What is Socialism?

[Sparko]

I call complete BS.

These programs aren't debt-financed. Nobody's mortgaging the future of their grandchildren's grandchildren, or anything remotely of the sort. No part of the statement "We aren't paying down these obligations inherited from the old New Deal" makes any sense, it's pure garbage.

Governments throughout the Western world have been running social safety net programs at various levels for 75+ years now. The exact finances vary by nation, but what certainly hasn't happened is any sort of across the board gradual racking up of ruinous levels of debt or anything of the sort. These programs are affordable. Many Western countries with strong social safety nets, such as my own, regularly generate budget surpluses.

work.jpg

[Sparko]

Even in that case, why is that information inaccessible in smaller, less varied countries?



If a dominant capitalist has their "primary" income source fail, they can just move on to another. The market can't correct for an individual with enough money.



Outside of stock, how would a CEO lose any money at all if their company failed? What does that slave owner/right to work comment refer to?

If their company failed, they would not have a job or income. And if they keep failing at their job in different companies, nobody will hire them.

You keep trying to find exceptions and use them to prove the whole system is flawed. Overall in a free market you have corrections, good businesses with products people want succeed and that inspires competition and improved the product and lowers the price to consumers. The general trend is more jobs, more choice in products, higher incomes for workers and a better lifestyle.

Under socialism, you get less choice, poorer products with no oversight, lower wages, and lower standards of living.

[Cow Poke]

That's true enough. Just ask the new Senator "Just pay for it" Cortez.

Awwwww, poor little Cortez feels left out....

cortez.jpg

[seer]

Awwwww, poor little Cortez feels left out....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33062[/ATTACH]

I don't know why, but I like her, a lot of genuine passion. Her policies suck though...

[Psychic Missile]

If their company failed, they would not have a job or income. And if they keep failing at their job in different companies, nobody will hire them.

They have a severance package and connections to get hired somewhere else or capital start their own business, not to mention passive income. They're not like normal people who depend upon their job for the necessities.

You keep trying to find exceptions and use them to prove the whole system is flawed. Overall in a free market you have corrections, good businesses with products people want succeed and that inspires competition and improved the product and lowers the price to consumers. The general trend is more jobs, more choice in products, higher incomes for workers and a better lifestyle.

Dominant capital can prevent all of those benefits. In fact, the goal of capitalism is to have more power than the market, so capitalism can be said to be a self-destructive or suicidal system. Also, higher incomes for workers is de-incentivized in capitalism and only happens out of obligation. Better lifestyles are likewise only incidental for the majority of the population. Why would a system that has incidental benefits be superior to a system that has benefits intentionally or even primarily?

Under socialism, you get less choice, poorer products with no oversight, lower wages, and lower standards of living.

Depends upon what type of socialism you're talking about. There are certainly flaws in any economic system.

[Sparko]

They have a severance package and connections to get hired somewhere else or capital start their own business, not to mention passive income. They're not like normal people who depend upon their job for the necessities.

maybe a very small percentage. And they negotiated those packages which they can do because of Capitalism. It's great. But if they drag the company under I am pretty sure they don't get squat, because that would be part of the contract too, plus if the company goes bust, there isn't any money to give them. What you should be actually worried about is when the GOVERNMENT bails out these failing companies and gives them money to save them even when the market says they should go under. Like Obama and the banks.

Dominant capital can prevent all of those benefits. In fact, the goal of capitalism is to have more power than the market, so capitalism can be said to be a self-destructive or suicidal system. Also, higher incomes for workers is de-incentivized in capitalism and only happens out of obligation. Better lifestyles are likewise only incidental for the majority of the population. Why would a system that has incidental benefits be superior to a system that has benefits intentionally or even primarily?

it is not incidental benefits. It is built into the system. People who work hard and innovate and produce things people want, do better and make more money. And tell me, why if socialism "has benefits intentionally" does it fail everywhere it has been tried, and everyone end up poor? [

You don't see caravans of immigrants trying to sneak into Venezuela or Cuba do you? If capitalism is so bad, why is the USA one of the richest countries in the world and everyone is trying to get in?

[rogue06]

Awwwww, poor little Cortez feels left out....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33062[/ATTACH]

I doubt she made a whole lot of friends there considering that one of her first actions was to stage a protest in Pelosi's office.

[Cow Poke]

I doubt she made a whole lot of friends there considering that one of her first actions was to stage a protest in Pelosi's office.

But she's cute.

[rogue06]

But she's cute.

I'm getting a laugh how some of her supporters are positive that she'll run for president in 2020 and beat Trump. I keep offering to bet one of them where I work (she recently moved here from Vermont and thinks Bernie Sanders is "da bomb") that she doesn't even run figuring she's not educated enough to figure out why this is a sure thing.

[Sparko]

I'm getting a laugh how some of her supporters are positive that she'll run for president in 2020 and beat Trump. I keep offering to bet one of them where I work (she recently moved here from Vermont and thinks Bernie Sanders is "da bomb") that she doesn't even run figuring she's not educated enough to figure out why this is a sure thing.

um she is only 29. She can't run for President in 2020.

[seer]

Depends upon what type of socialism you're talking about. There are certainly flaws in any economic system.

Nonsense PM, nothing has done more to raise the general standard of living than free markets. Just about every convenience you enjoy, medical and technological advances, longer life, are largely do to free markets. Socialism, even socialism light must leach its life off the capitalistic host.

[rogue06]

um she is only 29. She can't run for President in 2020.

Bingo.

[Sparko]

Bingo.

No, that's that dog from the song.

[Cow Poke]

No, that's that dog from the song.

Now you got that song stuck in my head, but it's way better than the one that was there!

[Cow Poke]

Drat!!!!