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: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

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.


Redistribution is about government, not capitalism.

Capitalism makes things as available as is humanly possible for the poorest people. Everything that one person gets must be made by another. The only alternative to capitalism is slavery. Some one giving to poor people without payment.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

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.


Money rewards success and skill, socialism is at best a mimic of a capitalistic system, a mimic with a tax of time or money.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate

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


Socialism and fascism are both totalitarian. Nothing is outside the state.

"The greater good" is the collectivist rationale. I meant it sarcastically, and to save typing.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 08:56 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.


We agree with you about the hidden agendas. You have understanding of what is not directly seen.

Unseen things can be very real. And to us they could look like the net effect of something natural and complicated rather than an accomplished goal.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate

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


Socialism and fascism are both totalitarian. Nothing is outside the state.

"The greater good" is the collectivist rationale. I meant it sarcastically, and to save typing.


You obviously are confused because both socialism and fascism do not require complete control of everything under the state.

Individual liberties and a free market system can exist under both.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247


You obviously are confused because both socialism and fascism do not require complete control of everything under the state.
Only about 98% is effective enough though.




Individual liberties and a free market system can exist under both.
But those both dwindle with time. Usually from the beginning and get progressively worse.





posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247



Individual liberties and a free market system can exist under both.
But those both dwindle with time. Usually from the beginning and get progressively worse.




What's an example Xuenchen?

What's a real world, practical example of your statement?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but, back to the OP?

I'm sure that everyone noticed that Xuenchen's original linked article at a back-water right-wing blog called "Publius Forum" (most of the right wing rags have picked it up today, including Forbes Magazine, so the Echo Chamber is going all in on this one) and the article cited was written by a fellow named Warner Todd Huston ... which is nothing more than a summary of the actual article by Fraser Nelson published in The Spectator (a British journal that just happens to be the oldest continuously published "magazine" in the English language, established in 1828).

Here is the link to the Spectator article.

Thing is though, I'm not sure that Mr. Nelson is exactly the "right wing darling" that some are making him out to be. In fact, his actual article makes a lot more sense than the silly summaries that are added on by bloggers like Huston ...

Mr. Nelson is also a correspondent to The Telegraph and he references this article

For example, this from his opening paragraph from the article at the Telegraph:



Yet again, America has laid on what is, to British eyes, a horror show. A white policeman goes after a black teenager for jaywalking, and ends up shooting him dead.


That's definitely not towing the right-wing line and staying "on message" is it?

But surely, he goes on to get to how socialism has ruined the UK economy, right?

That's what the OP, and the blogger linked in the OP said right??

Turns out, it's NOT RIGHT. Here's a few paragraphs in:



America, being richer, is more unequal than Britain – and has a long list of genuine outrages. A white baby born in America today is likely to live five years longer than a black one, for example. No such racial gap exists in Britain.


What??? You mean Mr. Nelson is writing about racism and not socialism?

Read the articles and see for yourself. Start with his original in The Telegraph and then his follow-up in The Spectator.

You'll find that neither article by Mr. Nelson mentions socialism at all.

I want to repeat and please check for yourselves: You'll find that neither article by Mr. Nelson mentions socialism at all.

He's actually explaining to Brits why they shouldn't feel all smug and superior over the events in Ferguson MO and associated racial tensions in America. He uses the *cough*extremely bad and contentious example*cough* that the UK economy would be next to last as an American state ONLY to show that the British shouldn't judge America too harshly.

Mr. Nelson's articles are not commentaries on socialism.

As I said, the OP and the article originally linked by the OP (the Huston article at the "Publius Forum" blog) are frauds and grossly misrepresent their source.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
It was through The Spectator that I first came across this article. I didn't really know anything about the website but I definitely won't be going back. The majority of the comments to the article are just sheer racism; people absolutely convinced that the perceived decline in society (which I personally don't see) is down to multi-culturalism, and pine for the pre-50's society of white male dominance. I wrote a reply to one mentioning the many ways society in the 50s was much worse but was replied with more opinion stated as fact so didn't pursue it.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247



Individual liberties and a free market system can exist under both.
But those both dwindle with time. Usually from the beginning and get progressively worse.




What's an example Xuenchen?

What's a real world, practical example of your statement?


Perhaps;

Business Under Nazis

Nazism is Socialism

And maybe a few more recent.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247



Individual liberties and a free market system can exist under both.
But those both dwindle with time. Usually from the beginning and get progressively worse.




What's an example Xuenchen?

What's a real world, practical example of your statement?


Perhaps;

Business Under Nazis

Nazism is Socialism

And maybe a few more recent.



Those are interesting articles Xuenchen!

What did you find to be the most pertinent facts from each that back up your claim?

Also, do you fully ascribe to the economic tenets of the Austrian School? What's your favorite Von Mises quote?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
So how are property rights protected in your pure form of capitalism. No taxes mean no courts or police. No military to defend from threats abroad.
Sounds more like anarchy than capitalism.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: twfau
If you think the spectator is bad I would really avoid the daily mail. The at least the spectator attracts a higher class of right wing racist nut job.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
So how are property rights protected in your pure form of capitalism. No taxes mean no courts or police. No military to defend from threats abroad.
Sounds more like anarchy than capitalism.



Every service provided by taxes would instead be paid for directly to a business. Zero bureaucratic waste, and competition for every service.
Privatizing Roads by Walter Block 29min

Hired security forces or do it your self. Insurance for some governmental type things. Rule of law, trial by jury.

Criminals work off damage to victims.

Police forces would compete for business as would fire and healthcare.

Money would be a service commodity, like the liberty dollar en.wikipedia.org...

Banking like peer to peer loans. en.wikipedia.org...

This society can be approached one step at a time, as people see the natural truth in it.

Government dismantled one congress after another over generations or centuries.

The Complex Path of Ideological Change by Robert HIggs 67min

WMV Download from Von Mises Institute 67min


edit on 27-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
All of which still needs to be paid for via taxation. All you are doing is changing the provider from the state directly to the state via a proxy.
You seem to have a misplaced belief in the power of markets to always provide the best solution. Capitalism is no more a natural state than any other form of economy.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
All of which still needs to be paid for via taxation. All you are doing is changing the provider from the state directly to the state via a proxy.
You seem to have a misplaced belief in the power of markets to always provide the best solution. Capitalism is no more a natural state than any other form of economy.



No state monopolies.

Multiple businesses in every service.

Pay only for what you use.

Lower cost or better performance than taxation.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
Ok so we have now established socialism doesn't happen at taxation but when tax is spent. How about if the rate of tax is 90% but I all spent on private companies, is that ok?
Also
Are private monopolies better than state ones?
How do you pay what you use for police,defence?
Who regulates against fraud/poor performance.
Who decides who gets what contract?



edit on 27-8-2014 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: tovenar
I'll use my totally subjective personal experience as a scoreboard. That'll be so unfair that no one will feel obliged to take it seriously.

1. Kitchens.
Kitchens in European homes are tiny, like the galley of a sail-boat. And it's rare to find a dishwasher (machine) and garbage disposal in many of them. Fridges that would fit inside R2D2. No espresso machines--just a little cup with a handle that sits on one of the stove's burners. Hell, a lot of times a friggin' toaster is the centerpiece of the room.

2. TVs
I'd like to see a comparison of TV sizes between UK and US. A lot of the ones I've seen over there were so small it was like watching an oscilloscope! Do they make them so small in case the police search for illegal TV's, and you can hide yours so they won't find it? On the other hand, maybe size is inversely related to content....

3. Bathrooms
What's up with a rented "flat" (meaning a high-rise) sharing one bathroom with the entire floor? RICH means not putting your cheeks where the neighbors put theirs. And bathtubs with what looks like an old telephone: turns out that's the shower-head. You have to hold the freaking nozzle over your head the whole time you shower. You get better facilities in a state park in the US, than in a lot of Brit apartments. If there is something your host calls "the shower", it's smaller than a coffin, with plumbing from before 'the war'.

4. No heat.
I would understand not having air conditioning, since Ukes don't have a temperate climate; and most of the US seems tropical in comparison. But I said NO HEAT. What the Hell. Britain only seems like an island; it's actually just a dirty iceberg. It's colder than Canada at Christmas! And a lot of apartments have No. Heat. British pajamas are actually parkas and mukluks. Seriously; how rich can you be if you have to go to bed fully clothed? That was the whole point of the industrial revolution....

So in summation, you can show all the numbers and statistics you want. You can even rant about American excess. But Americans exceed because they CAN. fine. I'd rather be snug than smug any day.




dunno what country you went too but it wasn't England


Maybe you accidentally got a plane to Poland?

edit on 27-8-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74

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.


Redistribution is about government, not capitalism.

Capitalism makes things as available as is humanly possible for the poorest people. Everything that one person gets must be made by another. The only alternative to capitalism is slavery. Some one giving to poor people without payment.


That's not capitalism, the clue is in the word, it's to gain capital to the seller which equals profit. Why do you think it's about making things as available as possible to the poorest person? Walmart may adopt that approach, but even then, through bulk buying and minimum wages they still turn the profit. That's what capitalism is, why try and make it into something it is not?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted
I think it is safe to say that semi likes to redefine words to match whatever point he I making at that time.




top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join