you know that are having a nice vacation every year in this economy?

Utter drivel.

[Raconteur]

BeAChooser: You're showing no indication that you understand the meaning of Socialism or Communism, at all. Can you not see that calling Obama a communist is completely ridiculous and cannot be defended by any rational argument?

[Jekyll's Guest]

BeAChooser: You're showing no indication that you understand the meaning of Socialism or Communism, at all. Can you not see that calling Obama a communist is completely ridiculous and cannot be defended by any rational argument?

I'd expect that kind of thinking...FROM A COMMUNIST!1!1!

[dafydd]

Total, unadulterated pap.

Your 'average' American can easily be driven in to huge debt by even relatively minor illnesses, avoids doctor visits because of the cost, works harder and has less vacation that his European counterpart, and how many people do you know that are having a nice vacation every year in this economy?

Utter drivel.

I second that.There is much to admire in American culture and history but I wouldn't live there for all the tea in China.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I second that.There is much to admire in American culture and history but I wouldn't live there for all the tea in China.

It's a great place, but I have day to day worries here I never even considered when I lived in an evil Socialist hellhole. The idea that the average Joe is whooping it up is so looney tunes it boggles belief.

[Earthborn]

Well I certainly hope you don't think the European socialists have the answer. Because they certainly have their privileged class too.Not surprising, considering that the Netherlands is not a socialist country.

Consider this. The Netherlands, which is often held up as a model by socialistsPerhaps they should find better model, or admit that they are not really socialists.

(afterall, it has UHC!)Universal healthcare, yes. But it does not have socialised healthcare.

Also, about 10% of the Dutch live below the poverty line, which isn't all that different from the USIt isn't all that different? That surprises me. Source?

(which has a much larger poor illegal immigrant problem).I don't think illegal immigrants are counted in official poverty figures.

Some 14% of Dutch can't afford a week's vacation away from home (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/dutch_unlikely_to_live_below_p.php).6 weeks of paid staycation sucks.

http://www.enotes.com/poverty-articleThe old "wealth is measured by how many expensive gadgets you buy from borrowed money" argument.

The difference is now so large that the average American can buy all things that European governments supply for *free*Please name of few of these things that Americans have to buy but Europeans get for free, so I can order them from the government.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Please name of few of these things that Americans have to buy but Europeans get for free, so I can order them from the government.

Fill out forms 7a through 8g for your free weed, abortion and Che Guevera t-shirt.

[jimbob]

On the subject of the Netherlands being socialist: They can be argued to have invented the modern corporation (and the TLA - the VOC is proof of both).

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You really think that? LOL! Just what do you consider centrist ideas?

So centrism in the world of BAC is defined as whatever the majority of people think at that particular time. In other words, the definition of centrism is utterly relative to the person looking at the term. State Capitalism is centrist (not left-wing) in Singapore. "European Socialism" is centrist to a European and not left-wing like you claim. And whatever the tea-party wants is centrist because that's also what the majority of American's want. So you have a definition of centrism that is so arbitrary as to render it utterly meaningless. Why am I not surprised?

Or we have another example of BAC's unintentional Amero-centrism. The only people whose opinions matter on what defines centrism are the American people. That narrows things down a bit but it still leaves an utterly arbitrary definition. We could take a step back though and conclude it isn't Americans who are the deciding vote here but conservatives, giving his white-hot hatred of anything left of far right. Basically, whatever conservatives decide is centrist must be centrist because conservatism is the ideology of truth. Which would fall in line with BAC's massive conservative bias.

Edit by KF: Long-winded rant on what Americans want

Americans also voted for a "socialist" black man in a clear majority back in 2008. I'm curious what your point is here BAC. We elect representatives for a set amount of time and when the time comes to re-elect them we have the option to remove them from power. Are you suggesting that the president step down everytime his approval ratings dip below fifty percent? Should we govern solely from the polls? If that's the case why don't we abandon the representative system and adopt direct democracy?

Just because the Obama administration rammed through unpopular measures with the help of a bunch of other socialists in Congress doesn't make his policies "centrist".

I'm noticing a theme here; everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist. Even the conservatives on this board who think you're a loon are accused of being closet-Democrats, liberals, or socialists.

If you want a measure of whether his policies are "centrist", you need only look at his negative approval rating:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

And there we have it. Following several massive appeals to popularity we get one huge logical fallacy that states Obama is a socialist because of negative approval ratings. Just like you know someone is a Democrat because they've said something untrue. :rolleyes:

[Jekyll's Guest]

And there we have it. Following several massive appeals to popularity we get one huge logical fallacy that states Obama is a socialist because of negative approval ratings.

Here's another filthy socialist (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm).

[DC]

Consider this. The Netherlands, which is often held up as a model by socialists

yeah i often hear from local socialists that we should change to a Parliamentary Monarchy, the proletariat loves the idea. :rolleyes:

[Lurker]

In other words, the distribution of income between the two countries (USA versus Netherlands) is rather similar.

Sounds like Socialism in the Netherlands is ending up giving the same results as the US. But how is that possible? Socialism and Capitalism ending up with the same economic bell curve? Does that not violate every myth you believe about socialism, BAC?