Jump to content

The problem with socialism is...


Recommended Posts

For the Greek people this crisis came like a thunder out of nowhere. This was not created by us but by the politicians themselves. They knew why we went down financially and things they should have done years ago they are now trying to do overnight.

 

Sounds a lot like the liberal policy of passing laws to find out what is in it. "uhh.. we didn't know it would do that."

 

While many point to the warning signs, the left keep marching forward crying ever harder that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy; reassuring us that just because they took the first step -which was painfully idiotic- they aren't planning on taking step two (just yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All socialism is like Greece.

 

All capitalism is like the top 1% of the USA.

 

Proof that capitalism is ALWAYS better than socialism.

 

Methinks your bleeding heart is bled out. Maybe expended too much energy on marriage equality?

 

An excellent article on what happens when you elect activists with no prior job experience to high office:

 

https://hbr.org/2015/06/grexit-would-be-even-more-dangerous-than-economists-realize

 

Too bad we didn't have this 8 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All socialism is like Greece.

 

All capitalism is like the top 1% of the USA.

 

Proof that capitalism is ALWAYS better than socialism.

A major flaw of capitalism is it's ability to support the lifestyle of the socialist activist. It's much easier to convince a population they need to "redistribute the wealth" when there is an abundance of wealth available to redistribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple summary of Greece's problem:

 

1) A large portion of their economy is tied to public jobs.

2) Because of this, they cannot grow their economy without an increase in government spending.

3) But they can't increase spending (outside of foreign bailouts) unless they increase taxes on the citizens they support.

 

-Basically, they have to chop off their hand to feed themselves.

 

They regulated away from private sector businesses foolishly thinking that government spending is what drives economic growth. (sound familiar?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Methinks your bleeding heart is bled out. Maybe expended too much energy on marriage equality?

 

An excellent article on what happens when you elect activists with no prior job experience to high office:

 

https://hbr.org/2015/06/grexit-would-be-even-more-dangerous-than-economists-realize

 

Too bad we didn't have this 8 years ago.

Or maybe I think there's somewhere in the middle of extremes of free market gross inequality, and full blown socialism, that works best for most developed countries. This idea that all capitalism is bad, or all socialism is bad, is stupid on either side of the argument. There's pros and cons, and the challenge is finding a good middle ground that takes care of the people in the country, as well as provide opportunity for wealth for those that earn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe I think there's somewhere in the middle of extremes of free market gross inequality, and full blown socialism, that works best for most developed countries. This idea that all capitalism is bad, or all socialism is bad, is stupid on either side of the argument. There's pros and cons, and the challenge is finding a good middle ground that takes care of the people in the country, as well as provide opportunity for wealth for those that earn it.

 

In other words, good socialist policy that takes care of the working class, while enough market freedom that industrialists, financiers, and the oligarchy still benefit from their capital investments - and also keep the working class employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In other words, good socialist policy that takes care of the working class, while enough market freedom that industrialists, financiers, and the oligarchy still benefit from their capital investments - and also keep the working class employed.

Yup, that grey area that most developed nations follow, and sometimes they need to adjust one way or another when certain things aren't working out. I just think it's dumb to point to Greece and say "lulz all socialism sux", that'd be like pointing to Somalia or something and saying capitalism doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe I think there's somewhere in the middle of extremes of free market gross inequality, and full blown socialism, that works best for most developed countries.

 

What is free market gross inequality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that grey area that most developed nations follow, and sometimes they need to adjust one way or another when certain things aren't working out. I just think it's dumb to point to Greece and say "lulz all socialism sux", that'd be like pointing to Somalia or something and saying capitalism doesn't work.

 

And that would ensure the income equality gap is closed, by providing the working class with basic needs? Like transportation, media access, etc.?

 

And how do you keep the industrialists and financiers in check, while providing a free market? Since a free market implies minimal restriction of distribution (otherwise it wouldn't be a free market), you'd have to regulate the means of production. And expansion of those means. I suppose you could do that with a centrally-controlled (by the government, or by supervised industry cartels) allocation of production means and resources...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that grey area that most developed nations follow, and sometimes they need to adjust one way or another when certain things aren't working out. I just think it's dumb to point to Greece and say "lulz all socialism sux", that'd be like pointing to Somalia or something and saying capitalism doesn't work.

 

At the federal level, socialism does suck. What too many people don't notice is that socialism is prominent in our local governments, where we pay our public school teachers, police, fire & rescue, etc. It works pretty well locally, but not at the national level. How many different socialist economies have to fail before people start to figure that out? Do you honestly think that the only reason socialism has always failed is because it's always been tried by people that don't know how to get it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is free market gross inequality?

 

"You have yours, but I don't have mine."

 

"Free market gross inequality" is gay marriage, basically.

 

At the federal level, socialism does suck. What too many people don't notice is that socialism is prominent in our local governments, where we pay our public school teachers, police, fire & rescue, etc. It works pretty well locally, but not at the national level.

 

 

"It takes a village..."

 

(Note: the coiners of that phrase deemed "the village" to be beneath them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And that would ensure the income equality gap is closed, by providing the working class with basic needs? Like transportation, media access, etc.?

 

And how do you keep the industrialists and financiers in check, while providing a free market? Since a free market implies minimal restriction of distribution (otherwise it wouldn't be a free market), you'd have to regulate the means of production. And expansion of those means. I suppose you could do that with a centrally-controlled (by the government, or by supervised industry cartels) allocation of production means and resources...

There aren't many easy answers, because a lot of the answers lead down incredibly slippery slopes. I certainly don't have them. Some countries seem to work out ok with increased minimum wages, universal healthcare, free college, on the back of higher taxes at the top end... some do not. I'm not sure where the differences lie, nor how all that relates to our situations here. I'm certainly not wanting everyone to earn the same paycheck, that's dumb. But at the same time, it seems ****ty, in a developed country, that a lot of people go without healthcare, and decent education, even when they are working hard. It's not like, on the whole, we're lacking in resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't many easy answers, because a lot of the answers lead down incredibly slippery slopes. I certainly don't have them. Some countries seem to work out ok with increased minimum wages, universal healthcare, free college, on the back of higher taxes at the top end... some do not. I'm not sure where the differences lie, nor how all that relates to our situations here. I'm certainly not wanting everyone to earn the same paycheck, that's dumb. But at the same time, it seems ****ty, in a developed country, that a lot of people go without healthcare, and decent education, even when they are working hard. It's not like, on the whole, we're lacking in resources.

 

At what point in the last 30 years did US citizens not have access to both healthcare (EMTALA passed as part of COBRA in 1985) and education (by 1900 the overwhelming majority of states had adopted compulsory education laws pertaining to public/private schools), regardless of their ability to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't many easy answers, because a lot of the answers lead down incredibly slippery slopes. I certainly don't have them. Some countries seem to work out ok with increased minimum wages, universal healthcare, free college, on the back of higher taxes at the top end... some do not. I'm not sure where the differences lie, nor how all that relates to our situations here. I'm certainly not wanting everyone to earn the same paycheck, that's dumb. But at the same time, it seems ****ty, in a developed country, that a lot of people go without healthcare, and decent education, even when they are working hard. It's not like, on the whole, we're lacking in resources.

 

So you know what works, even though you don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...