Does welfare and social security challenge the free market?

a reply to: onequestionI believe it was LBJ that started the great society with a massive amounts of government give-away programs. Now they are so intrenched in our system they would create a huge problem for people if they where ALL removed.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: onequestionI believe it was LBJ that started the great society with a massive amounts of government give-away programs. Now they are so intrenched in our system they would create a huge problem for people if they where ALL removed.

No. Socialism really started in the 30's with FDR's New Deal. There have also been socialist policies implemented here and there even before the 30's.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Well unrestrained capitalism has been shown to be ineffective and create tons of inequality. It results in businesses cutting corners on worker safety as well as product safety. It results in businesses pitching merchandise that doesn't do what is advertised.

Democratic Socialism on the other hand takes the best parts of capitalism (the ability to rise out of your living conditions with the right work ethic) as well as the best parts of socialism (caring about the people). This is why during our country's golden years we were heavily Democratic Socialist (even Republicans agreed with socialism at the time). Though we still are DS, just not as much as then.

When has there not been inequality? Everyone is not the same. There will always be rich and poor. ALWAYS. In a free market, businesses who cheat, lie, and steal are punished as competitors who don't quickly take their place by providing more trust worthy goods and services. In a free market, companies that treat their employees better will tend to attract better workers.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Socialist by choice.

A life or death, eternal Heaven or Hell choice, that was socialism......or else.

You either miss the point of the story or you won't acknowledge it. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that people chose to enter that Christian community. They were of on mind.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that people chose to enter that Christian community.

This is what you said in your first post:

Socialism should be illegal.

Where's the choice in that? Besides, the Christian church is based on a socialist concept, that was enforced, as illustrated in the book of ACTS, through the fear of death or eternal damnation.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Well unrestrained capitalism has been shown to be ineffective and create tons of inequality. It results in businesses cutting corners on worker safety as well as product safety. It results in businesses pitching merchandise that doesn't do what is advertised.

Democratic Socialism on the other hand takes the best parts of capitalism (the ability to rise out of your living conditions with the right work ethic) as well as the best parts of socialism (caring about the people). This is why during our country's golden years we were heavily Democratic Socialist (even Republicans agreed with socialism at the time). Though we still are DS, just not as much as then.

When has there not been inequality? Everyone is not the same. There will always be rich and poor. ALWAYS. In a free market, businesses who cheat, lie, and steal are punished as competitors who don't quickly take their place by providing more trust worthy goods and services. In a free market, companies that treat their employees better will tend to attract better workers.

This doesn't always hold to be true actually. Especially your sentence about businesses who cheat, lie and steal being punished by competitors. The free market REWARDS business practices like those. As for your point about treating employees better, that is bunk too. In a free market, businesses pay their employees as little as possible. They don't have to worry about competition there either since all the other companies are doing it too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Open your eyes.

Once dominant businesses fail all the time. Replaced by competitors who have their finger on the pulse of the consumer. Many businesses get a short term gain in profits by playing dirty, but in the long run they almost always are exposed and if they don't change, are run out of business as consumers shop elsewhere. Just look at how much power Yelp reviews have on businesses.

Your comment about employees makes no sense. Why do corporate law firms pay graduates of Harvard Law School $160,000 instead of hiring graduates of a third tier law school and pay them $50,000? They pay the Harvard grads $160,000 because they are competing against other firms for scarcity of talent. Why do places like Google and other tech companies offer numerous perks to their employees? They do so because they are competing for talent.

On the other hand, the minimum wage worker makes minimum wage because there is no scarcity of the skills they bring to the table.

a reply to: windword

I'm talking about socialism regulated by the federal government. That should be illegal. I don't care what people choose to do in a commune. Socialism itself is not evil, its when a Federal Rebublic begins to shove it down our throats that it becomes evil.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Open your eyes.

Once dominant businesses fail all the time. Replaced by competitors who have their finger on the pulse of the consumer. Many businesses get a short term gain in profits by playing dirty, but in the long run they almost always are exposed and if they don't change, are run out of business as consumers shop elsewhere. Just look at how much power Yelp reviews have on businesses.

My eyes are open and in the world I live in Wal-Mart still exists. Companies like Apple and Nike shipping their manufacturing overseas to sweet shops still exist. Wage growth has been flat lining in this country for the last 40 or so. So yea...

Your comment about employees makes no sense. Why do corporate law firms pay graduates of Harvard Law School $160,000 instead of hiring graduates of a third tier law school and pay them $50,000? They pay the Harvard grads $160,000 because they are competing against other firms for scarcity of talent. Why do places like Google and other tech companies offer numerous perks to their employees? They do so because they are competing for talent.

Jobs requiring education aren't the only jobs in the labor market.

On the other hand, the minimum wage worker makes minimum wage because there is no scarcity of the skills they bring to the table.

I don't really think you understand what a truly free market actually entails for the consumers. You are looking at inevitable monopolies, which can never be broken. No federal regulations for worker safety or consumer safety. No requirements to even REPORT these unsafe practices. No banking regulations. No standards for not lying in marketing. And wages for the working class remain abysmal for most of the population.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: SaturnFX

Jesus would give us the choice to contribute as a community, unlike the federal government who just loves to collect taxes against our will.

Calm down.

There is no such thing as a government that doesn't collect taxes. I'm really tired of the argument against Socialism being framed as it being bad because the government taxes the population. It's dishonest. There has never been a government that doesn't collect taxes and there never will be one. So Socialism can't be bad because the government collects taxes.

Taxes have a legitimate place in society, but not a tax on income, not a fluctuating bracketed system, and not for supporting a welfare state.

Taxes should be a flat rate (preferably on commercial consumption) and they should be used strictly for government function, military/militia, and infrastructure.

Socialism is dishonest.

In a free market any person can retire when he has acquired a few things such as a house and savings enough to cover future expenses.

Bear in mind that in a free market the price of most things will decrease constantly into the future due to increasing productivity (which is called deflation by the Fed) and without inflation everyone would bring home at least 100% more buying and saving power than they do now.

Just as life expectancy gets longer, the retirement age would get earlier.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Too bad for you, the Constitution doesn't specifically say that at all. It just gives the power to tax to Congress. It says nothing about income taxes being unconstitutional and there is QUITE a bit of Constitutional law precedent saying that taxes can be used to support the "welfare state".

Your opinion on the needs of taxes doesn't trump 200 years of Constitutional law as well as the Constitution mate. Sorry to tell you.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Taxes have a legitimate place in society, but not a tax on income........

Isn't that what tithing is? What is the purpose of tithing if not to support widows and orphans, etc.?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

so those people that are somehow not able to work, starve to death, or die from exposure from being homeless?....and if anybody thinks there is such a thing as a "free market"...I've got a bridge to sell you.

let's remember why people fought and died for a "representative" government.....rulers of kingdoms, churches, countries, etc. kept everything for themselves. vast majorities of people lived in abject poverty, and died at an early age, due to the wealthiest rulers hoarding all the gains brought forth by the slave labor of those they controlled....it seems many here on ATS think that is the way it still should be today.

The source of the money to pay for Welfare and Social Security has a bearing on how they affect the economy.

If all Welfare and Social Security was paid from taxes, they would simply be a burden. Over time, the money they redirect away from investment, there by decreasing productivity, would be the worst effect.

When Welfare and Social Security are paid for with created and then borrowed money, they inflate the price of everything, especially consumer goods.

Easy fiat credit in general, which being based on unlimited created money is usually present with Welfare and indeed is the reason for Welfare in the first place, moves scarce resources away from their most profitable ( most consumer satisfying) uses. The easy credit, made more popular by Welfare, allows resources to be bid away from their most productive uses and eventually the misuse of resources causes the Bust of the Boom and Bust Cycle.

Welfare and Social Security keep people in the centrally controlled Boom and Bust economy.

originally posted by: onequestion
In a perfect free market world poverty would actually be a point of contention as the people would demand more due to the fact that there would be no net to catch them.

Am I right about that premise?

So the free market came to a screeching halt with the first minimum wage hike, and then again when they added social security.

Would the market demand a better wage in order to effectively compensate for a retirement if the government didn't create a social security system?

What do you think ATS?

The free market happens whenever people can make voluntary choices. Like health can be abused by liquor, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise etc... the free market can be abused by politics.

A free market increases the wealth of everyone. Everyone can drive a car or ride a bus today. No one in the world could do that before the Industrial Revolution.

Charity would more than cover the expenses of widows and orphans, because it would be an increasingly smaller amount of money.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm sorry but it seems to me that this last bust was because too few people have way too much money to invest in shoddy investments that were based on the idea that the oh so many people who had way too little money to actually buy a home were accommodated regardless, in quest of new paper that they could sell to the investors...

the danged people on social services didn't have a thing to do with the mess!!!!

my son this morning got a letter from our bank today, for some reason they took out life insurance policy on his behalf, with ti states in one part of the letter is at completely no cost to him, you don't find out just how much it will cost unless you read this little enclosed brochure. what are they slicing and dicing up the insurance policies now or something. I mean once they have opened it up in his name, I do believe they have the ability to keep paying the payment for it and make themselves or someone else beneficiary....
ya it really sounds like we need more money for investment!! can the average small business owner get a loan yet to expand their business? or is it just the big money people playing the crap table on wall street?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm sorry but it seems to me that this last bust was because too few people have way too much money to invest in shoddy investments that were based on the idea that the oh so many people who had way too little money to actually buy a home were accommodated regardless, in quest of new paper that they could sell to the investors...

In a free market those people would not have had that money.

the danged people on social services didn't have a thing to do with the mess!!!!

True enough but beside the point. They would be working or retired in a free market.

my son this morning got a letter from our bank today, for some reason they took out life insurance policy on his behalf, with ti states in one part of the letter is at completely no cost to him, you don't find out just how much it will cost unless you read this little enclosed brochure. what are they slicing and dicing up the insurance policies now or something. I mean once they have opened it up in his name, I do believe they have the ability to keep paying the payment for it and make themselves or someone else beneficiary....
ya it really sounds like we need more money for investment!! can the average small business owner get a loan yet to expand their business? or is it just the big money people playing the crap table on wall street?

None of that is caused by the free market. All of that is derived from easy credit authorized by the centralized political system.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

so those people that are somehow not able to work, starve to death, or die from exposure from being homeless?....and if anybody thinks there is such a thing as a "free market"...I've got a bridge to sell you.

Charities do exist you know, and they would be much stronger if the government would stop trying to hinder the free market.

Life is not without hazards. If you want freedom, then you must accept the freedom to fail and possibly starve. That is a risk I'm willing to take upon myself. But in America there is help outside of the government if you're willing to look and ask for it. Sometimes that requires someone to learn some english.