Topic: Why Socialism is the key - page 15. (Read 33160 times)

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

Here is a good article explaining why taxes are important:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

I'm sorry but there is nothing to answer to people comparing socialism and Athila... You'r doomed I'm really sorry for you.

Which is why it's important to maintain a direct democracy, avoiding a small elite to take control of socialist principle and thus restauring the "good old communism" as you say

Not nice to mock your opponent like this ^^

Exactly.


No, what we need is the free market to drive costs down, and then it wont be that costly anyway.



Yea lets just loot everything in our way, what the fuck are you a mongol invader?

You know the mongol invaders looted and burned everything in their way across all europe.

Aaa there is prosperous village... lets loot it and burn it down...



For fuck sake is there any other strategy for socialists other than stealing and looting? Is really theft and looting the only thing socialists can do? BANDITS!!!




And then when you run out of money, you have to privatize it again because no leftist can produce anything, you can only steal so after you ran out of lootable objects your ideology is over.


The only greedy folks are leftist socialists who want something for nothing.

fighting by making democracy is not good idea. maybe we need to share money with those who need it. it won't change reality that government will still take money from society, but at least the poor will not be poorer. that's good way to fight maybe

This Is way is socialism powerful, redistribution of power and wealth is something that
can influence on poor people with great attraction. This is only way for majority of population on the world to avoid hunger!
This can be, and will be misused by powerful and wealthy elite to bring NWO upon us.
You only need good trigger-War.
They will repack old communism nothing more, and they will be in power.
Now this doesn't look as ideology?

Sorry, without going into the details of linear programming or going through the trouble of formatting a matrix, zero-sum mathematics dictates that wins are equal to losses.  A position in which neither person wins, nor loses, is a zero-sum matrix because wins==losses.

Sorry, this is not an argument



Is this supposed to be where you explain your first point? This is nonsensical. Now explain how exchanging the fruits of your labor with somebody is a zero sum outcome. I took the time in my last post to use a simple example and the best you can do is this?

By the way, a zero sum means that when one person produces it necessarily deprives the other person. In other words, they cannot both create wealth simultaneously.

I produce socks, you produce knives. We exchange them at a price agreed upon by both of us. Inherent to that transaction is that we both must value what the other person has more than we value what we have. We both profited by this transaction, but the actual wealth was not created here. It was created because we both had excess production, which we could then trade for other things of value.

Now explain how one person was deprived? You failed to explain this about my example in my previous post. Now are you just going to keep talking over top of me or actually think and respond.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes I have.  Poor people are still getting richer.





Plenty of millionaires lose all their money.

Why don't you talk about how the rich are getting poorer?





Several people here.





That's not true.  Every person is free to control the distribution of his own resources, labor, and money.





Not really.  

Besides, prices go down when supply goes up.





Yes, that is exactly what we've been discussing.





That is a childish sentiment which is impossible to define.





And you are greedy, you want to take what other people have,
and you want to decide what will be given to others.

If you hate the rich, why are you obsessing with becoming just like them?

I already conceded the argument with you earlier in the thread.  I cannot match your reasoning skills....There is obviously a mismatch in intelligence between you and I, so I cannot maintain a reasonable debate with you on your level.  You win!

Hey BARR_OFFICIAL, why didn't you answer to this? The article explains perfectly well why capitalism isn't working and where the problem of wealth distribution is.

You haven't taken inflation into account...
Are you well aware that wages go up but so do prices?
Yeah cause the average American is getting richer every day xD
Who said the contrary?
But have you consider that if everyone get 10% more productive, the one controlling the distribution of this new wealth is the one owning the mean of production? It means that if we all get 10% more productive, the capitalist can decide to give back to us 0.05% of this new productivity and keep the rest!

It seems like you don't understand it's not about people not getting richer.
It's about people not getting what they deserve.
When few people own so much, they decide what will be given to others.

It's complicated to make them understand basic things...

But don't even try to bring the planet side on this discussion. Americans don't even admit climate change so...
I mean they get hit every year by more natural disasters and stronger natural disasters but they keep claiming climate change is an hoax xD

Maybe once they all die they'll admit they were wrong :-/

So you can't read charts, and you are unfamiliar with reality.







I usually don't like to call people idiots.





When people are allowed freedom, everyone gets richer.  It has happened all over the world.

When people are not allowed freedom, everyone gets poorer.  It has happened in every communist country.

Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea -
they were the same country, with the same language, culture, and ethnic group.
They were separated into two countries which do not trade with each other,
so it's not the South's fault that people are starving in the North. 

Wealth comes from productivity, not from poor people who have nothing.
When everyone is more productive, everyone can get wealthier.
When everyone is less productive, everyone can get poorer.

We now have more wealth in the world than what existed 100 years ago.
Therefore, some of our wealth has been created recently.
Therefore, it wasn't taken away from anyone.

Excellent discussion....It really demonstrates how much people understand how their own societies work within the broader global society!  If we simplify everything we're discussing here into one world, and we consider the distribution and consumption of resources, then even the lesser educated individuals could appreciate the fact that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.  Our global resources are limited, so when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

Now, none of this discussion has taken into account that "we" as a world "people" are depleting the earths resources and polluting the planet with our consumptive behaviors. We're gonna have to start looking for another planet if we keep it up.  We need to come together and start treating our planet's resources with a mutual respect....greed is killing earth!

There is nothing as "complete socialism".

Socialism is just an ideaology. The idea of a country where everyone helps those who are in need of course, but that's not the most important. Socialism is essentially about redistribution of wealth, and it's up to you to decide how far you have to go in redistribution.