Topic: Why do people in USA fear socialism so much? - page 25. (Read 34853 times)

Why does it have to be an extreme form of socialism? Why not do what most of Europe has done and have socialism in some areas and capitalism in others? Granted some states have failed to do proper calculations and haven't balanced their income with the benefits they give their citizens, but most have done a fairly good job.
The fact that the banks also failed in their responsibilities and lent money to overspending states is a major concern right now, but that's not a failure of socialism, that's capitalism failing.

To answer the OP:

There is a thing called human nature. Humans SEEK REWARD and AVOID PAIN.

If you agree with this simple premise, then you cannot support socialism.

Humans will endure pain (work) in exchange for a sufficient amount of reward (money/goods). They will also avoid more pain (starvation/homelessness) in exchange for less pain (work).

Socialism seeks to give an equal amount of reward for a varying amount of pain. Humans will do what they can to endure the least amount of pain, thus they will do the least amount of work if the reward is always the same.

Thus socialism encourages people to do the least amount of work. If the least amount of work you can get away with is no work, then everyone will eventually gravitate toward doing no work.

When nobody in a country is working. Nothing is being produced, no services are provided, and society basically implodes.

The only way to counter the basic premise of socialism where everyone is given an equal amount of reward for varying pain is to use the threat of more pain to promote less pain.

Thus governments must punish those who do not work, jail them or kill them in order to have any productivity.

This is why Americans fear Socialism.

One final solution is to brainwash people into thinking that they are enduring pain in exchange for the reward of "something bigger". Such as patriotism, a sense of honor, duty, unity, the good of the collective, beating the competition, etc...

Are you really that stupid?

How about information disparity (can't protect/defend myself from things I don't know exist), highlighted in blue, and power/wealth disparity (biggest gun makes the rules), highlighted in red.

Can you see it now??

Actually, it has been found that new trees pull CO2 out of the air faster than older trees. Cutting down older trees and planting new ones actually helps in getting rid of CO2. The carbon is transferred to the wood and the oxygen is released. There are many wood based products that can be manufactured that could replace petroleum based products.

He is right that burning it is of no use because all that does is takes the carbon in the tree and sucks the oxygen out of the air and just releases CO2 back into the air.

Is it not obvious?

How so?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA OMFG the irony is too much!

Don't you see it?  You're pointing out blatant problems WITH YOUR OWN SYSTEM.

They probably had no idea about it. If they did, they probably had fewer resources to throw at a single issue than would a large corporation that's going to make a lot of money from it. Also, as a politician, it's easier to justify regulation as "making sure the public is safe" but harder to justify deregulation because that requires playing not to people's insecurities but their sense of justice.

Why didn't the target organizations of these regulations lobby the OSHA/State government to prevent this regulation. If it's that easy to get your way through lobbying I'd wager that your dentist, along with a few colleagues, could have stopped it.

Funny but true story...

My dentist was told by OSHA he had to replace his doors with doors that could swing both ways and were made of lighter material. Turns out only one manufacturer in the area made them, and they were a rent-seeking enterprise in that they actively lobbied state government. He replaced his doors, costing him a little over ten thousand and raised rates on all his customers to the tune of ~$7 per visit.

You are only fooling yourself if you don't believe that regulations increase the cost of healthcare in this country.

The sooner you disabuse yourself of this view, the sooner you'll be able to more effectively defend the solutions and ideas you put forth. Just some friendly advice.

Bind.. I'm not a socialist but what you're saying is crazy.  The US govt does not own the means of production; therefore, this country isn't socialist.  I lose a bit respect for people every time they say big govt = socialism.  We're not nearly as bad as the USSR yet.

What killed the USSR was a combination of international isolation with trade being limited to only a few non-NATO economies, their upper class, leadership, and military buildup eating up their resources and finances, and the fact that the majority of their citizens were totally reliant on the state for all of their basic needs, like: food and water, toilet paper, housing, public works, electricity, clothing and shoes, healthcare, and pretty much everything else.

Socialism is enslavement. Eventually you will have a revolt when quality of life gets low enough for long enough and everyone sees their family and friends deteriorating and dying.

Now we get to experience it first hand in the American Soviet Socialist Republic.

Time to wake up, people.

It's just rote learning. The cold war created a situation where communism was bad (when in fact, it was just that the west didn't trust Stalin), and everyone applied their cognitive dissonance to justify why (Socialism destroys incentive because greed and selfishness are the only ones!!). It's a meme that was created and is passed on today, irrespective of what the topics actually mean. For the record, Americans, the second you allowed the government responsibility for the public, was the same second you accepted socialism.

Communism failed because Russia did not have the means of production to keep everyone satiated, which only capitalism can provide. In other words, the Russians tried to jump the gun - give everyone equal standing when there wasn't enough to go around.

Once production improves to the point where it is virtually free (cost of electricity + maintenance), only then does it make sense for the group to take ownership of production. People will be afraid of this for as long as it takes production to reach that point (after which they will no longer care). Ironically, it probably won't without destroying the Earth, and so socialism may never be, in which case capitalism has no goal.

Because it sucks.

Anyways its not fear,  I just know better than to honor the notion of socialism.
It is very obvious that you must use natural tendencies as the basis for all.

The main cause would be globalization. Welding could be done much cheaper on the other side of the world. Low tech jobs are the first to go.

I have absolutely no idea. But I do know that neither can compete with an Indonesian salary for the same job.


I am absolutely biased. We all are. I'm a very pragmatic person though, and I like to do things that have been proven to work. Or at least avoid things that don't.
One of the things he pointed out was the test results in school, and then blamed that on the teachers union. While they could be a problem, it's unlikely that they're the major part of it. More likely are a myriad of other things, social and financial status of the family for starters. Unless you have an agenda to discredit unions.

What I'm suggesting is something like that. While I wouldn't point at Toyota specifically, I'd say that the both the politicians and the automakers failed to fully grasp globalization, hoping that things would fix themselves. Mind you that I haven't studied Detroit specifically.

The CEO of FIAT has an interesting analysis about the automotive industry where he predicts that in a decade or two there will be about 5 motor companies worldwide. 1 in Europe, 1 in the US and 3 in Asia. Fiat isn't one of those five, and will have to consolidate with a partner.

You have the same problem with your steel industry and I'd wager that you'll see some major restructuring in that area too. It's only in the start phase yet.

Why would another city be able to weld much cheaper than a city that was built on welding? Did they have incredible new technology that produced better welds for a fraction of the cost? Or were regulations involved?

What's the average union salary versus the average non-union salary? Don't forget benefits. What is the minimum wage in the US? How does that compare to a union salary?

Are you suggesting that the government programs he mentioned in the video were not applied in Detroit? Or are you disputing that those programs existed at all?

I understand the video was biased. I believe he was a republican? Regardless, you seem to ignore the issues due to your own bias. Maybe you could point out some of his specific errors, so I know what you are talking about?

Are you suggesting Toyota's awesome cars from the 80s destroyed Detroit? Or another city was able to produce automobiles cheaper than Detroit? How would they be able to do that? I thought the automobile industry was quite competitive.

With less regulation those who've been laid off can make other opportunities, but when someone has to jump through all kinds of hoops to start a business nothing will happen.

A town not too far from my summer home used to build ships. Big ships, exported to countries all over the world. Then in the 70-ies customers realized that welding could be done much much cheaper elsewhere and that the hull could cost significantly less. The shipbuilders then had a choice, keep doing the "advanced" part, which was the bridge and those parts, or keep trying to produce the whole ship.
They chose not to change their product, and now there are no shipbuilding going on there any more.
That city is now far from its former glory, although not as bad as Detroit appears to be. Can you see any way that the politicians in that city could have avoided the scenario they're in

Had the shipbuilding industry instead fired 70% of their workforce they might still have been in business, but the city would still be pretty much screwed since when a large employer downsizes to that degree there will be cascading effects where suppliers also will have to do lay-offs, which will impact shops, theatres etc.
The city would still be in almost the same sorry state that it's in today.

Rising unemployment correlates with a rise in crimes, and children who don't see any future for themselves tend to do bad in school.
Also, the guy is blaming unions for the state that Detroit is in.  Does he realize that salaries in the US can never drop to the level to be competitive with the salaries in many/most asian countries? The cost of living is too high in the US.

The guy did a bad analysis based on his agenda. There might be a nugget of truth buried in the garbage he's spewing, but given how he mishandles all other data, nobody will give it any credibility. Except those who share his agenda naturally.

Sounds great, in reality the results aren't so pleasing unless you are talking about a tiny nation state of a few million.