Universe Sandbox
General Category => Everything Else => Topic started by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 07:32:59 AM
-
"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.
Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.
And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."
- Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, February, 2009.
Socialism is the 20th century's greatest tragedy. Although its evangelists promised equality, prosperity and security, it was only responsible for misery, poverty, and absolutely 100% of the time ended up in tyranny.
Actually, it is interesting to note that socialism in the 20th century did achieve a form of equality after all, but only in the form that all people in socialist countries were equal in their misery and poverty. Having spent considerable amounts of time in actively socialist countries, I have seen the anguish of its proletariat with my own eyes... although I never thought that I would live to see the Kremlin lecture Washington on the dangers of socialism.
Just like Madoff's Ponzi pyramid scheme initially showed staggering success but then collapsed like the house of cards that it was, socialism demonstrates signs of success in its early stages. The essential problem is that all of the gains, real or imagined, fade rapidly as the basic and inescapable deficiencies of the policy of central control of an economy emerge.
I remember a gardener years ago discussing a particular way to over-fertilize a plant. That process would lead to a swift growth spurt and early blooming. Unfortunately, the plant would succumb to the excessive nutrients in the soil and would never bear fruit before it withered and died. That is an excellent metaphor for the life cycle of socialism.
The promoters of this appalling and loathsome grim joke on humanity unanimously point to the initial stages of any socialistic system where progress is made on a wide range of social issues, including universal health care, affordable housing, and guaranteed welfare. However, they unfailingly begin to suffer from amnesia when the mid to late stages of socialism arrive: Collectivism is impossible to support over a term of more than a few years due to the fact that it is based on a theory which is completely and absolutely erroneous.
Why does socialism always fail? Socialism is incompatible with the most basal and rudimentary principles of human behavior. Just like an animal has to be trained to perform a particular behavior through positive reinforcement, humans will generally not perform any act of labor unless there is acceptable incentivization. Incentives are central to a free market system: indeed the entire essence of the free market economy is to provide an elegantly interconnected infrastructure of incentives to drive and direct the socio-economic framework of the nation.
These incentives are based upon the essential human drive to possess. Under the free market economic model, individuals are enabled and empowered to gain tangible value from the fruit of their labor, and be able to build lasting security through wealth. One of the major keystones of this security is to be seen in the right to privately hold property. Permanent shelter is a fundamental human desire, and many individuals in a free market system have stated that the happiest day of their lives, after their wedding or birth of their children, is the day they burned their mortgage and thus owned their homes free and clear.
There are many other forms of value, whether it is the ability to possess entertainment, sports, leisure, professional, or convenience accessories, or to be able to invest wisely in order to ensure that children are secure while retirement comes early and is comfortable. The free market system is based this inalienable right to possess within a lattice of market-set pricing and profit-and-loss accounting. It is impossible to understate the importance of these incentives and their unparalleled power to shape the economy of a nation.
Incentives under socialism are virtually non existent. When you have a nation where all property is owned by the government there is no way for the common person to build security in any way. Individuals soon recognize that they are serfs of the state, and since they are subject to the whims of the politburo of the day, have no possibility for self determination. The only way to pull yourself out of the mire is to attempt to become one of the handful of Party authorities, who are able to live in the luxurious decadence of the top capitalists.
I know an Eastern European family whose 19th century ancestors built a lovely stone villa in a magnificent panoramic location overlooking the sea. It served as their ancestral home for over a century until the new socialist rulers of the nation served them an order to vacate. Their entire family of eleven was to be relocated to a two bedroom apartment in a Stalinist concrete block building next to a toxic chemical plant, as the villa had now been allocated to a high ranking local Party member.
This family not only received no form of compensation whatsoever, but was escorted from their ancestral home at gunpoint, to spend the rest of the century in that squallid, cramped, crumbling apartment in the core of a smog-laden, grimy city. It was only after the Fall of the Berlin Wall that they were able to engage in an expensive and draining five year long court action to restore their rightful property rights and regain the deed to their villa, which by now had fallen virtually into ruin as fifty years had elapsed.
Socialist centrally planned economies invariably fail due to their inherent and integral failure to encourage, develop, and nurture the essential potential of its people by lack of incentivization. Socialism is a failure because it suppresses the human spirit. Why else have so many thousands of people lost their lives in attempts to clandestinely escape their socialistic bondage and reach nations which embrace free market economies? In comparison, how many people have willingly left free market economies to move to socialist countries?
By its inability to foster, promote and develop the potential of people through incentives, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of ambition, aspiration, enterprise, determination and industry. What happens to the aspiration of a human being when there is essentially no reason to do anything? Nothing gets done.
Thus lies the core flaw of collectivist economies: When you inform a laborer that it is essentially irrelevant whether they produce one wicket a day or a hundred, and that it is also irrelevant whether those wickets are quality crafted or thrown together, as they will live in the same government owned apartment, shop at the same meagre stores, and be stuck in the same droning, monotonous job for the rest of their lives... their productivity falls steadily until almost nothing is produced. Multiply that effect by virtually every laborer in the nation, and you soon see why socialist economies are marked by long queues outside stores when the word gets out that they have soap, or bread, or eggs that day. Nobody is producing anything, thus nobody sells anything, thus there is nothing to buy.
At a time when the fault lines of capitalism are becoming exposed through the recent financial seismic shocks, it is a knee jerk reaction for the closet socialists to come out of the closet, dust off their tired rhetoric, and give it one more shot to convince the world to sing "L'Internationale" in unison. The reason why each proponent of this deficient ideology, from Vladimir Lenin, to Mao Zedong, to John Lennon has failed is due to the barren wasteland which exists within the seductive allure of socialism to the poverty-stricken masses of the world. The chimera of being able to "share the wealth of the state" is extremely tempting to those who toil in drudgery while the upper classes are whizzed by in their chauffeured limousines.
What they don't understand is that the state cannot create wealth, it can only administer it. Thus, the essence of socialism is one of universal impoverishment where even the hope that the lower classes can escape their poverty vaporizes along with the rest of the the nation's productivity.
We in the free market world are currently undergoing a severe economic adjustment. It would be fallacious to lay the blame for this convulsion on free market ideology or capitalistic structures. The current upheavals are due to the failure to enforce existing financial regulations thus letting blind greed and rampant megalomania run wild. That is not what a free market economy is all about. Just like a state cannot exist without just laws, a capitalistic system cannot function without adherence to fair and reasonable regulation. This recession was triggered by a myopic and incompetent gaggle of politicians, not by any inherent fault of the free market system.
The genius of capitalism, and the basic reason why it succeeds where socialism fails, is contained within its core tenet that the free and unfettered market determines profit and loss. Every citizen is empowered to design and market a better mousetrap, provide a better service, or implement a better idea, and let the free choice of the consumer decide to reward them. The potential success of the individual is limited only by their ambition, drive, and intellect, not by slavish adherence to a collectivist Five Year Plan.
It is at a time like this that we cannot afford to be hypnotized by the siren song of socialism, and the deleterious, titanic evils of nationalization, central planning, and government control through financing of private corporations. It is a time when we must refresh and renew our free market structures, allowing individuals the freedom and liberty to create wealth so that the rising tide will raise all boats once again. Some well known, salt of the earth companies and brand names will disappear forever, but they will be replaced and refreshed by unforeseen, startling new entities which will bring the nation new economic vitality and vigor. The United States of America is a land where ingenuity, innovation, and imagination are literally imbued in the lifeblood of the nation and its people. It has only ever existed as a framework in order to Let Freedom Ring, and none of its citizens must ever be enslaved to any degree of socialistic peonage, no matter how limited, or coated in an illusion of necessity.
Never.
Never.
Never.
By Hal Licino
-
wan't the soviet union state capitalist
-
Straight from the Bears mouth.
"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.
Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.
And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."
- Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, February, 2009.
-
Most, if not all, prime ministers just puppet the beliefs of their nation, and Russians don't know anything other than authoritarianism so it is what they like the most, and currently, they like free capitalism combined with authoritarianism, so that is what Putin pretends to be.
-
OK, that doesn't help the case for Socialism in any way.
-
What they don't understand is that the state cannot create wealth, it can only administer it. Thus, the essence of socialism is one of universal impoverishment where even the hope that the lower classes can escape their poverty vaporizes along with the rest of the the nation's productivity.
just because the state cannot create wealth doesn't mean the lower classes can't escape poverty. just because momentum is conserved doesn't mean a rocket can't reach escape velocity.
-
"doesn't mean the lower classes can't escape poverty."
They can't escape poverty if they remain within the guidelines of the system. This guy's article clearly and plainly states in multiple aspects, why Socialism, not just in theory but in practice is an epic fail and will always be one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/21/how-a-failed-commune-gave-us-what-is-now-thanksgiving/
People that commit the same mistakes over and over expecting a different result are what? What does that say about the people that have viewed that person make the same mistakes, expecting a different result, wanting to do the same exact thing...expecting a different result.
-
it failed in that scenario because it was poorly implemented, which doesn't show socialism fails.
-
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed. Failed it has.
-
What will you say when the current system collapses? Will you still say that laissez-faire capitalism is the way to go?
-
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed. Failed it has.
you might as well say the US is proof that capitalism fails and has historically failed
-
I'll point to Lincoln:
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
also, considering the current Liar in Chief: (bold my emphasis)
"It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. The question then is, Can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down."
-
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed. Failed it has.
you might as well say the US is proof that capitalism fails and has historically failed
Nope. That's not what history shows at all.
-
the example of the failed commune was a poorly implemented version of socialism. just because it failed doesn't mean socialism fails.
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed. Failed it has.
yes that is how i rationalize it. but it doesn't mean socialism failed, just that particular instance of it.
openssl failed, doesn't mean open source is a failure
-
the example of the failed commune was a poorly implemented version of socialism. just because it failed doesn't mean socialism fails.
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed. Failed it has.
yes that is how i rationalize it. but it doesn't mean socialism failed, just that particular instance of it.
openssl failed, doesn't mean open source is a failure
Just that every particular instance of it has failed = failure. There is no evidence to suppose any other implementation of a bad idea would result in anything else.
http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A (http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A)
-
the example of the failed commune was a poorly implemented version of socialism. just because it failed doesn't mean socialism fails.
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed. Failed it has.
yes that is how i rationalize it. but it doesn't mean socialism failed, just that particular instance of it.
openssl failed, doesn't mean open source is a failure
Just that every particular instance of it has failed = failure. There is no evidence to suppose any other implementation of a bad idea would result in anything else.
http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A (http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A)
china.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy
-
vh, that's a fail as even the article shows that the economic system is nominal at best and is defined as being state capitalism as linked.
"Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is that financial markets exist in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in classic models of market socialism and in the market socialist literature; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme (which are central features in most models of market socialism). They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[7]"
-
and none of the other countries are wholly capitalist either, but a mixed market economy
-
Not true. North Korea and Cuba. The point being was YOU and others are promoting a Socialist economic system...You think it's so great but you can't find any examples that were not complete failures on many levels and had to take on Capitalism . Do you want to tout North Korea and Cuba?
-
Why does socialism always fail? Socialism is incompatible with the most basal and rudimentary principles of human behavior.
True true true...it is very incompatible with rudimentary principles of human behavior. Such as...hmm greed which is what capitalism is based off of? Or the desire to have someone below you so that you don't feel so entirely depressed about how bad your life is under capitalism.
The idea of being an entrepreneur is to make unlimited profit. Profit, capitalism's word for greed. Make as much money as possible at whoever else's expense.
I have two historical examples of both of these points, from the civil war and the time before. For my first point, the South was driven by greed. They did not allow anything that would not directly benefit them, such as railroads and telegraphs or other internal improvements. They voted it down in congress EVERY time.
The desire to have someone below you is also evident in the South of pre-civil war. Only 25% of white men owned slaves, and yet even the impoverished defended the system. Why? Well the extremely poor knew that no matter how bad things got, at least they would be better off than those black slaves.
I agree with you in the fact that socialism will never work in a large scale. Others in the forum probably disagree with me, but human greed prevents this from ever working on a large scale imo.
-
north korea is a pretty cool place
-
Wanting to increase your income to have a better and more stable life for oneself and one's family is not greed. I think your understanding of greed is erroneously too broad and thus doesn't mean much.
"Or the desire to have someone below you so that you don't feel so entirely depressed about how bad your life is under capitalism." - That might be your desire but it's not mine and I don't personally know anyone that has that desire. Climbing a ladder doesn't mean you have to kick somebody off, most of the time it's the mere fact of climbing that put's you higher.
"The idea of being an entrepreneur is to make unlimited profit. Profit, capitalism's word for greed. Make as much money as possible at whoever else's expense. " - I think you need to consult a dictionary or google some words and concepts because profit is not greed. The vast majority of entrepreneur's don't do things at the expense of others or they wouldn't be in business very long.
"For my first point, the South was driven by greed. They did not allow anything that would not directly benefit them, such as railroads and telegraphs or other internal improvements. They voted it down in congress EVERY time."
http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/ga_cotton_1860
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/civil-war-innovations/
"While the South's rail system was weak, they were the first to use trains to their advantage, transporting supplies and soldiers to vital areas. The North was stymied by railroad owners more concerned with how much they could charge, than how quickly they could aid the cause. In fact, Secretary of War Simon Cameron was forced to resign when it was discovered he was trying to profit from War Department contracts for railroad shipping."
"The desire to have someone below you is also evident in the South of pre-civil war. Only 25% of white men owned slaves, and yet even the impoverished defended the system. Why? Well the extremely poor knew that no matter how bad things got, at least they would be better off than those black slaves. "
Since we can rule out that you were alive during that time...do you have any evidence such as a diary by a white male Southerner conveying such thoughts?
"I agree with you in the fact that socialism will never work in a large scale. Others in the forum probably disagree with me, but human greed prevents this from ever working on a large scale imo."
I guess you can at least admit it doesn't work, no matter how bizarre your self-concept of greed is.
-
north korea is a pretty cool place
On that note, I rest my case.
-
North Korea is a self-described Juche (self-reliant) state,[96] described by some observers as a de facto absolute monarchy[97][98][99] or "hereditary dictatorship"[100] with a pronounced cult of personality organized around Kim Il-sung (the founder of North Korea and the country's only president) and his late son, Kim Jong-il. However, the 4th Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea said that Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism was "the only guiding idea of the party".[101]
A North Korea scholar dismisses the idea that juche is North Korea's leading ideology, regarding its public exaltation as designed to deceive foreigners.[102] In the latest version of the North Korean constitution, the state and party officially rejected North Korea's founding ideology of communism.[103]
Research based on North Korea's domestic documents, and popularized in 2009 by Brian R. Myers in his book The Cleanest Race, and later supported by other academics,[104][105] characterizes North Korean ideology as being a racialist-focused nationalism, and heavily influenced by the racialist outlook of Japan before the end of the Second World War.[106][107] Charles K. Armstrong criticizes Myers for taking the Japanese comparison too far, suggesting that North Korean ideology is "actually closer to European fascism" than to Imperial Japanese fascism, since Imperial Japan lacked a charismatic leader and mass-mobilizing party.[108]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Regime_ideology
so much for nk is socialist
-
Wanting to increase your income to have a better and more stable life for oneself and one's family is not greed. I think your understanding of greed is erroneously too broad and thus doesn't mean much.
"Or the desire to have someone below you so that you don't feel so entirely depressed about how bad your life is under capitalism." - That might be your desire but it's not mine and I don't personally know anyone that has that desire. Climbing a ladder doesn't mean you have to kick somebody off, most of the time it's the mere fact of climbing that put's you higher.
"The idea of being an entrepreneur is to make unlimited profit. Profit, capitalism's word for greed. Make as much money as possible at whoever else's expense. " - I think you need to consult a dictionary or google some words and concepts because profit is not greed. The vast majority of entrepreneur's don't do things at the expense of others or they wouldn't be in business very long.
"For my first point, the South was driven by greed. They did not allow anything that would not directly benefit them, such as railroads and telegraphs or other internal improvements. They voted it down in congress EVERY time."
http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/ga_cotton_1860
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/civil-war-innovations/
"While the South's rail system was weak, they were the first to use trains to their advantage, transporting supplies and soldiers to vital areas. The North was stymied by railroad owners more concerned with how much they could charge, than how quickly they could aid the cause. In fact, Secretary of War Simon Cameron was forced to resign when it was discovered he was trying to profit from War Department contracts for railroad shipping."
"The desire to have someone below you is also evident in the South of pre-civil war. Only 25% of white men owned slaves, and yet even the impoverished defended the system. Why? Well the extremely poor knew that no matter how bad things got, at least they would be better off than those black slaves. "
Since we can rule out that you were alive during that time...do you have any evidence such as a diary by a white male Southerner conveying such thoughts?
"I agree with you in the fact that socialism will never work in a large scale. Others in the forum probably disagree with me, but human greed prevents this from ever working on a large scale imo."
I guess you can at least admit it doesn't work, no matter how bizarre your self-concept of greed is.
Greed is wanting things for yourself without regard to how it impacts others. Pretend for a second you are a professional baseball player who is one of three in your position. The star of the team (who happens to be in your position) gets seriously hurt and has to retire. Naturally, you are excited to play. The third player has been a career backup, and you are clearly better than him as his skills are waning in old age. The manager comes to you with a proposition, "You are the better player and I will give you the starting job. However if you choose you can allow this veteran to play." Would you? Probably not...you want your opportunity and after all you want this job...you're better than him don't you deserve it?
A slightly unrealistic example, but it gets the point across. You may say "oh I'd give the old-timer the opportunity" but in reality? Nope.
"Ask anyone the question, "Are you greedy?" and most will deny it. Then follow-up with, "Would you break the rules if it benefited you financially?" And the answer might be, "How much money are we talking about?" Few people identify themselves as "greedy" but when it comes to money versus principles, we like to run the numbers first. Pick an ethical scandal from the news and money will be at the core. To get a handle on business ethics and greed, we need to understand what "greed" is and who the players are.
So, what does a greedy person look like? You probably imagine a scrooge character in a tuxedo sitting atop a pile of money throwing it in the air. Or maybe you picture high profile characters like Ivan Boesky or Jeff Skilling. Although they may typify unethical people motivated by money, the real problem of greed in business is more widespread. In fact, being tempted to do something unethical for financial gain is nothing new for any employee.
In discussing greed, there is often a disconnect between the notion of greed and who the real players are. It's easy to point the finger at "greedy" executives or celebrities embroiled in scandal and overlook the thousands of employees who succumb to greed each day and find themselves unemployed as a result. The problem of greed is not just limited to the wealthy but is a human weakness."
http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/articles/greed.htm
In your copied essay, it states that humans need rewards to do something, such as pay and other compensations. They need to be fueled by reward. You may point to charity work and volunteering, but in most cases you get tax benefits for that and to be truthful, not a whole lot of people do that kind of work. There is a very small minority that actually does things for others with no intention or want of any reward.
Also the South had very few railroads and they voted down anything that didn't benefit themselves, such as rails in the north, which you have no proof against.
-
"Greed is wanting things for yourself without regard to how it impacts others."
Again this is your made up definition. Most definitions of the word are basically:
"a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed."
Wanting things, a way of life, is not greed.
Wanting prosperity is not greed.
So, greed needs to be excessive. I suppose you are the arbitrator of what a persons needs would have to be to remain below the excessive level.
Would wanting more than one of my children to have a college education be "greedy" in your eyes? How about all of them...whoa! must be.
"but when it comes to money versus principles, we like to run the numbers first." - speak for yourself. I don't go around with some price in mind to screw somebody over.
"In your copied essay, it states that humans need rewards to do something, such as pay and other compensations. They need to be fueled by reward. You may point to charity work and volunteering, but in most cases you get tax benefits for that and to be truthful, not a whole lot of people do that kind of work. There is a very small minority that actually does things for others with no intention or want of any reward."
Again, speak for yourself...my motivation for charity is solely to help others..I'm not even thinking about taxes. The fact that I write that off of my TAXABLE income, is because why shouldn't I? Why would I want to give more money to a government than I am legally obligated to? To do otherwise is dumb.
-
Vh -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Korea
So, what? They dropped it from their worthless piece of paper AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union...
Besides, this guy says otherwise.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-10/can-you-name-five-remaining-communist-countries-world
Here is a whole site dedicated to this place.
http://www.koreanconfidential.com/isnorthkoreacommunist.html
Point being you can wrap it up with a stupid looking Kim Jong-un haircut and it's still basically the same crap, people at the top planning the economy and lives of everyone else because they know better and can do it better than the free market. This of course denies reality and is false.
-
This of course denies reality and is false.
Citation Needed
This is a matter of personal opinion and therefore cannot be neither true nor false.
-
Would wanting more than one of my children to have a college education be "greedy" in your eyes? How about all of them...whoa! must be.
This is interesting. I don't understand why anyone should have to work their asses off and drown in student loans to get a decent career that interests them, or be lucky to be born into a family that happens to make enough money to do such things. There is enough resources in the world to educate every person on this planet free of charge, but it doesn't quite work in a capitalist economy because for anyone to do anything, someone needs to making money off it. Isn't that right?
-
atomic7732
There is no such thing as free of charge. Seriously how can anybody have a discussion about economics when something as basic as that is not understood.
"because for anyone to do anything, someone needs to making money off it. Isn't that right?"
Yeah, that is right. Are you stuck in a room somewhere? How can you not know that people do things in order to make money in order to live? Does stuff just materialize in front of you?
-
Does status quo change? Were the slaves freed from the South? Do women have the right to vote? Do we have bathrooms not designated "white" or "colored"?
What do you think someone might say from before each of those times? "Are you stuck in a room somewhere? How can you not know that blacks are an inferior race/women are the inferior sex and that they can't work/vote? Do you see any blacks/women being doctors and lawyers and (etc)?"
Do you see how you sound? Nothing stays the same ever. Just because the majority holds a view that some way is the right way to live, doesn't mean that institution will be preserved forever.
And don't tell me I'm pulling the "race card". These are valid analogies.
-
I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Point is you think services and goods are free and that just isn't the case. Sure, perhaps in the distant future Startrek will become a reality and we will have technology to change matter into food and goods at a push of the button but until then...it's not going to change for a long time. Again in case you missed it, there is nothing given away that is free. It costs somebody, soemwhere, something.
-
It costs somebody, soemwhere, something.
hmm especially in capitalism where workers are exploited to make profit.
-
and the workers themselves don't gain anything? I don't know where you work, even if you do as it doesn't sound like it but I make more money every year than last. I feed my family, pay a mortgage and am able to take vactions...it's like I am getting something for working...what is it, oh yeah, money. Thank goodness for exploitation or I guess I would be doing whatever you are doing to survive.
-
Congrats. How about businesses that manufacture their products in other countries. In countries where there is no minimum wage, no safety regulations, no anything like that?
Malaysia, China....the list goes on of places where businesses exploit workers.
-
Inflation. That is why you make more money than the last year, because otherwise after about 15 years you would be very poor and not be able to afford basic necessities. Actually, the absolute value of your wage probably hasn't increased in nearly forty years, unless you are a rich man, based on this chart:
(http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png)
-
I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Point is you think services and goods are free and that just isn't the case. Sure, perhaps in the distant future Startrek will become a reality and we will have technology to change matter into food and goods at a push of the button but until then...it's not going to change for a long time. Again in case you missed it, there is nothing given away that is free. It costs somebody, soemwhere, something.
I guess I wasn't clear, then. The point I'm trying to convey is not that goods are produced magically out of thin air, but that goods do not have to be produced en masse by exploited laborers for the goal of excessive profits (there we go, "greed", I think, yes?). Goods and services can be provided for the benefit of others (let's say, providing knowledge, teaching, and such things) with the assumed agreement that someone is going to take from that what they will and produce something of their own that society will in turn benefit from.
A basic living standard should not have to be worked for (with the possibility of failure and exploitation, don't get me wrong, people will still have to work, they will just have the safety net and guarantee of a decent life). As humans, we are far past having the capability of escaping that stage. For one to prosper in capitalism, it is always at the expense of another. Because you are climbing the ladder, you are taking something from someone else, intentionally or not. You seem to think that is intrinsic to being alive. It isn't.
-
and those people would be doing what? What you do?
-
Inflation. That is why you make more money than the last year, because otherwise after about 15 years you would be very poor and not be able to afford basic necessities. Actually, the absolute value of your wage probably hasn't increased in nearly forty years, unless you are a rich man, based on this chart:
(http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png)
Wrong. My raises have been above inflation. I have made considerably more money every year based on performance.
-
Where do you live? This is not the case for nearly all Americans, especially those that have had to switch jobs at ANY time since the 1970s. It is much harder today to get a job than it was back then, as back then, every company was looking for someone to work for them and all you had to do pretty much was walk in and get an interview. This interview would probably be the same day, and you would be almost guaranteed to be accepted, expensive college debt that keeps you from starting a family or no expensive college debt that keeps you from starting a family.
Now, my mother is constantly looking for a job since she is in her upper 50s and businesses don't want her, as they now view people as they do in our view of the world, which is, objects to be exploited, not humans to provide for and build up. She does have a job right now, but when she has any suspicion that she is not going to have one any time soon, she begins filling up all her time when she is home with searching for jobs and applying for literally every one that is in any way relevant to what she has been doing the past twenty years. Most of the time, despite all of this, she is still unemployed for up to ten weeks if it is unexpected. Since 2007, until earlier this year, she has not been in a job where she is a full time employee.
-
and those people would be doing what? What you do?
This is the best reply in this thread. I'm done here.
Your capitalist-imperialist society is unsustainable and will soon fall apart. And when it does I'll be there to say I told you so.
-
Well, I am sure your the Admin buddies have told you my IP address. First off, I have switched jobs, it's called a career. The goal is to do better through time and position yourself to make more money by doing something that business will pay more to "exploit". I have been at the same physical place for awhile and I do a good job, good enough to have more money every year than the year before and not just on a inflation standpoint.
That being said, inflation is a problem for us all and will be worse soon enough. That's not the fault of business.
-
No, they have not, and I think doxxing is disgusting since that's what you seem to think I want to do. My mother does have a career insofar as about 5 jobs over the past 15 years with similar aspects to all of them is a career, and the highest paying one, which was back around 2010, paid her $17 an hour by the end.
-
A basic living standard should not have to be worked for (with the possibility of failure and exploitation, don't get me wrong, people will still have to work, they will just have the safety net and guarantee of a decent life).
Wow, you almost made my draw drop on that one. Good thing you picked it up some at the end. Sorry man, there are no guarantees of anything in this world.
"As humans, we are far past having the capability of escaping that stage."
Reality doesn't agree.
"For one to prosper in capitalism, it is always at the expense of another. Because you are climbing the ladder, you are taking something from someone else, intentionally or not. You seem to think that is intrinsic to being alive. It isn't."
We can't all sit around wondering if that grocery cart won't be used by another person in a few minutes. When there is a hole, people will fill it. Seriously, don't think that the world is going to hold your hand and care about you, holding the door of opportunity so that you can walk through it. The doors open and people walk, that's how it works.
-
A basic living standard should not have to be worked for (with the possibility of failure and exploitation, don't get me wrong, people will still have to work, they will just have the safety net and guarantee of a decent life).
Wow, you almost made my draw drop on that one. Good thing you picked it up some at the end. Sorry man, there are no guarantees of anything in this world.
"As humans, we are far past having the capability of escaping that stage."
Reality doesn't agree.
"For one to prosper in capitalism, it is always at the expense of another. Because you are climbing the ladder, you are taking something from someone else, intentionally or not. You seem to think that is intrinsic to being alive. It isn't."
We can't all sit around wondering if that grocery cart won't be used by another person in a few minutes. When there is a hole, people will fill it. Seriously, don't think that the world is going to hold your hand and care about you, holding the door of opportunity so that you can walk through it. The doors open and people walk, that's how it works.
Is this truly the best thing? Does it have to be this way?
-
No, they have not, and I think doxxing is disgusting since that's what you seem to think I want to do. My mother does have a career insofar as about 5 jobs over the past 15 years with similar aspects to all of them is a career, and the highest paying one, which was back around 2010, paid her $17 an hour by the end.
I don't know what doxxing is nor do I care. Perhaps you should talk to you Mom about jobs and how the economy works and ask her if she would rather be working for the People's Republic of XYZ and if that would be a better life for you than some Capitalistic or quasi-capitalistic economy you live in.
-
We live in the United States of America, and receive aid from the government to pay for our health insurance. This program, across the country, is called medicaid. While it is health insurance, it is substandard. Should we not have this health insurance, because we (my family) are obviously a bunch of soul sucking bums that want to destroy the rich?
Also, doxxing is ruining someone's internet reputation, or stalking them and then sending them hate through the mail system, or in any other physical manner.
-
"and receive aid from the government to pay for our health insurance. "
Correction, the government collects money from taxpayers and gives it to you for your use. The US Government doesn't create wealth nor does it have any money of it's own to give.
"Should we not have this health insurance, because we (my family) are obviously a bunch of soul sucking bums that want to destroy the rich?"
I think you and others would be better off if the aid didn't come through a government that uses up x amount on the dollar to distribute it along with the political and otherwise, strings attached.
-
We would not be better off, and all of us would be paranoid of getting sick. Due to some error, I was not covered for the past six months, so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.
-
Vh -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Korea
So, what? They dropped it from their worthless piece of paper AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union...
Besides, this guy says otherwise.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-10/can-you-name-five-remaining-communist-countries-world
Here is a whole site dedicated to this place.
http://www.koreanconfidential.com/isnorthkoreacommunist.html
Point being you can wrap it up with a stupid looking Kim Jong-un haircut and it's still basically the same crap, people at the top planning the economy and lives of everyone else because they know better and can do it better than the free market. This of course denies reality and is false.
that was communism not socialism
-
We would not be better off, and all of us would be paranoid of getting sick. Due to some error, I was not covered for the past six months, so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.
I can't make you see the reason that spending $1000 in order to give somebody $100 is not efficient. One day you will figure it out.
-
What the christ
Proof?
-
We would not be better off, and all of us would be paranoid of getting sick. Due to some error, I was not covered for the past six months, so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.
I can't make you see the reason that spending $1000 in order to give somebody $100 is not efficient. One day you will figure it out.
how does darvince's quote relate to $1000 or $100 or whatever you're saying
-
Perhaps if you add the context of this in your quote...
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,11872.msg120213.html#msg120213
...you would understand my response.
-
I think you and others would be better off if the aid didn't come through a government that uses up x amount on the dollar to distribute it along with the political and otherwise, strings attached.
if the government uses $1000 to distribute $100 of aid because it goes "along with the political" that's corruption that's a problem, not socialism
-
Uh, Socialism requires the mechanisms of a Government to operate..it's kind of key..you know, those people in the Government being the planners and deciders of liberty for people, controlling the means of production and all. So, you can't remove the key element out of the equation.
-
I can't make you see the reason that spending $1000 in order to give somebody $100 is not efficient..
It's more like the government spends $102 to give someone $100.
Private, for-profit insurance spends $117 to give someone $100.
"... administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. ... the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue." Source (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/)
-
Other data shows otherwise.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/medicare-administrative-costs-are-higher-not-lower-than-for-private-insurance
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/
Plus, here is a general overview of how splendid things are going in the Obama administration. Yup, all this Socialism is helping...not.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013
-
Obama is not a socialist. You undermine your credibility when you make such objectively untrue statements. On so many issues, his policies aren't that dissimilar from the policies of Bush before him. It's like you don't actually understand what socialism is or how centrist Obama's policies actually are.
And the claims of The Heritage Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation) are hardly objective.
Either way... it's nowhere near the 1000 / 100 that you suggested.
And if you look at almost any other industrialized country in the world (who almost all have socialized medicine) they spend far, far less and get better overall outcomes. The evidence does not point to a for-profit system being better or cheaper.
It's strange to me that you'd defend the profits of corporations over a system that would allow Darvince to get the healthcare he needs. If he'd been born in Denmark, he wouldn't have had to suffer through a miserable ear infection.
I'm glad that your raises from your job have been above inflation, but certainly you appreciate that this has not been true for most people over the last 30 years.
-
Obama is not a socialist. You undermine your credibility when you make such objectively untrue statements. On so many issues, his policies aren't that dissimilar from the policies of Bush before him. (http://Obama is not a socialist. You undermine your credibility when you make such objectively untrue statements. On so many issues, his policies aren't that dissimilar from the policies of Bush before him.)
He is a Socialist, Obamacare is Socialism and it will be a full system once they get single payer.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/20/is-president-obama-really-a-socialist-lets-analyze-obamanomics/
And the claims of The Heritage Foundation are hardly objective.
That's your personal opinion, you can up that up if you refute the numbers they give.
Either way... it's nowhere near the 1000 / 100 that you suggested.
Sure it's an exaggeration but I was also speaking as a whole, government spending. The amount of money that comes in versus what comes out goes through a rather large filter every year by an expanding government of employees, taxation and waste to essentially the same thing each year.
And if you look at almost any other industrialized country in the world (who almost all have socialized medicine) they spend far, far less and get better overall outcomes. The evidence does not point to a for-profit system being better or cheaper.
I have and they don't.
It's strange to me that you'd defend the profits of corporations over a system that would allow Darvince to get the healthcare he needs. If he'd been born in Denmark, he wouldn't have had to suffer through a miserable ear infection.
Profits of corporations? You mean all the Doctors, nurses, techs and such? People work for a profit. I can only assume your company is not a non-profit. Is it? If not then, how are you in a position to judge the profits of other people and businesses. Your profits are ok, everyone else's is excessive..is that how you rationalize it.
Ear infection. Really? That's one of the reasons why our heathcare costs have skyrocketed. Everybody wants to go to the doctor or emergency room over every little thing. Besides, he could go to the emergency room and he would be treated, they don't turn anybody away. Miserableness gone.
Why do you want a Government to handle everything for you? Why give up control over your own life, the choices and decisions you can make for your own life. I don't understand that, but you can always move your duffle bag of stuff out of Seattle and go someplace that has a government and a society that wants a government with all that control. So why don't you go some other place versus trying to change America into something that already exists.
-
Why do you want a Government to handle everything for you? Why give up control over your own life, the choices and decisions you can make for your own life.
because you don't give up control of your own life.
-
Why do you want a Government to handle everything for you? Why give up control over your own life, the choices and decisions you can make for your own life.
because you don't give up control of your own life.
Defacto, you do in a quasi-Socialist, Socialist, Communist, Dictarorship, etc. society on an upward scale. So, if you want to maintain control and liberty in your life...you should be for what? The opposite.
-
Defacto, you do in a quasi-Socialist, Socialist, Communist, Dictarorship, etc. society on an upward scale. So, if you want to maintain control and liberty in your life...you should be for what? The opposite.
communism is completely unrelated with dictatorship.
some types don't even need a state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism
-
... so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.
Ear infection. Really? That's one of the reasons why our heathcare costs have skyrocketed. Everybody wants to go to the doctor or emergency room over every little thing...
You're not a very empathetic person are you?
-
If I had gone to the doctor for it, with the medicine that they would have recommended or provided, my sickness would have been accelerated and I would have been healthy after perhaps two days instead of five days. Do you think I should not go to the doctor if I suspect that I have, say, lung cancer? Should I just keep to myself and use alternate "home" medicine that doesn't help cure cancer?
-
... so as a result I didn't go to the doctor to get medications to speed up my illness, and instead suffered through a miserable ear infection for three days, as we simply cannot afford $200 on a whim.
Ear infection. Really? That's one of the reasons why our heathcare costs have skyrocketed. Everybody wants to go to the doctor or emergency room over every little thing...
You're not a very empathetic person are you?
Sounds like you want to make this personal versus discussing and interpreting facts.
-
Yes, because you won't allow us to debate maturely, and have slammed us with hundreds of accusations about the government but no evidence. What is your stance on gun control?
-
If I had gone to the doctor for it, with the medicine that they would have recommended or provided, my sickness would have been accelerated and I would have been healthy after perhaps two days instead of five days. Do you think I should not go to the doctor if I suspect that I have, say, lung cancer? Should I just keep to myself and use alternate "home" medicine that doesn't help cure cancer?
If you want to boost your argument by conflating an ear ache with lung cancer go ahead, I just think that's unreasonable. Our babies had earaches every so often and I think we initially took them to the Pediatrician but over the counter medication became appropriate after a certain age...we didn't keep taking them to the doctor for stuff like that into their teens. You will understand when or if you have kids yourself. Now some people in America go to the emergency rooms for simple ailments all the time..again, I think that's a problem within our current heath paradigm and would naturally get worse if we ent to Socialized medicine...at least an uptick before the rationing of Heath care would put a squash to that. All long it would take would depend on how long America kicks the debt can down the road...eventually that can can't be kicked any further.
-
Yes, because you won't allow us to debate maturely, and have slammed us with hundreds of accusations about the government but no evidence. What is your stance on gun control?
Am I talking with the Borg? I said Dan was getting personal in his last comments.
I have provided plenty of evidence, I can't make you read it or understand it.
-
I can't make you read it or understand it.
Yes you can't make anyway read it but it is your responsibility in an argument to make the other side understand your side of the argument. You can't be like "EVIDENCE" and then not explain how it pertains to something. For example when trying to convince someone that a certain food tastes good I could say "salt" and then not explain how the salt effects the flavor.
It is not the person's fault for not understanding how the salt makes the food taste good because I did not support it.
-
If I had gone to the doctor for it, with the medicine that they would have recommended or provided, my sickness would have been accelerated and I would have been healthy after perhaps two days instead of five days. Do you think I should not go to the doctor if I suspect that I have, say, lung cancer? Should I just keep to myself and use alternate "home" medicine that doesn't help cure cancer?
If you want to boost your argument by conflating an ear ache with lung cancer go ahead, I just think that's unreasonable. Our babies had earaches every so often and I think we initially took them to the Pediatrician but over the counter medication became appropriate after a certain age...we didn't keep taking them to the doctor for stuff like that into their teens. You will understand when or if you have kids yourself. Now some people in America go to the emergency rooms for simple ailments all the time..again, I think that's a problem within our current heath paradigm and would naturally get worse if we ent to Socialized medicine...at least an uptick before the rationing of Heath care would put a squash to that. All long it would take would depend on how long America kicks the debt can down the road...eventually that can can't be kicked any further.
with the current system rich people can "waste" money on ear infections while the poor can't be treated for cancer. it's wasted money and lives both ways, and you can hardly claim it is worse than socialized medicine
-
earaches are normal. ear infections with pus are not.
-
Sorry to hear that Darvince. Hope all is well now.
I guess the lesson here is to not get sick unless you can afford it. ;)
Also... if you were given health care for free there'd be no incentive to avoid getting sick. ;)
-
with the current system rich people can "waste" money on ear infections while the poor can't be treated for cancer. it's wasted money and lives both ways, and you can hardly claim it is worse than socialized medicine
I don't think you have a fundamental understanding on what insurance is and how an insurance company operates. Basically it's this:
X amount of money comes in from 1000 people for heath insurance. The insurance company, using science, estimates how much money they would have to disperse back out to pay hospitals, doctors, etc. for heath services of those 1000 people. The money going out must be less than the money coming in for those 1000 people in order for the insurance company to pay for it's administrative overhead AND make a profit, ie. extra money left over in order to make the purpose of a Business...a business.
The main way this can occur is that out of those 1000 people, a percentage of them are healthy due to genetics and lifestyle choices...they put money in the system but don't take much out. On the other end of the scale you have a percentage of the 1000 that are unhealthy due to genetics and lifestyle choices. In order for the insurance company to sustain a level of balance, the cost per the 1000 people will increase and or the administrative costs will need to be reduced. The administrative costs of the equation can only go down so low as to maintain a business, so like all business, the cost per the 1000 would have to go up.
So, as I was saying, part of the problem of why costs go up on the 1000 is due to too many of those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments that are not at a level that requires professional medical care. The more people add everything into a heath care insurance system to cover, the costs increase. Home insurance is to cover certain things, like a house fire...not for recouping costs of burning bread in a toaster.
-
Sorry to hear that Darvince. Hope all is well now.
I guess the lesson here is to not get sick unless you can afford it. ;)
Also... if you were given health care for free there'd be no incentive to avoid getting sick. ;)
So using emotion as an argument doesn't work, change it to the extremes and act like it's the norm. That's part of the problem with politics, people want to make decisions and pass laws based on the extremes of the spectrum versus the statistical norm. Hence why you have the war on Terror, war on Poverty, war on Drugs and all the stupid laws and policies, such as suspending kids because they bite into a poptart until it's the shape of a gun.
-
So, as I was saying, part of the problem of why costs go up on the 1000 is due to too many of those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments that are not at a level that requires professional medical care. The more people add everything into a heath care insurance system to cover, the costs increase. Home insurance is to cover certain things, like a house fire...not for recouping costs of burning bread in a toaster.
and those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments are the rich. the poor can't afford it after all because the costs increase
.
-
and those people expending more and more money on temporary ailments are the rich. the poor can't afford it after all because
I think you need to do some research as I'm pretty sure Donald Trump, Bill Gates and all the 1% you want to redistribute the wealth from are not going to the doctors with temporary ailments and they probably don't even have heath insurance or if they do, it's a plan they petty a hefty price for. Most of them just go to their own private doctor and simply pay for it. So, to suggest rich people are putting a burden on the previous heath care system in the U.S. just isn't true.
-
not the super rich. just the upper class.
-
I still think your demographics are way off as to who goes to the doctors office every week for something. If I have the time, I will provide something. You can of course do some Googling, that is if you are not afraid of getting contrary evidence of your opinion.
-
you contradict yourself
you say anyone rich doesn't go to the doctor every week for petty matters
you also say people waste money going to the doctor for frivolous reasons
anyone who is poor can't afford to go to the doctor, so they can't waste any money
then who is wasting the money you claim is being wasted?
-
no to phinehas no rich person can ever waste money no matter what they purchase
-
you contradict yourself
you say anyone rich doesn't go to the doctor every week for petty matters
you also say people waste money going to the doctor for frivolous reasons
anyone who is poor can't afford to go to the doctor, so they can't waste any money
then who is wasting the money you claim is being wasted?
The world doesn't operate in a vacuum. I'm not saying poor people waste their own money going to the doctor for frivolous reasons (though that is a waste of their money)...I stated that going to the doctor for frivolous reasons INCREASES the costs to everyone. If you have private Heath Insurance, it increases the premiums people have to pay. As Obama likes to say, PERIOD. If people on Medicaid, and now Obamacare do the same thing, again it's not done in a vacuum and it will affect the costs across the heath care spectrum.
You might ask why did they even start up Obamacare when all they had to do, which would have been a lot cheaper, was to expand the government's EXISTING heath care schemes to cover those 30 million or whatever people they said didn't have Heath Insurance. The whole purpose of this is to change the U.S. Heath Care system totally into a Social Heath Care system run by the government. Single payer only.
The wealthy and people like the Obama's and other elites and politicians never have nor will ever have to be under this Social-crap heath care system. It's about control and power. The more they take control of the private sector, the more control and power they have over the citizens lives. PERIOD.
Just wait and see and when things get worse and worse, ie. millions were dropped off their existing heath care plans they liked due to that Liar Obama, PERIOD. They couldn't even get a freaking website working for simple signups, wait until they actually start to administer this stuff. Nightmare.
-
no to phinehas no rich person can ever waste money no matter what they purchase
Strawman fail.
-
You might ask why did they even start up Obamacare when all they had to do, which would have been a lot cheaper, was to expand the government's EXISTING heath care schemes to cover those 30 million or whatever people they said didn't have Heath Insurance. The whole purpose of this is to change the U.S. Heath Care system totally into a Social Heath Care system run by the government. Single payer only.
The wealthy and people like the Obama's and other elites and politicians never have nor will ever have to be under this Social-crap heath care system. It's about control and power. The more they take control of the private sector, the more control and power they have over the citizens lives. PERIOD.
what? are they going to take all this 'power' and give everyone autism from vaccines? are they going to test bioweapons on us? what does this have to do with spending $1000 to give $100 of aid?
-
what? are they going to take all this 'power' and give everyone autism from vaccines? are they going to test bioweapons on us? what does this have to do with spending $1000 to give $100 of aid?
Red Herrings is all you can do? I already explained the $1000/$100 comment, get somebody to read it for you and explain it to you off line.
-
you explained it, then i pointed out one of the points contradicted yourself, to which you replied that obamacare gives the government power over you. i then said that's irrelevant to the $1000/$100 issue we started with. where's the herring?
-
you explained it, then i pointed out one of the points contradicted yourself, to which you replied that obamacare gives the government power over you. i then said that's irrelevant to the $1000/$100 issue we started with. where's the herring?
My answer was back here. You need to get your self straight on what you are arguing against.
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,11872.msg120403.html#msg120403 (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,11872.msg120403.html#msg120403)
-
Sure it's an exaggeration but I was also speaking as a whole, government spending. The amount of money that comes in versus what comes out goes through a rather large filter every year by an expanding government of employees, taxation and waste to essentially the same thing each year.
that would be inefficient administration of the system that is the problem, not socialism.
My answer was back here. You need to get your self straight on what you are arguing against.
no. that was an answer to dan's reply. the answer to my argument was here.
-
"that would be inefficient administration of the system that is the problem, not socialism"
Oh, true...but my point is that 1, it's a fact that government is extremely inefficient, 2, governments that are Socialist are still extremely inefficient and last;y, Socialism INCREASES the effects of this inefficiency due to having more economic control.
-
"that would be inefficient administration of the system that is the problem, not socialism"
Oh, true...but my point is that 1, it's a fact that government is extremely inefficient, 2, governments that are Socialist are still extremely inefficient and last;y, Socialism INCREASES the effects of this inefficiency due to having more economic control.
more economic control doesn't neccessarily increase inefficiency.
-
more economic control doesn't neccessarily increase inefficiency.
It does.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/01/government-waste-numbers-report-identifies-dozens-duplicative-programs/
That being said, I agree more with the bigger picture here. We should do more to reduce there even being a need for something to administrated inefficiently.
http://www.cato.org/blog/government-efficiency
-
More economic control actually decreases private inefficiency, as private businesses aren't allowed to pay their CEOs $1600 an hour undeservedly, and all their corrupt higher staff similarly exorbitant wages.
This is from a conservative site, and even they admit that CEOs are paid incredibly high wages. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/1212/CEO-vs.-worker-pay-Walmart-McDonald-s-and-eight-other-firms-with-biggest-gaps/AT-T