It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74
Even the Nordic countries aren't really Socialist, they're more redistributive capitalism. Any nation that is claimed to be Socialist but does not have an economic model in which workers own the means of production... is a false claim. Billionaire puppeteers sure do love those muddy waters.


A Capitalistic government would not have the power redistribute anything, because it would have no legal claim to anything.

Any government that can claim ownership of the property of its citizens is socialist/totalitarian.


A democratic government with a capitalist economic model can have redistribution, in fact it must or the economy will fail unless you're willing to consistently kill off those who fall to the bottom, which is an inevitability. The combination is what allows for taxes to be implemented, through voting in politicians that will propose taxes to Congress and then how those taxes will be used.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: xuenchen

The UK is Socialist? When did that happen?


Seriously, we are run by the same bankers and corporate interests as the US, so no Socialism here.

I thought the US was a Capitalist run country, but it sure doesn't look too good over there either. Not that most people would realise that given the amount of "cooking of the books" that goes on to paint a rosier picture than in fact exists in reality.


Socialism happened at taxes.

Why not buy subscriptions or insurance instead?


A Capitalist nation cannot thrive, grow or defend itself without taxes.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Austerity is proof of incompetent political management, which is socialism.


Are you saying that incompetent political management only comes from socialism?

Perhaps you could clarify because that statement is obviously incorrect.


Capitalism is not of form of government.

So all incompetent political management is socialistic.



Socialism is not a form of government either. It is a socio-economic system that exists within a form of government such as a republic or communism.


Socialism that is not a government is capitalism with multiple owners.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you show that they're Socialist?


Any political body that takes wealth and redistributes it is socialist.

All western countries are socialistic.

Socialism is the "Middle of the Road" now.


Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, this is an economic model not a program. Capitalism is an economic model in which private entities own the means of production. Welfare is redistributive.


Perhaps a wee bit more complicated.....

Watch for the hidden agendas.

Socialism


Fabian socialism



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: yorkshirelad


Capitalism is a failed system when applied to the whole economy (pro capitalist KNOW this and are fighting a reargaurd action, like this thread). It is perfect for non essential goods and services like a TV or Car or Sweets or Sports clothing etc etc. It is appalling bad when applied to essential goods and services like transport infrastructure, water, fuel, health care , education etc.


Socialism claims to want to do better than Capitalism. Nice Idea.

Please explain how socialism actually does better than capitalism.

Socialism assumes that the entire economy and all of the wants and needs of everyone can be managed by a few human beings. How is that possible?



Socialism, in theory (remember we have never seen it in practice) is better because every individual is responsible for their own success and skill. People would own their own work and a true free market would ensue.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: xuenchen

The UK is Socialist? When did that happen?


Seriously, we are run by the same bankers and corporate interests as the US, so no Socialism here.

I thought the US was a Capitalist run country, but it sure doesn't look too good over there either. Not that most people would realise that given the amount of "cooking of the books" that goes on to paint a rosier picture than in fact exists in reality.


Socialism happened at taxes.

Why not buy subscriptions or insurance instead?


A Capitalist nation cannot thrive, grow or defend itself without taxes.


Capitalism does not require nationhood.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Austerity is proof of incompetent political management, which is socialism.


Are you saying that incompetent political management only comes from socialism?

Perhaps you could clarify because that statement is obviously incorrect.


Capitalism is not of form of government.

So all incompetent political management is socialistic.



Socialism is not a form of government either. It is a socio-economic system that exists within a form of government such as a republic or communism.


Socialism that is not a government is capitalism with multiple owners.


Capitalism with multiple owners is called a partnership. Socialism, as it refers to an entire society within a system of governance, applies to everyone within the society....just like capitalism.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: xuenchen

The UK is Socialist? When did that happen?


Seriously, we are run by the same bankers and corporate interests as the US, so no Socialism here.

I thought the US was a Capitalist run country, but it sure doesn't look too good over there either. Not that most people would realise that given the amount of "cooking of the books" that goes on to paint a rosier picture than in fact exists in reality.


Socialism happened at taxes.

Why not buy subscriptions or insurance instead?


A Capitalist nation cannot thrive, grow or defend itself without taxes.


Capitalism does not require nationhood.



Neither does socialism. Socialism can apply to everything from an organized church, to local communities to a nation as a whole. It depends on it's application. Socialism is quite versatile.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: xuenchen

Exactly. Our deficit spending was not controlled properly. But where did it go? Was the majority spent on socialist programs to benefit the people......or was it spent on the privatized war machine and bailouts that helped prop-up the failed "capitalists"?


All of the above are patrons and exponents of socialism.

Socialism is taking from one to give to another, for the greater good.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hidden agendas own you, they've walked up one side of you and down the other. Something can only be one thing, when other things start to mingle with it, it is then a hybrid and not the original thing. You deliberately do not want to understand.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You're confusing socialism with fascism, I believe. Please explain how the examples I gave benefited the greater good?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: xuenchen

The UK is Socialist? When did that happen?


Seriously, we are run by the same bankers and corporate interests as the US, so no Socialism here.

I thought the US was a Capitalist run country, but it sure doesn't look too good over there either. Not that most people would realise that given the amount of "cooking of the books" that goes on to paint a rosier picture than in fact exists in reality.


Socialism happened at taxes.

Why not buy subscriptions or insurance instead?


A Capitalist nation cannot thrive, grow or defend itself without taxes.


Capitalism does not require nationhood.



But we are discussing economic models of nations.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I just can't help it. (I beg your pardon, Charles1952, just ignore me for a quick, quick post.)

Semicollegiate, let's use your impromptu formulas with some real world numbers, shall we?

As you indicated, many of these "factors" are mere estimates. (Which of course, for almost anyone, would suggest that impossibly wide statements as "UK is poorer than any US State except Mississippi" would be entirely hapless, but let's let that rest.)

Using your impromptu formula, let's look at an example and see if it makes sense, eh?

S. Korea GDP/Population (aka per Capita, 2013) = $24,328 (Source - IMF Column)

S. Korea PPP (2013) = 858.216682 (Source - OECD - Source used by OP)

Therefore using your formula, GDP/Population*PPP = 24328*858 = $20,873,424 "relative wealth" per person (I rounded.)

$20,873,424 "relative wealth" per person in S. Korea

Who knew that everyone in S. Korea is a multi-millionaire?

Another one, just for fun ...

Chile GDP per Capita (2013) = $15,775
(Source - IMF column)

Chile PPP (2013) = 355.406546 (Source - OECD

Again, using your formula, GDP/Population*PPP = 15775*355 = $5,600,480 "relative wealth" per person.

$5,600,480 "relative wealth" per person.

So, the Chileans are not quite S. Korean rich ... but they're doing much better than, well, ...

... a lot of folks.

Does it become clear that something is askew with your calculations, and perforce, with the OP's?

Look at it for a few and see if you can spot why.


Your PPP numbers are mistaken by 10,000%



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Hidden agendas own you, they've walked up one side of you and down the other. Something can only be one thing, when other things start to mingle with it, it is then a hybrid and not the original thing. You deliberately do not want to understand.


Your argument is crumbling.

False starts always make broken hearts.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nice try, but they're quoted from the source.

Next?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Uhhh...

?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Mandatory fiat money is only possible by governmental usurpation and abrogation of real commodity money.


Not so. Fiat money is also possible by implementing a central banking system that does not adhere to a tangible commodity who's value dictates the value of the currency.



Socialism is the means and maintenance of governmental control of money.


It appears we do not have a common understanding of what socialism is to begin with....making it hard to converse on the issue.


implementing a central banking system can only be done by an all powerful authority, i.e. a government.

Socialism would not be distinct from capitalism if the issue was strictly ownership. It would be a subset of capitalism.

Socialism, in every real and honest sense, is a type of government.
edit on 26-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Kali, don't you know that one wins arguments simply by declaring victory?

Silly liberal/progressive/socialist/fascist you!


Your "opponents" provide no evidence, no real argument, just a unblinking stare of virtual zealotry ... reason has left the building.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you show that they're Socialist?


Any political body that takes wealth and redistributes it is socialist.

All western countries are socialistic.

Socialism is the "Middle of the Road" now.


Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, this is an economic model not a program. Capitalism is an economic model in which private entities own the means of production. Welfare is redistributive.


If it is only about ownership then it is capitalist.

If socialism could really work, socialistically oriented companies would appear and take over all of the production on the planet, by competition, without government.

Socialism is not natural or really even possible.

Perhaps if all of the socialists moved to the same communities, socialism could work there. That would happen in a capitalistic society.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh. Well then... I win ATSxinfinity.




top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join