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.

 

92% of Americans prefer Sweden's "socialistic" economic system

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
As for socialism, more often than not good social programs seem to fail due to infection rather than their own failures.

Some outside source comes in to destroy it. Be it hostile capitalistic trade partners, or a sudden influx of people that have no respect for the system in place.

Many seem fine til infected by things not part of said system.



Socials programs fail because they are ripe for corruption by their very nature.

Another advantage of a market system is that it must respond to market forces. If you run a business or even a not-for-profit charity, you must husband what resources you have wisely as you are completely dependent upon what you take in from the consumer or from those who will donate to you. No one is compelled through force to give anything to you. It's all voluntary. Do a bad job, and your donations dry up. If you lose your revenue or donations, you go out of business. End of story.

But government-run programs aren't like that. They do not have to be efficient. They do not have to run in under budget, ever. They can simply go and get as much more money as they need, forever, no matter what. There is never any incentive to do an efficient job, or even a good job.

This is why you have so many bureaucrats who make so much more than their private sector counterparts. It isn't because the private sector is stingy; it's because the government can waste ever more money and get away with it. This is why government officials can retire years early with 6-digit retirement salaries and then take new jobs in government and double dip. Pretty soon, it's bloated and top heavy.

I remember the story about the financial agency whose job was to safeguard against the financial crisis of 2008. They found out that the people who were supposed to be watching against it were busy spending up to 8 hours every day surfing porn on their government computers rather than watching for signs of impending crisis. In typical government fashion, the answer was not to fire them down to where they had enough work to keep one official busy 8 hours a day ... Nope, it was to hire a new position to watch the others to make sure they weren't surfing porn!

This sort of thing is why social programs fail.




posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The problem with free market systems is they are also ripe for corruption because it's technically dog eat dog, with little to no rules. People keep trying # til stuff starts to stick, some have more success than others, and eventually some people will become successful enough to effectively control said free market by controlling all the wealth and holding everyone else hostage by holding their very livelihood over their head.

In the end like what was shown earlier, both systems can fall to fascism. Pretending a free-market won't is silly.

Here's the issue.

In socialism, people start off better but it seems to fall to fascism faster.

In capitalism people start off worse, and they need to fight each other for dominance til someone comes out on top and fascism still occurs. It may take longer to get there, but the trip sure sucks more.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

It depends.

Is there force involved in a truly free market?

I'm not talking about what we have today which is a cronyist market.

I am talking about a free exchange system. If we lived in a village and you and I grew tomatoes and one of us clearly had better tomatoes and everyone preferred that person's tomatoes such that that person had all the tomato business by choice ... did that person pull a dirty trick or did they just provide the superior product and is it unfair of them to do so even though the other isn't selling tomatoes?

You seem to be calling that fascism even though everyone is purchasing one person's tomatoes by their own free choice.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

The problem with free market systems is they are also ripe for corruption because it's technically dog eat dog, with little to no rules. People keep trying # til stuff starts to stick, some have more success than others, and eventually some people will become successful enough to effectively control said free market by controlling all the wealth and holding everyone else hostage by holding their very livelihood over their head.

In the end like what was shown earlier, both systems can fall to fascism. Pretending a free-market won't is silly.

Here's the issue.

In socialism, people start off better but it seems to fall to fascism faster.

In capitalism people start off worse, and they need to fight each other for dominance til someone comes out on top and fascism still occurs. It may take longer to get there, but the trip sure sucks more.


Most of the problem of capitalism are the failings of man and not capitalism. What usually happens is that corruption is exploited to limit competition usually through regulation. Competition is what brings prices down and forces businesses to provide quality service. In a capitalistic economy, companies will often use regulators as a means to control competition. They often do it under the guise of consumer safety using ignorant legislators to pass laws.

The free market economy has raised the standard of living for nearly everyone around the world. Everything from electricity to running water to air conditioning are driven by market economies.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
with the rise of automation and electronic monetary transfer methods i don't see socialism or capitalism being useful too much longer, hate to say it but some form of direct democratic internationalist nationalism managed by a complex network of artificial intelligence will probably rise across the globe before socialism even has a chance to touch this country in any significant way.

by the way i wasn't making a joke or describing a sci-fi movie i'm being quite literal here.
edit on 22-8-2016 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Overtime that gets a lot more complicated once you start having businesses owning massive tracks of land, and people living in cities where they are dependent upon the resources brought into said city. You're also forgetting that a free market without restrictions allow for monopolies. So you have a few people banding together to control whole products, and the complications keep growing. People need to eat to live. Honestly food is the biggest issue in a free market economy. He who controls the food controls everything, and with nothing to make monopolies impossible eventually someone will do it.

He who monopolizes the food supply controls the free market.

Is why food should needs to be a given. Once the most basic of survival is accounted for people can start making real choices. No one should be able to use starvation as a way to control people, it takes away choice.

I'm not sure how we can do it, but for any system to truly be free, at the bare minimum food needs to be socialized in such a way everyone has the food necessary to eat healthy.

Making people fight for food is just cruel.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You will not find the people who have the right skill to set it up right from the start.

Decentralized power base not power pyramid.

If there are people running the system then you have already failed in the implementation. You should have local level change management where only the ones affected with the decision are part of the discussion on how to implement it if the implementation is not thought thru from the start but that is also a failure to not implement it right from the start.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think most people (80%) go to work everyday thinking they are working toward "wealth". Just paying next month's bills. And helping the CEO get wealthy by paying bills and purchasing widgets and supporting strippers. Things will get better for all when even the wealthy realize they are part of the circle. Maybe the US can avoid socialism then.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

This 80 20 thing is exactly how it is at the company I work at. There 1 salesman and 1 mechanic/installer/electronics technicians who do 80℅ of the production in the overall for the company, the other 8 do as little as they possibly can and are always crying about how they want more, but are not willing to do more. Our company make up is 3 salesmen and 7 mechanic/installers/electronics technicians in the garage, 2 of us work our butts off and make a decent living at what we do, and we just shake or heads when listening to the others whine about how they want more, but aren't willing to do more.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: StallionDuck

Lol why did you change your original OP for, to make me seem wrong? I thought you are a BS detector not a BS distributor?



Um... Yeah, you apparently still didn't read my post. As soon as I saved it, I changed government to economic because it was a mistake. I typed government but meant economic as per the OP.

The only thing I added was:

"By the way... 92% of the people reading this article swung the opposite way. I think your poller is broken."

Still... You missed the point of my response. It had nothing to do with how you responded. So again, I say your response had zero to do with my OP. If you're confused, I can explain why, but it's not hard from where I'm sitting.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: StallionDuck
92% of Americans have the following 2 things pop up in their heads when you mention Sweden.

- Weed
- Redlight District

I'm quite sure that if you explained to those same people what kind of economic system Sweden has, they wouldn't vote for it.


By the way... 92% of the people reading this article swung the opposite way. I think your poller is broken.






Then 92% of Americans are retarded because that would be Holland that had the weed & red light district.
Not Sweden.


lol Touche'

See... That's how much I know about Sweden. I thought Amsterdam was in Sweden. But why would that make Americans retarded? Because we don't pay attention to what city is in what country?

...Do you know where Gonzales is without looking through google?

Case and point



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Prove it. Prove your 20% make 80 of the production ratio.

Keep in mind every single person no matter how small that takes part in the production of something are a part of it.

Some dude overseeing 50 people producing does not mean he gets credit for all their work combined while they only get credit for their individual part. Each and every person involved in the production of something are responsible for it's production.

So your telling me, 80% of the population is sitting on their ass not contributing, while 20% do all the heavy lifting.

Prove it.



He's not saying necessarily that 20% of widget making employees make 80% of a widget companies production - he's more talking about society at large. Think about it. This may be different depending on where you live, but ask yourself this question: Out of all the people you know - How many own their own business? I, out of everyone I know, know maybe 2 or 3 people who own/ have owned their own business. I know if 2 or 3 more by proxy that have their own business (a friend of a friend, whom I have no acquaintance with).

Starting up and running a business is difficult.

As for your comment about Supervisors: Again, you are trying to read between the lines. Of course a widget making supervisor is not going to make as many (if any at all) widgets as the 50 widget making employees. But that supervisor does everything that makes it possible for those 50 widget makers to make their widgets. Sets their schedules, tells them that today the company needs X large widgets and Y small widgets, makes sure they get paid, makes the schedule for those 50 widget makers, runs up vacation time to the widget making managers. Etc.

I feel like a lot of the times, people don't realize all the background going ons in business. It's automatically assumed that non floor employees do nothing and to that I say: You are dead wrong.

You're also not taking into account motivational factors. Should a manager of a business make no more than what the floor employees make? What motivation would there be to be a manager, dealing with pay roll, taxes, scheduling, acquiring materials, meeting sales goals etc when they could stock the shelves of the store and make just as much? This only gets bigger the higher up you go. And when you get to the owner, it's even bigger. Should a guy who has worked his way up to owning 3 or 4 medium sized grocers not reap the benefits of the risks he took in investing, the work he does to ensure his company remains marketable and competitive?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

Once again, no problem with people making more as a way to reward more responsibility or work. The problem is with people at the bottom not making enough to make a living off, or having enough time with their families. By the way I include him on not having enough time with their families.


I also still disagree that the overseer employee relationship equivalence made by those numbers is truly accurate in terms of actual overall contribution.

Where I stand is this. Meet the basic needs, healthy food, a roof, warm bed, and some kind entertainment to maintain morale and actual time with family. Once this is met, then, I'm willing to accept any amount of division by class and or job.

So want to say 20 and 80 or whatever, fine, it still does not excuse a non living wage as a base and rewarding further by increases beyond that.
edit on 8/23/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Where I stand is this. Meet the basic needs, healthy food, a roof, warm bed, and some kind entertainment to maintain morale and actual time with family. Once this is met, then, I'm willing to accept any amount of division by class and or job.


Who defines 'basic'

Who defines 'healthy'

Who defines 'entertainment'

Who defines 'morale'

Who defines sufficient 'time with family'

Who defines 'met'

?

The problem with everything you just said is that every person is different. Your answers to the questions above will be different from pretty much every other person on the planet. We are not drones. We are not plug'n'play.

Capitalism allows people to fill their needs for themselves. No other economic policy comes close.

That is where reality stands. Reality doesn't really care about where any of us stand, honestly.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No it doesn't, capitalism does no such thing, it allows people to compete with each other to have their needs met. The only choice is how far they're willing to go to get them and who their willing to step on to keep them.

You think a superior system to trying to make sure peoples needs are met is to throw everyone into an arena and say, fight for them?

Sorry, no I will never buy into that.
edit on 8/23/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/23/2016 by Puppylove because: Yeah I changed it to add more clarification, don't like it, sue me.

edit on 8/23/2016 by Puppylove because: grammar and spelling

edit on 8/23/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nature, doesn't care about where any of us stand. Reality is in large part what we make it. Nature is that cold callous thing that cares about nothing and we need to make the best of.

If we band together against nature and create a society where we take care of each other that society is reality. Reality is the way things are at the moment. Yes it doesn't care about where we are, but it is defined by it. If we choose to make our reality one where we care not for working together to improve the quality of life of each other and instead compete in a dog eat dog economy where we place more importance on personal success no matter how many others get hurt in the process, then that's a choice we made.

I however believe in something better than that, and if enough others do, then that, not this dog eat dog monstrosity will be reality.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


The problem with your assumption is that you assume that everyone is equal and that everyone is due an equal outcome.
That's not the case on either point.
Everyone is NOT equal and your outcome is not guaranteed on anything.
You keep throwing around the term "social contract"
There is no such thing as a social contract. Thats a bogus thought process that attempts to justify socialism /collectivism.
I have no obligation to "society".
I have an obligation to individuals to respect their life, liberty and property. If I do not uphold that obligation then I am in moral default and subject to punishments decided upon by individuals.
At no time does "society" come into play. It is my morality that keeps me a part of civilization. It is not my productivity nor some false obligation to "society" to be productive or contribute.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Dragoon01

If you have no obligation to society then society has no obligation to you. Society is what we make of it. I believe in one where we take care of each other as a basic human right, and then reward from there. You don't.

Since you are a firm believer that no one has any obligation to each other, than that means you believe you're on your own and want no part of being part of a group. When a group forms that work together with each others interest in mind, guess what mr. individualist you lose.

If you truly believe in the cold ideals you hold dear. If we unite and make this world what we want, you can't bitch about it, because you believe in an uncaring universe where might makes right.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


When a group forms that work together with each others interest in mind


In reality groups do not form due to each other's interest as you say, that is just illogical.

Groups form due to a compatibility between the individual interests of each member, the cognitive process a human goes through when deciding if to become a part of a group lays completely in "what can I gain" from said group. Nobody works as a "collective" to cater to the needs of a third entity without some kind of "benefit", which may be economical or emotional.

All your argument is based on the implication that one has a group must value everybody the same even though some of said people are deficient in their productivity. By reading through your comments I notice that the context within your arguments are relative to the lower spectrum of the food chain. Like if somewhat you are part of that subgroup and wish to balance the scales in your favor through your implied "solution".

Does that seem like you are actually interested in your own benefit here? I think so.

Note: Said conclusion is based on the fact that only the person on the bottom end of a stick would have the motivation to place bigger value on the morals of the situation instead of the productivity. This is consistent all through history, like when in Rome the upper class's values were dependent on "worth and power" and the subsequent birth of the pagan mindset where "morals and kindness" had more value within the lower class. It is a natural self-defense mechanism for the losing side to feel better about their relative position in society.





edit on 8/23/2016 by efabian because: clarification

edit on 8/23/2016 by efabian because: grammar fix



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

Yay excuses to treat people worse.

Heres the thing, there's something called enlightened self interest, there is more to be gained by keeping those at the bottom clothed, fed and sheltered than there is by doing the opposite.

The reason we are where we are is because the people at the top enjoy making others suffer, that's it, plain and simple there's literally nothing else in it for them, they'd be served much better by doing the opposite, but they don't because they enjoy it.

I'm sorry but I will never make or accept any excuses made to defend that.

No one is asking for the world, we just want to not be deprived to the point of desperation where fighting and dying seems a reasonable alternative to living.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join