Topic: Why Socialism is the key - page 18. (Read 33165 times)

Okay, bear with me here because this is a bit of an abstraction.  If we equate dollars with labor/hours, goods and services with product, and we distinguish the laborer from the capitalist, then we might illustrate the disparity in income as such:

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.  The laborer cannot afford the product so he has to work for the capitalist for four more hours.  The laborer then gives those 12 labor/hours he earned back to the capitalist to purchase the product he produced in eight hours.  This cycle repeats itself across industries for a few hundred years until the income gap between the laborer and the capitalist is exasperated.  

The income inequality is inevitable in such a system.  As long as the laborer is getting less than the value of the product he produces, wealth will always move in an upward direction toward the top. And, the wider the gap becomes, the more social unrest there will be.  The more social unrest, the more need for police, prisons, and regulation...etc. So, social programs are not the cause of the income disparity but more of a result of it.

I'm gonna stop there because I feel we are over simplifying a complex problem but much more could be added. I have no opinion as to what form of economy is best but I do know that there is a disparity in the way wealth is distributed, not only in the US, but all around the world.  It's not just an American problem, it's world wide!

I agree, but socializing about Socialism will make you miserable. 

Well if you think my logic is reasonable than how would you answer that question?

I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect it's precisely for the reason that they are becoming increasingly Socialist.

You could probably say that an increasing wealth disparity is the same thing as a decreasing or shrinking middle class, correct? Just like you could say that a lessening of wealth disparity would indicate a growing middle class. It's always been seen as a great success of the USA and similar western societies that they've had a large middle class where anyone could earn a decent living at a job.

To me it seems to make sense that in an environment with the most economic freedom you'd have a lesser wealth disparity. 100 or 200 years ago there was next to nothing for regulation, income tax did not exist, people understood that nobody had the right to steal their productive output. Liberty was just common sense! Fast forward and we've seen increasing regulations, increasing taxes, welfare state, war on drugs, and an overall decrease in individual freedom. It costs a TON of money to police the world, incarcerate people, wage perpetual wars, and promise everybody free shit under the illusion of "rights". The problem is it's extremely wasteful and so resources that should be in the hands of the poor and middle class are being taken to administer this monstrosity called the US government. Huge wealth disparity is the price we pay for bureaucracy!

There is a difference between productive work and unproductive work. Production and wealth come from growing food, building things, and saving! Whereas what government (socialism) does is pays people to dig ditches all day and then somebody else to fill them back in every night.
 

someone who has a good socialization with others. will be happier, because they will be accepted in society

First, you might want to consider the fact that corporations as they currently exist are actually a product created by Government regulations.

But let's examine what a business is. A business typically produces goods or service. Those products must necessarily be in line with market demand or they would not make money and go bankrupt. People voluntarily exchange the products of their own labor (money) for the products that the business is selling. In a free market this a voluntary exchange of value for mutual benefit.

Here's the funny thing. In free markets the price is determined by supply and demand. In Communism this "price" must be arbitrarily determined by the central authority. Socialism must attempt to set prices by mimicking the pricing of private business. In any socialist country, without some private business, they wouldn't have a clue how to determine prices for government services. Socialism and Communism lack the pricing mechanism of free markets and that is why it eventually results in huge shortages or excesses. Read about what is happening in Venezuela right now. Venezuela is a heavily socialist country.

In a free market a business will grow only if they are providing good value to their customers. Yes, they can cheat their way to profits for a while perhaps, but if people feel they are getting screwed then anybody can use that as an opportunity to enter the market as a competing business. Competition is the natural limit to excessive greed and corruption. Think about your logic here. Without government interference please tell us again how a business would "rule the world".

If a business is doing such an exceptional job that nobody can compete with them, then honestly why is that so bad?  

Let me point out something else completely ridiculous in your thinking. You seem to be terrified of free market monopolies, yet have you considered what the government actually is? A government is by definition a monopoly! They are using legal authority to tax you and provide you services of which you have absolutely no choice.

Try not paying your school taxes because you chose to send your child to private school. Try hiring a private security company to protect your property because the city police are completely useless and would rather hand out speeding tickets. In both cases you'll probably get thrown in jail.

Let's say I came to your house when you weren't home and cut your grass without your permission. Then later I sent you bill demanding payment. You didn't pay, so I came to your house and threatened you with a gun. Would that be moral thing for me to do? Of course not, yet that is exactly what government services are.

You need to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary interactions. Socialism is a system that must implemented and enforced through law (aka force). Free markets are not a system. They are simply what happens when people interact voluntarily for mutual benefit.

I personally prefer mixed economies, as those are often the most "fair" economies, however, corruption can still run rampant regardless of the economic system, and will always be an issue.

Allowing for people to have access to a mix of economic systems is more beneficial for people in the long run, in my opinion, however.

I have no real opinion on what type of economic system is best but I do know that free markets seem to bring about innovation, creativity, and a will to work harder.  What I don't like about free market economies is the widening gap between the classes....the more one has the more one gets....avalanche!

I have always thought that socialist systems had more of a centralized economy....Where does a decentralized currency fit into that scheme?  It seems to me that some of the more successful economies are of the mixed variety....those types of economies are ripe for the introduction of bitcoin in my evaluation.

Probably too much History Channel.
Brainwashed.

I believe Democracy is not sustainable system, is based on guaranteed equal rights for all.
But , do you have rights when you don't have money and when you are on the street hungry?
One day you can be rich and other day you can be poor and struggling for life.

Yes this is free trade system.
And everything have its price.
Even Kardashian ass can be more valuable (important) than your child?

Actually it required 1 man and 1 woman to make the baby.

But you can pretend the child only has 1 parent, if the other parent abandons the child due to socialism.

Oh my god that stupidity of yours start to become a bit too much.

They're not "born to single mother" they're born to UNMARRIED WOMEN!

Which is extremely different you old school man...

I understand why they comment on something that they are not familiar with at all. But I don't understand why they comment in such a hateful and ignorant way.

Socialism as a social system has nothing to do with the ideological leaders who abuse their position. people are not aware of how the system can be good for the little man.
Social protection, free education, security in socialism in some form is the key!

  I do not know why they comment on something that they are not familiar with at all.

That's because you've been trained and brainwashed until you can't see what's in front of you.

Instead of saying "child abandoned by the father", they say "strong independent single mother".

But you can't have a "single mother" without a missing father.

And all these millions of women wouldn't let men get them pregnant unless the government was paying them for it.

How many children in socialist countries are "born to single mothers"?

66% percent of children in Iceland
55% percent of children in Sweden
54% percent of children in Norway
46% of children in Denmark

That's how many children are abandoned by their own fathers, because of socialism.

And you admit that you've never even heard of that fact.

So how can you know anything?  You don't even know where babies come from.

 

Oh but the banks 2008 crisis is okay because it's a free market you see, so it's all ok xD

Wtf? That's the first time sometimes tries to explain me socialism is bad because it leads to abandon your children xD

http://www.sos-usa.org/our-impact/childrens-statistics

Funny how this association takes care of children of the whole world including USA, but not European socialist countries. Maybe because there are much less abandonned children in Europe?

I think you need to understand some history lesson with socialism.

If youre supporting socialism youre saying like the bail out of the banks in 2008 crisis is okay. Basically a hand me out whenever someone fails at something which then burdens the state, etc.

Socialism is the key.
Yes a key to your grave.
Any one that says difrent has no real idea what it is.
To what it leads to and what huge cost on poor people it has.
Socialism is an enemy to society and single person as well.

We need to encourage people to raise their own children.
Your ideas encourage people to abandon their own children.

The government can't get a woman pregnant,
the government can't give birth to a child,
and the government can't love a child or raise it.

Because of socialist policies that value government control over human rights,
fathers and children have had their rights taken away.

Just like everything you've talked about,
paying people to do something encourages them to do it more.

When the government started paying women to leave their husbands
and take children away from their own fathers,
people started doing it more. 

After more people started taking that bribe, it became commonplace.
After it was commonplace, it became accepted.

And now millions of children never meet a male authority figure until the first time they're arrested.\

Because of socialist policies that were designed to replace families with government.
And people went along with it because there were offered profit for it.

Money.  Greed.  That's the only appeal your system offers to people.
You use a classic con artist technique by luring people with promises that are too good to be true.
Their own selfishness blinds them to the obvious fact that they're being robbed.  By you.

...and itself, by ignoring human nature. Greed is the main driving force behind development. Should I quote Gordon Gekko?


So, then Switzerland is a socialist dreamland? Just because of they doing what you said, but they still looks pretty much capitalists .