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: 14
22
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Capitalism is slavery dressed up real pretty and full of false promises. There has to be a bottom to exploit in capitalism otherwise goods aren't made at little to cost for labor.

Just reading some of your other posts... do you honestly think privatized roads are a good idea? I can't imagine continuing this conversation if so.


Slavery is coerced work without payment. Taxes that pay for government waste are slavery, coerced with deadly force. Taxes are supposed to be collected for specific items.

Free trade is always voluntary.

Socialism exploits the bottom and, for some reason, makes the bottom bigger.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Sorry, how in hell would the various police and fire brigade departments compete? That sounds like a recipe for them to become gangs offering 'protection'.
No. Your perfect world would become a perfect nightmare pretty damn fast.




com·pete intransitive verb kəm-ˈpēt

1
: to seek or strive for something (as a position, possession, reward) for which others are also contending : vie with another or others for or as if for a prize

2

a : to stand comparison (as in fitness or value)
b : to come into rivalry especially in economic value, usefulness, or efficiency

unabridged.merriam-webster.com...


Your town would have two or more police forces, and they would compete for your business.

A town could have one police force. That would mean it does a good job. If the single polices force's service declined, a new police force could start up and compete with it.

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



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Semicollegiate:

Please provide one working, real-world example of a free market - no government system that meets the criteria of your various espoused theories.

From any point in history, from any place in the world, thanks.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Monopolies arise in unregulated capitalism


Untrue socialist dogma.

An undesirable and tyrannically maintained monopoly, like the government, cannot exist in a free market.

An undesirable monopoly will induce competition, ending its monopoly, and tyrannical monopoly cannot exist without state sized firepower.

A de facto monopoly can actually provide the best products. John D. Rockefeller reduced the price of oil from 50 cents to 5 cents. He had to keep the price low or else a new competitor would start up and take away some of his business.

The bad monopoly uses government power to keep out new start ups and therefore competition. Regulations and fees are fixed costs that always cost a small business more than a large one.

All bad monopolies use government.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: uncommitted

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?


Poor people are a market like any other in the sense that the lowest price will make the most sales.

Capitalism brings costs of production and prices down. In the 1970's a mathematical calculator, that only did arithmetic, cost $4000. Now that calculator cost $4 and can do trigonometry and statistics.



Sigh, that isn't the point, they are making the product cheaper to appeal to a wider market in your example - which by the way is almost exactly the same as the Walmart example I gave, although mine was more wider. But capitalism is about the biggest amount of money for the smallest capital - Jimmy Choo shoes for $4 retail going to happen anytime soon? No, but they always sell. You seem to be missing the point.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So I read the article, and its a hit piece on the UK, written by someone on a conservative website who is obviously in to territorial pissing, wants to do the "hoo rah, 'Murica" thing and who demonstrates American Superiority Syndrome (thats ASS) by the bucketload, while wallowing in complete ignorance.

Britain isn't a "socialist" country, in any way shape or form. We have a socialised healthcare system and that's it. We are very much a free market capitalist society.

We can compare lifestyles and charts and GDP and all of that stuff - and I'd throw the British way of life up against any in the world - but the general question really is this, who cares? is it important? Other than stroking part of the authors anatomy and his ego, does it really result in anything?

Nope.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Rockefeller and his shady dealings were the reason behind the Sherman antitrust act. He was using his purchase power to drop prices in an attempt to squash competition....increasing his monopoly on oil and other natural resources and was eventually charged under those very antitrust laws.


edit on 8/27/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Semicollegiate:

Please provide one working, real-world example of a free market - no government system that meets the criteria of your various espoused theories.

From any point in history, from any place in the world, thanks.


The computer industry is pretty close. Rich people bought the first ones and over time the price has come down.

Same for the auto industry.

World War I was the end of most of the free trade in industry.

The War Industries Board (WIB) was a United States government agency established on July 28, 1917, during World War I, to coordinate the purchase of war supplies. The organization encouraged companies to use mass-production techniques to increase efficiency and urged them to eliminate waste by standardizing products.

en.wikipedia.org...


The standardization process eliminated most of the variation between products and types of products. All the big producers got a huge head start from that. Socialism strikes again.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nope, that wasn't the question that was asked.

We're not talking about sections of a mixed economy that may or may not exhibit certain characteristics of the imagined free market/no government system you're proposing ... we're talking about a working model on a national scale (and a nation could be as small as Luxembourg) that really exists and has proven the theories that you are here espousing as truth.

If you can't demonstrate or provide examples of that working model, then you are musing and philosophizing about an ideal, utopian, ideological paradise that does not now nor has ever existed anywhere in the world.

So, example please?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: uncommitted

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?


Poor people are a market like any other in the sense that the lowest price will make the most sales.

Capitalism brings costs of production and prices down. In the 1970's a mathematical calculator, that only did arithmetic, cost $4000. Now that calculator cost $4 and can do trigonometry and statistics.



Sigh, that isn't the point, they are making the product cheaper to appeal to a wider market in your example - which by the way is almost exactly the same as the Walmart example I gave, although mine was more wider. But capitalism is about the biggest amount of money for the smallest capital - Jimmy Choo shoes for $4 retail going to happen anytime soon? No, but they always sell. You seem to be missing the point.


Things have to be made before they can be used.

Capitalism is subject to competition, which requires getting the most out of resources and lowers the cost to consumers.

Capitalism makes more stuff, if for no other reason than there is no non-producing bureaucracy to pay for. All of that bureaucracy money can be used to buy capital and pay workers.

There will always be more available to the poor in a free market system because there will always be more stuff for sale in a free market system.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Good opinion on the first part of the story, but still being debated by definitions.

What about the second part?

Are those GDP comparisons accurate?

"Part 2" linked in original story



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: neformore

Good opinion on the first part of the story, but still being debated by definitions.

What about the second part?

Are those GDP comparisons accurate?

"Part 2" linked in original story



I've looked in to it a bit more and believe I may have been incorrect in my assessment of the PPP of GDP aspect. It is much more complicated than I made it out to be.

That being said, we would have to see how he came up with his figures because it seems that there are several ways to calculate PPP of GDP and the results can vary widely.
edit on 8/27/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nope, that wasn't the question that was asked.

We're not talking about sections of a mixed economy that may or may not exhibit certain characteristics of the imagined free market/no government system you're proposing ... we're talking about a working model on a national scale (and a nation could be as small as Luxembourg) that really exists and has proven the theories that you are here espousing as truth.

If you can't demonstrate or provide examples of that working model, then you are musing and philosophizing about an ideal, utopian, ideological paradise that does not now nor has ever existed anywhere in the world.

So, example please?


Monarchy, Oligarchy, and Plutocracy have never allowed a free trade society.

Capitalism made the Industrial Revolution at a time of limited government. The Industrial Revolution is a revolution because it completely obliterated the life style that came before. The world we take for granted today is only 100 years old. Socialists act like everything is a given. Today's world is not a given, Capitalism made all of the new stuff in it.

Socialism is sophistry. It uses the inertia from the Industrial Revolution as proof of its efficacy, but socialism has done nothing but buy misguided political support for war and depression.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Like I said, it doesn't matter. Its all relative to geography and personal opinion/perspective.

The only people that care about that kind of stuff are those who want to care about it because it either makes them feel superior or wins them brownie points in the never ending "my dad is bigger than your dad" style internet debate.

If a person lives a happy life, GDP means nothing at all.

What the guy who wrote the article - and some people here - are guilty of forgetting is that the USA is PART of the world. The USA is NOT the world. Different people in different cultures see and do different things in different ways.

And while I'm sure he gets off on what he's trying to say, to me he comes across as the kind of person who probably lives a deeply unhappy existence because he's always trying to prove he's better.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Interesting response.

I will ponder further.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Wealth is subjective.
2nd line



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Socialism, Communism, Americanism, Corpratism, you can blame it on all the isms you want but the simple truth is usuary.

Any currency that allows usuary will eventually lead to the massive displacement in currency between the lending class and the bowerers. No system that allows usuary can succeed.

Success is mathematically impossible as long as usury is allowed. The government doesn't need to charge usuary, they can simply collect more or less taxes as needed.

edit on 27-8-2014 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2014 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2014 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Will there be notifications like that when threads or at least the topics of threads are going to be featured on the "Next Level BullS##t"?

I think this one would be an excellent contender.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I think you are under some grand delusion that monopolies and concentrated (unregulated) power doesn't already exist here in the USA. And the fact that the corporations run the government has produced policies (or lack of) that benefit only those who already have the power.

How is there competition possible when the corporate PTB already own the best locations, can outsource slave labor to produce incredible cheap (in all regards) products, can advertise well beyond any hopeful competitor (this cannot be underestimated as it knows no boundaries), can lobby for (or through illegal means) policy that kills competition, can crush competitors with lawsuits, have the means to push large slander campaigns against competitors, can buy up the means of production that the competition must use, etc. etc.

See how this dream of competition doesn't exist in this country. Thanks capitalism. I could have the best product in the world and it wouldn't matter. Those success stories on 'Shark Tank' are far and few between, but America loves a happy dream, even if it's 99.9999% false. The biggest hoax ever pulled is the American Dream. And I'm all for hope, but reality might make us a better country in the end.

Government is all we have to protect us from the corporate insanity. And I know I already said they are owned by the corporations. They are, but at least there is some (supposed) representation in government.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join