If Obama or anyone else passes some form of regulatio its suddenoly called socialism. My 2 questions are 1) how is that socialism? 2)what is so bad about some socialism?
The idea is that raising taxes on the wealthy(even if they still pay a lower percentage of taxes than the middle and lower classes) is somehow making america like soviet russia where funds were doled out by the government with an equal amount to everyone. That would of course be the logical extreme, which is far from the reality in this case. But the USSR imagry is exactly what people that dont like Obamas tax plan want to invoke. They want people to see Obama as some sort of commuinist when that is very obviously not the case.
See, this is exactly what I was saying. We've got the republican party (not necessairily conservatives, theres a big difference) and certain news outlets telling people that Socialism =Commuinism, which is flat out wrong.
Its all blown out of proportion IMO. Its the conservatives way of vilifying the Obama admin. Sure, the govt owning a chunk of GM and Chrysler is quasi socialist, but its not like they are forcing those companies to make gray compact cars and telling the people they can only buy from the US owned company. Even with whats gone down with the big three and wall street bailouts we are a long, long, long ways from the kind of socialist system in The former USSR and currently china. This is how the conservative politics operate I'm afraid. They throw around a bunch of scary words to frieghten people into thinking the sky is falling. I for one am sick of it. If a little social democracy helps make society a better place for everyone then I'd rather have that. Pure capitalism is bull shit, and anyone that thinks working hard will give you success is delusional. To be successful in capitalism you are better of being born rich, being lucky, or a back stabbing douche workaholich.
We are however moving towards a one party system if the GOP doesn't give up the Jesus magic politics and move more towards the center.
Oh God more politics. Oh God more politics. Oh God more politics. Oh God more politics. Oh God more politics. Oh God more politics. Oh God more politics.
"if socialism actually worked for once then maybe..... it hasnt so far"
No one is asking for this country to turn to pure socialism, but having a balance between it and capitalism is how this country has gotten by for over 100 years, and is definately the best solution
- Bigger government, which means less freedom, more expenditures and more taxes, more bureaucracy and therefore more opportunities of corruption; - Centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. It means that the "government" will be in an ivory tower away from the "peasantry";
All socialist states end up with a ruling elite of "enlightened bureaucrats" controlling everyone else's lives for "the greater good", and as history shows, the "greater good" never arrives because they are busy oppressing people and tunneling money to their own bank accounts.
The idea that the solution for your life is a big daddy government giving you a free lunch is childish.
"Its all blown out of proportion IMO. Its the conservatives way of vilifying the Obama admin. Sure, the govt owning a chunk of GM and Chrysler is quasi socialist, but its not like they are forcing those companies to make gray compact cars and telling the people they can only buy from the US owned company. Even with whats gone down with the big three and wall street bailouts we are a long, long, long ways from the kind of socialist system in The former USSR and currently china. This is how the conservative politics operate I'm afraid. They throw around a bunch of scary words to frieghten people into thinking the sky is falling. I for one am sick of it. If a little social democracy helps make society a better place for everyone then I'd rather have that. Pure capitalism is bull shit, and anyone that thinks working hard will give you success is delusional. To be successful in capitalism you are better of being born rich, being lucky, or a back stabbing douche workaholich. We are however moving towards a one party system if the GOP doesn't give up the Jesus magic politics and move more towards the center. "
See, this is exactly what I was saying. We've got the republican party (not necessairily conservatives, theres a big difference) and certain news outlets telling people that Socialism =Commuinism, which is flat out wrong."
"The problem of socialism is:- Bigger government, which means less freedom, more expenditures and more taxes, more bureaucracy and therefore more opportunities of corruption;- Centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. It means that the "government" will be in an ivory tower away from the "peasantry";All socialist states end up with a ruling elite of "enlightened bureaucrats" controlling everyone else's lives for "the greater good", and as history shows, the "greater good" never arrives because they are busy oppressing people and tunneling money to their own bank accounts.The idea that the solution for your life is a big daddy government giving you a free lunch is childish."
I cant say I disagree that putting all your faith in government is never the best option. But dont we get that elite ruler class in capitalism too? The late 19th and into the 20th century is full of capitalist tycoons calling the shots.
"The problem of socialism is:- Bigger government, which means less freedom, more expenditures and more taxes, more bureaucracy and therefore more opportunities of corruption;- Centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. It means that the "government" will be in an ivory tower away from the "peasantry";All socialist states end up with a ruling elite of "enlightened bureaucrats" controlling everyone else's lives for "the greater good", and as history shows, the "greater good" never arrives because they are busy oppressing people and tunneling money to their own bank accounts.The idea that the solution for your life is a big daddy government giving you a free lunch is childish."
These would be problems in "pure" socialism, but the mix of socialism and capitalism seems to work just fine. He asked what the problem is with a little bit of socialism, hence the title, not what a full-blown socialist republics problems would be like
Well, first of all, as I've been trying to say on the myriad of topics on this subject, the economies of many self-proclaimed 'capitalist' countries have had socialistic policies for the better part of the 20th century. And even prior to that, during the industrial revolution, markets were manipulated, and government-run corporations existed in many 'capitalist' countries. People need to look behind the rhetoric and examine what policies actually demand of their citizens, and what their outcomes are. Socialized risk with privatized gain (which is what has existed for years and what governments around the world are entrenching at this moment) is more like fascism than socialism, because the socialistic ideal is social risk and social gain. Of course, crazy people like me prefer private risk and private gain.
And from my viewpoint, economic growth, and full employment are not values to be upheld or pursued by governments so much as freedom of choice in all aspects of life including economics -- especially economics, because that is how a person makes the other aspects of their lives possible.
But we all know how many of you pay attention to what I have to say.
"Well, first of all, as I've been trying to say on the myriad of topics on this subject, the economies of many self-proclaimed 'capitalist' countries have had socialistic policies for the better part of the 20th century. And even prior to that, during the industrial revolution, markets were manipulated, and government-run corporations existed in many 'capitalist' countries. People need to look behind the rhetoric and examine what policies actually demand of their citizens, and what their outcomes are. Socialized risk with privatized gain (which is what has existed for years and what governments around the world are entrenching at this moment) is more like fascism than socialism, because the socialistic ideal is social risk and social gain. Of course, crazy people like me prefer private risk and private gain.And from my viewpoint, economic growth, and full employment are not values to be upheld or pursued by governments so much as freedom of choice in all aspects of life including economics -- especially economics, because that is how a person makes the other aspects of their lives possible.But we all know how many of you pay attention to what I have to say."
Of course, who would pay attention to a crazy like Suicrat? :)
I hate to tell you this Republicans (actually I like to, haha) but many things are already socialized in this country. Our congressmen and senators health care is socialized. Police and fire departments are socialized as well. Maybe we should all have police and firefighter insurance! Yes, that would be awesome!
911 call
Person: "Someone is breaking into my house"
Operator: "Ok, may I please have your police insurance information"
Person: *reads off info*
Operator: "Oh I'm sorry, your plan does not cover break in's"
"Well, first of all, as I've been trying to say on the myriad of topics on this subject, the economies of many self-proclaimed 'capitalist' countries have had socialistic policies for the better part of the 20th century. And even prior to that, during the industrial revolution, markets were manipulated, and government-run corporations existed in many 'capitalist' countries. People need to look behind the rhetoric and examine what policies actually demand of their citizens, and what their outcomes are. Socialized risk with privatized gain (which is what has existed for years and what governments around the world are entrenching at this moment) is more like fascism than socialism, because the socialistic ideal is social risk and social gain. Of course, crazy people like me prefer private risk and private gain.And from my viewpoint, economic growth, and full employment are not values to be upheld or pursued by governments so much as freedom of choice in all aspects of life including economics -- especially economics, because that is how a person makes the other aspects of their lives possible.But we all know how many of you pay attention to what I have to say."
I don't know that you're crazy for the idea of private risk and private gain. You start a business, that can be a largely private risk. And if you don't take it public, then it's a private gain.
At least part of the problem I see is in having public companies which have (or want to have) no private risk. Not sure if it's radical, but the ideas I've seen floating around in print lately (and in my head for years) about ceo-folk Not getting rewarded when a company does bad would be Great. Maybe wandering a bit off the deep end here, but I've also thought for many years that there should be a set relation between the lowest and highest paid people in a company so that there aren't cases of the highest paid folks in a company making multiple hundreds of times more than the lowest paid people.
To me an acceptable level of govt. intervention is what I understand to be happening with the car companies now; the govt. agrees to help, so long as some guides are met. Now obviously there's tons of room for interpretation, and setting the guides, but I think if done well, it would mean a good mix of private and public in a business.
You know, Jared, slippery slope arguments work both ways.
In any country where there was freedom of choice, but social provision of every service, there would be an excess of demand for sex with women and a severe lack of supply, so there would be sex lines (like the bread lines of the early Soviet State.) and you'd probably end up getting sloppy seven hundred thousandths
And Sarahsdad, you're confusing the poorly worded concept of a 'Publicly traded' corporation and a 'publicly held' enterprise.
Investors who invest in a company are engaging in risk of their own, and as shareholders they accrue benefits they (ought to be allowed to) keep for themselves.
What we have now is tax money, the public's money (not a private investor's money) being committed to the risk of private corporations. And again, as I've said before, if you want a mix of private and government-directed economics, then relive any moment of the 20th century after World War 2 if not earlier than that. Mixed economies create malinvestment bubbles, and the larger governments allow them to grow the larger the fallout. Hence the situation we're in now. So ask yourself again, do you really want a mix of public and private? Also, don't just talk to me about it, I don't have any academic qualifications in economics, talk to Ludwig Von Mises. And also look to the fact that his critics were the economic advisors to the biggest western economies, including the states, wherein this disaster originated.
"You know, Jared, slippery slope arguments work both ways. In any country where there was freedom of choice, but social provision of every service, there would be an excess of demand for sex with women and a severe lack of supply, so there would be sex lines (like the bread lines of the early Soviet State.) and you'd probably end up getting sloppy seven hundred thousandthsAnd Sarahsdad, you're confusing the poorly worded concept of a 'Publicly traded' corporation and a 'publicly held' enterprise.Investors who invest in a company are engaging in risk of their own, and as shareholders they accrue benefits they (ought to be allowed to) keep for themselves.What we have now is tax money, the public's money (not a private investor's money) being committed to the risk of private corporations. And again, as I've said before, if you want a mix of private and government-directed economics, then relive any moment of the 20th century after World War 2 if not earlier than that. Mixed economies create malinvestment bubbles, and the larger governments allow them to grow the larger the fallout. Hence the situation we're in now. So ask yourself again, do you really want a mix of public and private? Also, don't just talk to me about it, I don't have any academic qualifications in economics, talk to Ludwig Von Mises. And also look to the fact that his critics were the economic advisors to the biggest western economies, including the states, wherein this disaster originated."
Sex lines? Where are these at? Sign me up! LOL!!!!
You see, this is the problem with socialism right here, Jared's response. People will take the path of least resistance to get what they want and need, and if you build a system that discourages industriousness, and rewards everyone indiscriminantly, then nothing gets done.
Log in to comment