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.

 

A question for critics of Socialism

page: 21
30
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So why is that important? Natural processes tend to be very inefficient. When humans apply their thinking to a natural process, we ALWAYS improve its efficiency. So why would you think that a "natural" system like Capitalism would be the most efficient system we can have?


Human behavior is the power in economics.

The system that allows the most human behavior, the more human activity will happen.

Socialism restricts human behavior. Socialism makes some activity unnecessary, discourages higher levels of achievement, and requires permission or justification for unconventional explorations.

Capitalism rewards productive behavior, which makes productive behavior more common, without restricting behavior in any other categories.




posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
Neither is what you are describing capitalism nor is capitalism a naturally occurring phenomena.
Capitalism as an economic system requires property rights. Property rights require a state. Capitalism requires a state as much as socialism. It is only the role of the state that differs.
The goal of capitalism isn't the production of more stuff and free time. It is the maximisation of profits for those that own capital.
What you describing sounds like an anarchistic barter economy.



Property rights are the default human mental organization. Everyone would prefer to have everything.

Capitalism is what happens when no one tells any one else what to do.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
People may wish to own things but unless there is a state their are no property rights.
Again you are describing anarchy not capitalism.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So why is that important? Natural processes tend to be very inefficient. When humans apply their thinking to a natural process, we ALWAYS improve its efficiency. So why would you think that a "natural" system like Capitalism would be the most efficient system we can have?


Human behavior is the power in economics.

The system that allows the most human behavior, the more human activity will happen.


But you are describing a system that isn't dictated or led by intelligent thought. It just goes where it goes. That isn't efficient.


Socialism restricts human behavior. Socialism makes some activity unnecessary, discourages higher levels of achievement, and requires permission or justification for unconventional explorations.


So why are all these Socialist countries in Europe doing so well for themselves? I mean you can say this thousands of times. You can yell it from the roof tops. You can nod your head in agreement to the talking heads on tv building up ulcers yelling it to you, but NONE of that will ever make it reality. The fact is that Socialism ISN'T the doom of society. It enables MORE people to contribute in exchange for a small cost on overall prices.

It's CERTAINLY a better use of tax money than spending it on another useless war started to secure economic assets for "capitalists".


Capitalism rewards productive behavior, which makes productive behavior more common, without restricting behavior in any other categories.


Instead it consolidates wealth and funnels resources to a select few people while everyone else feeds on table scraps.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But you are describing a system that isn't dictated or led by intelligent thought. It just goes where it goes. That isn't efficient.


You assume that any one knows what path the future should take. That path could change with any new technology or scientific discovery.

No one knows what the future holds, but a strong economy facilitates any course better than a poor economy.


So why are all these Socialist countries in Europe doing so well for themselves?


Socialist economies live on borrowed money and confiscating the wealth made by the Industrial Revolution.



I mean you can say this thousands of times. You can yell it from the roof tops. You can nod your head in agreement to the talking heads on tv building up ulcers yelling it to you, but NONE of that will ever make it reality. The fact is that Socialism ISN'T the doom of society. It enables MORE people to contribute in exchange for a small cost on overall prices.


The poverty rate was decreasing until the Socialistic Welfare started in 1967



Socialism has increased poverty.



It's CERTAINLY a better use of tax money than spending it on another useless war started to secure economic assets for "capitalists".


All modern wars, since the War Between the States, have needed centralization of power to fight the total war.

Centralization is socialistic.


Instead it (Capitalism) consolidates wealth and funnels resources to a select few people while everyone else feeds on table scraps.


Centralization allows control and abuse a few. The centralization comes from socialism, therefore socialism consolidates wealth ...

Capitalism favors decentralization because local information is always known better to locals.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
It is interesting when you think about the economics of it. What do the Nordic socialist produce? Their system is not in a bubble and relies on the capitalist inflow of goods and finance.

Take your computer for instance. It would have never come about in a pure socialist system. I was recently reading an article on computers produced by the soviet union during the 80s. They were complete junk . Most looked like prototypes made from a composite of materials including wood. Most were home built because no one could afford the purchased ones. There is just way too much development cost and such that it was never viable there.

Its easy to sit on a forum enjoying the fruits of capitalism and tell everyone else they are greedy for not agreeing with you.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You assume that any one knows what path the future should take. That path could change with any new technology or scientific discovery.

No one knows what the future holds, but a strong economy facilitates any course better than a poor economy.


But it's the capitalists that always say that Socialism always lead to economic collapse and other predictions about Socialism.


Socialist economies live on borrowed money and confiscating the wealth made by the Industrial Revolution.


But it works, which is something you carefully refused to just acknowledge.


The poverty rate was decreasing until the Socialistic Welfare started in 1967



Socialism has increased poverty.


Socialism started in the 30's with the New Deal buddy. Plus everyone knows that the poverty rate really went into overdrive in the 80's with the deregulation of the banks and the ever increasing wage gap. Even your graphs show that the steepest increases in poverty all started in the 1980's and afterwards.

Oh and your graphs aren't saying that poverty started increasing in 1967. In fact, according to your graphs poverty was at an all time low and wouldn't start increasing for another decade.


All modern wars, since the War Between the States, have needed centralization of power to fight the total war.

Centralization is socialistic.


Modern or historic, all of our wars had to do with capitalists trying to expand their economic interests abroad. Especially things like Manifest Destiny and what we did in South America with the Banana Republics.


Centralization allows control and abuse a few. The centralization comes from socialism, therefore socialism consolidates wealth ...


No it doesn't. That is a poor argument you just made. Socialism doesn't equal corruption just because.


Capitalism favors decentralization because local information is always known better to locals.


Look, I don't have a problem with MOST of capitalism, but pure capitalism is just reckless. I'm not arguing for pure Socialism here.
edit on 13-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

The Soviet Union was Communist. This whole thread is a thread trying to appeal to people to make better arguments and not equate Communism with Socialism, yet here you are doing that again right here...

Plus, Socialism has existed in this country since the New Deal. We've been enjoying the fruits of that for 80 years now.
edit on 13-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
People may wish to own things but unless there is a state their are no property rights.
Again you are describing anarchy not capitalism.



Property rights require cooperation.

People would cooperate in Anarcho-Capitalism, but not every situation of cooperation happens in anarchy.

I wrote "Capitalism is what happens when no one tells any one else what to do."

That need not be anarchy. Any situation in side of any environment where people are free in at least one way to act without coercion, trade can be done. The trade is capitalism.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Wait a second. Did you really just post this?


The centralization comes from socialism, therefore socialism consolidates wealth ...

Even the biggest critics of socialism complain that it spreads the wealth & privileges too much, which removes motivations to be ambitious. But you're actually arguing that socialism consolidates wealth instead?!

That settles it for me. I'm not taking your posts on economics serious anymore either. If you reject socialism, that's fine. If you want to criticize it, that's fine too. But to outright lie about it makes me question you. And to lie about it by stating the opposite of what it stands for makes me think you're either trolling or simply can't have an honest debate about something.

That's like arguing that atheists are strictly "God fearing" or that vegans only eat animal products. Anyone who knows even the basic stereotypes of the subjects would know those claims were not only false, but they were the exact opposites of what those subjects stand for.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But it's the capitalists that always say that Socialism always lead to economic collapse and other predictions about Socialism.


Socialism is politics. Capitalism is economics.

If socialism was possible, it would still put power before economics, so socialism is a burden just by its nature.

However, socialism is not possible into the future. Socialism can't run economy, humans aren't smart enough. Intervention causes further intervention until socialism runs the whole economy, which it can't do.

Economics is not about power. Economics is about using time and what is at hand to make a better life. Usually for the individual and always for the society as a whole, making one's own life better means trading time or goods for something one doesn't have. Socialism makes that more complicated.


But it works, which is something you carefully refused to just acknowledge.


Borrowing is not working. Socialism nowadays is borrowing to balance the books.




Socialism started in the 30's with the New Deal buddy. Plus everyone knows that the poverty rate really went into overdrive in the 80's with the deregulation of the banks and the ever increasing wage gap. Even your graphs show that the steepest increases in poverty all started in the 1980's and afterwards.

Oh and your graphs aren't saying that poverty started increasing in 1967. In fact, according to your graphs poverty was at an all time low and wouldn't start increasing for another decade.


The graphs show poverty decreasing until welfare and food stamps became commonly used.

Socialism was increasing over the entire period of the graph. Socialism has not reduced poverty and socialism has created our $20 triillion dollar debt.



Modern or historic, all of our wars had to do with capitalists trying to expand their economic interests abroad. Especially things like Manifest Destiny and what we did in South America with the Banana Republics.


The State, which requires collectivism and centralization, had more to do with that, using the army and the navy for example, than any individual.

The State empowers wars and imperialism and socialism empowers the State.



Look, I don't have a problem with MOST of capitalism, but pure capitalism is just reckless. I'm not arguing for pure Socialism here.


Pure capitalism is restrained by the market. Market forces such as scarcity, demand, competition, capital requirements for production and the localization of knowledge limit the amount of power concentration.

Socialism has no limit on its power.


edit on 13-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Socialism is politics. Capitalism is economics.

If socialism was possible, it would still put power before economics, so socialism is a burden just by its nature.


This statement makes zero sense. It certainly IS possible. We have tons of countries in the world currently (including our own) that have Socialist elements in them.


However, socialism is not possible into the future. Socialism can't run economy, humans aren't smart enough. Intervention causes further intervention until socialism runs the whole economy, which it can't do.


Yet this hasn't happened to a single Socialist economy yet.


Economics is not about power. Economics is about using time and what is at hand to make a better life. Usually for the individual and always for the society as a whole, making one's own life better means trading time or goods for something one doesn't have. Socialism makes that more complicated.


So? Complicated is just a necessary condition we have to deal with.


The graphs show poverty decreasing until welfare and food stamps became commonly used.

Socialism was increasing over the entire period of the graph. Socialism has not reduced poverty and socialism has created our $20 triillion dollar debt.


Your history is lacking. Our Socialist policies were VERY strong going into the 50's and 60's. Then in the 70's and ultimately in the 80's Republican Presidents Nixon and Reagen deregulated the banks and stripped a lot of things away from our Socialist policies and then things went downhill.

You can't blame the actions of people actively looking to thwart Socialism as a reason why Socialism doesn't work you know?


Pure capitalism is restrained by the market. Market forces such as scarcity, demand, competition, capital requirements for production and the localization of knowledge limit the amount of power concentration.


No it isn't. First off, there is not a single country that has gotten a pure capitalism market to work effectively. Not one. There are TONS of countries that have gotten Socialism to work.


Socialism has no limit on its power.



I think you mean pure capitalism has no limit on its power. Once all that wealth is consolidated at the top, those people can pretty much tell the rest of the world what to do.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

The surprising ingredients of Swedish success – free markets and social cohesion (pdf file)



Scandinavian societies have developed a unique culture with a strong work ethic and strong ethical
attitudes regarding the claiming of welfare benefits. There are also high levels of trust and social
cohesion. This social capital, which was built up before the advent of the modern welfare state, has
played an important role in the success of Scandinavian countries.

For many decades, this pre-existing culture, allowed countries such as Sweden to have extensive
welfare systems without the social difficulties, rise in worklessness and other effects that many
would have predicted. Scandinavian countries have also reaped the rewards of relatively free market
policies in some areas of economic life to reach impressive levels of wealth creation.




The transformation of Sweden from an impoverished agrarian society
to a modern industrialised nation is a rarely mentioned, but quite significant, example of the role of
free markets in lifting a country out of poverty and into prosperity. Low levels of inequality and low
levels of government spending characterised this period of economic transformation. The golden
age of Swedish entrepreneurship - when one successful firm after another was founded in this
small country and gained international renown – occurred at a time when taxes and the scope of
government were quite limited.

Sweden shifted to radical social democratic policies in the 1960s and 1970s, with a gradual reversal
beginning in the mid 1980s. The social democratic period was not successful, as it led to much lower
entrepreneurship, the crowding out of private sector job production and an erosion of previously
strong work and benefit norms. The move towards high taxes, relatively generous government
benefits and a regulated labour market preceded a situation in which Swedish society has had
difficulty integrating even highly-educated immigrants, and where a fifth of the population of working
age are supported by various forms of government welfare payments.

It is also important to remember that Sweden, like other Scandinavian nations, has compensated
for policies of high taxes and welfare benefits by improving economic liberty in other fields.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

It is also important to remember that Sweden, like other Scandinavian nations, has compensated
for policies of high taxes and welfare benefits by improving economic liberty in other fields.

See?!!! THIS is what I'm saying!!

Thank you!!

I'm not trying to obfuscate anything - I'm just really, truly, happy that we're having actual dialogue.


edit on 11/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Socialism is politics.

No.

Capitalism is economics.

No (again).

You have the whole thing entirely backwards.

edit on 11/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


Here you go - you inspired me to check it out:
Source

Globalizing Capitalism Led to More Poverty

Capitalism was declared the winner in the ideological struggle between it and socialism. But while this was hailed as a great boon for economic prosperity, it soon became evident that it was a hollow victory – at least for the vast majority of the world’s people. As stock markets rose, corporate profits soared, and CEO salaries reached astronomical sums, report after report showed that conditions were getting worse for a huge part of the population.

In 2005, the United Nations reported that the globalization of an unregulated market system was actually a major factor in the creation of poverty.

Infant and maternal deaths were rising in some regions.

In the prosperous United States 1/5 of children were living in poverty.

In 2003, the United Nations Human Development Report found that compared to 1990, 54 countries had become poorer, and in 21 countries the number of poor people increased rather than decreased.

The much hailed globalization of a “free market” was producing more poverty rather than less. As for the effects of capitalism and socialism on the natural environment, see The Conquest of Nature.


Your ball.

edit on 11/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Wait a second. Did you really just post this?


The centralization comes from socialism, therefore socialism consolidates wealth ...

Even the biggest critics of socialism complain that it spreads the wealth & privileges too much, which removes motivations to be ambitious. But you're actually arguing that socialism consolidates wealth instead?!

That settles it for me. I'm not taking your posts on economics serious anymore either. If you reject socialism, that's fine. If you want to criticize it, that's fine too. But to outright lie about it makes me question you. And to lie about it by stating the opposite of what it stands for makes me think you're either trolling or simply can't have an honest debate about something.

That's like arguing that atheists are strictly "God fearing" or that vegans only eat animal products. Anyone who knows even the basic stereotypes of the subjects would know those claims were not only false, but they were the exact opposites of what those subjects stand for.


Socialism needs big government.

Big business uses big government.

Big business uses socialism by way of using big government.

Capitalism, without big government, tends to decentralize because of local knowledge. Local knowledge is the reason the centralization cannot work. No central committee can know everything about everywhere all of the time. Competition and decentralization, both of which are effects of Capitalism, would tend to keep business smaller and the wealth more widely distributed.

Also socialism needs to print inflationary money in order to borrow it and monetize the socialistic programs debts.

So yes socialism concentrates wealth at the top. Why else would the greedy top allow any socialism,?



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your history is lacking. Our Socialist policies were VERY strong going into the 50's and 60's. Then in the 70's and ultimately in the 80's Republican Presidents Nixon and Reagen deregulated the banks and stripped a lot of things away from our Socialist policies and then things went downhill.

You can't blame the actions of people actively looking to thwart Socialism as a reason why Socialism doesn't work you know?


Socialism needs big government.

Big business uses big government.

Big business uses socialism by way of using big government.

Why else would the greedy powerful top allow any socialism?



I think you mean pure capitalism has no limit on its power. Once all that wealth is consolidated at the top, those people can pretty much tell the rest of the world what to do.


Capitalism has no top.

Socialism makes a top in order to enforce fairness or whatever.

Powerful people make use of socialism's top.

You say that is not socialism. Technically true, but the existence of the top is all socialism, and rich people take advantage of that top.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Capitalism has no top.

Perfect reason why one can say that capitalism doesn't exist.

The pro-capitalist will end up saying that things failed to the same tune as the pro-communist.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Source

Globalizing Capitalism Led to More Poverty

Capitalism was declared the winner in the ideological struggle between it and socialism.


No declaration. The Socies collapsed.


But while this was hailed as a great boon for economic prosperity, it soon became evident that it was a hollow victory – at least for the vast majority of the world’s people. As stock markets rose, corporate profits soared, and CEO salaries reached astronomical sums, report after report showed that conditions were getting worse for a huge part of the population.


Socialism made and maintains the power structures that enforce all of that.




In 2005, the United Nations reported that the globalization of an unregulated market system was actually a major factor in the creation of poverty.

Infant and maternal deaths were rising in some regions.

In the prosperous United States 1/5 of children were living in poverty.

In 2003, the United Nations Human Development Report found that compared to 1990, 54 countries had become poorer, and in 21 countries the number of poor people increased rather than decreased.


The UN is a Socie bunch. The stats could be bogus, or biased

No mechanism, explanation or reason is given.

Typical socialist believer




The much hailed globalization of a “free market” was producing more poverty rather than less. As for the effects of capitalism and socialism on the natural environment, see The Conquest of Nature.



Your ball.


Just plain lying.

A free market would have zero regulations.




edit on 14-11-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? Seems you are pointing to a somewhat hybrid system like ours and blanketing it as "socialism" . You are denying the socialist underpinnings of the former Soviet Socialist Republics? You did not answer my question about what socialist countries produce. Without capitalist countries I think your standards of living would plummet in those societies which cant even produce their own food. Care to address that point that SemiCollegiate has brought up several times yet you keep glossing over because it doesn't fit your "we are socialist because of the new deal" narrative?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join