Please explain Socialism to an idiot.

reply to post by Gateway

---

Yes OK I agree that you have a strong Medical industry but.... It is only available to those who can afford it. Everybody else gets the shaft. This is not the kind of system I would want to live in.

reply to post by poet1b

---

I would say you can compare one market to another. Certainly OUR markets are more FREE, than that of Europe's or Canada's, would you not agree?


Markets, due to the incentive of profits inherently by themselves create competition. You think Markets are created by government? Talk about oxymoron.




No with market regulation, you have what we have in this country. Corporatism, and corporate welfare. You think what we have today is 100% free-markets or capitalism? I don't know where you got your education but, governments impede trade not facilitate it.

reply to post by poet1b

---

We are the only ones to blame for the corporations have control over our government. They do not elect our politicians we do that. It is our job to vote out the ones that don't listen what we want.

As much as people don't want to accept the facts we are the ones that are to blame the most because it is our job to stay on top of what these people are doing.

Corporations don't pass laws. Congress does.

What foolish idealistic belief? The very fact that they pursue profits gives them incentives to provide something that works. Are you saying that the drugs created to eradicate polio, slow down aids, help in the maintenance of transplanted organs are all sugar pills? That we are being ripped off, giving them tons of money and getting nothing but fake pills that do nothing to alleviate our sick and dying?

Obviously they are making a profit, an WE as consumers are seeing the benefits of their innovations. I see nothing wrong, here.



[edit on 31-10-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway

---

No, I would not say that our markets are more free than those of the rest of the first world. In fact, just the opposite, our markets are far more dominated by a few groups that dictate the rules of the market, rather than a neutral governing body.

Corporate entities do not seek to create competition, they seek to establish dominance, which means eliminating competition. This is the nature of the beast. This effort towards domination takes all forms, which eventually winds up being about who controls government, and therefore controls the sytem, or in other words, socialism, facism, free markets. Look at the reality, and stop hanging up on the theory.

We have corpoate welfare in this country because corporations have succeeded in manipulating the rules to their favor and taken over government, which is their nature.

Markets do not function in this atmosphere. Markets require an estabished set of evenly enforce fair rules that keep things competitive. This is why we have regulations.

Markets do not exist in nature, they are a function of complex social institutions. The whole free market concept is the dream of foolish idealists.

reply to post by Gateway

---

The foolish idealistic belief is that businesses exist for anything beyond making profit, especially when those gains can be made independent of responsibilty, as the situation which the free market belief creates.

I am saying that the drugs pushed to people on TV do nothing but create demand for more drugs.

Your kid misbehaves, you should put him on drugs. You feel sad, you should be on drugs. Have you ever read "1984"?

Are you properly medicated?

I must be extremely idealistic.

I believe that some of these companies and professionals are trying to discover new cures and medicines, motivated largely by altruism, and desire to help humanity as best they can.

People go into these fields because they want to discover "a cure" and that is their highest ambition. The money is nice, of course -- but it probably is not their single motivator -- not at all.

If they were just interested in money, they would enter the financial sector or something.

All professionals are motivated by non-monetary rewards -- in part. Maybe not enough to implement a completely socialistic society, but close to it. If it wasn't for this fact then we wouldn't even be discussing socialism here.

Edit: Get those quotes right.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Buck Division]

WTF i hit post and nothing showed up. Lemme edit again with post.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by SolarSeaman]

Yes, but do you see HOW corporatism exists. Let me ask you this; Would corporatism thrive in an environment where a larger government can continue to regulate and dictates market entry? Or would corporatism be LESS likely a problem where government is minimized and decentralized, a system in other words where government and its inherent corruptibility is neutralized.



No it is the inherent nature of government to grow, and as it does corporations manipulate this system to benefit them, at our expense. Instead of rectifying this system, the LEFT continues to argue for larger government, and what will this do...well, it will continue to collude with large business and continue to exacerbate the problem.



Regulations are just that they -R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E an industry. What does this mean; it means more impediments to entry, more favoritism to the established corporation, and thus a strangle hold on market share.

What would happen if the U.S. decided to regulate the computer industry and said only companies that produced certain monitors with certain this certain that....
This automatically sets the rules in favor for those companies that have that certain this, or certain that, and limit entry of those other companies that want to compete, this also limits my and your choices of products.

Any time government sets these types of regulation look at who IN PLACE HAS THESE regulation already, and there you will also find the culprit who HAS ASKED FOR THIS REGULATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.


Markets create themselves, it is inherent for man to trade what he has for what other have. This is a market. The stock exchange was not created because the U.S. government created the S.E.C. The stock exchange also does a great job of regulating themselves, without any hindrance from the government.


To the contrary, it is only foolish idealists that think that the existence of government creates wealth and prosperity.

Governments create NOTHING, they destroy and consume. It is those that naively place their hope and dreams in the hands of government that are led to despair and despotism.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Buck Division

---

The people who control big pharma, who make most of the money only care about making money. That is their game. Sure people who want to do good things go into the industry for that purpose, but that is not who you are paying when you buy prescription drugs.

This is the sad reality about most industries. The people who make the discoveries (and do the hard work) get screwd out of the money by the people who manipulate the system. The super rich are proof that crime does pay.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

Thank You Very Much! I could not have explained it any better myself!

reply to post by poet1b

---

The SUPER rich exist primarily because LARGE government is there to protect them, through various market protectionist legislation and corporate subsidies.

And so to limit the SUPER rich from getting even richer the left and so-called conservatives wants EVEN LARGER government? Where's the logic there?

The oil royalty revenue to the state is paid by the oil producers OR purchasers which is in turn given to the TAX PAYERS like a refund check would be. This is not socialism as there is initial requirement...

Socialism is taking money from me via taxes and giving it to someone who is not a tax payer who otherwise is fit to be in a situation where (s)he pays a tax.


~Side note/small rant~ : Federal taxes are ON TOP of what we pay for state taxes, sales tax, gas tax, etc. Where I live, with an 8.25% sales tax and no state tax, if I buy a non-food item I am essentially taxed 40% or so of my initially earned dollar...So if I made $100k per year I would pay like $32,000 to $40,000 or more in taxes. Ya, I would have maybe 60-70K to pay for living in a place and covering my other expenses and have some left over to invest or buy things I need or want - that's why I work in first place, to meet my needs and attain happiness (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property...happiness was used instead in the famous document in final draft). The issue is when I go to buy a bag of generic rice and beans to feed myself (helps that I like that) and see a woman with 4 children using food stamps who has a huge diamond ring on her hand and $60k SUV in the parking lot... I have to ask myself why this person is allowed to have a right to be given my money - under threat of imprisonment or worse to me for not giving it - when there are REAL problems that need addressing like roads, schools, national defense...why can't people be decent like me? Why burden other people? I mean, other than because some slick-prick douche will give you a better life than mine for not trying - just for a vote... ~ End weeping rant~

reply to post by Gateway

---

Ah, I agree, larger government allows corporatism control to grow. Did you ever recognize that Reagan and the other free market pol's all worked to increase the size of government. Bigger government is not the answer, affective government is the answer.

Regulations can be used for many purposes. When regulations are used badly, they control entry into the markets, as all the free market people wind up advocating. When set up right, regulations should open up markets. When standardized rules are applied, and people can enter the markets by passing standard requirements, it is fair, but when approval is based on differing sets of rules applied by differing bodies, as in most free market systems, than those with the money and therefore power contorl who gets access to the markets.

Somebody has to set the rules, on this we all agree, if not a public entity, control by representative government, than some private interest will control the rules to entry, and they will not be fair.

Government enables the development of advanced markets. This is the reality. What separates the third world nations from the first is the quality of the governing bodies that control these nations. The International Corporations are everywhere. Representative government is the key, and you should be able to recognize this.

IS there any successful market system that does not have a representative government?

Communists advocated an economy without government. Sounds to me like you are calling for the same concept. I refer to may original claim.

reply to post by Gateway

---

My thinking exactly. The liberal elites and the neocons are all the same. The socialists and the free market people, all the same.

I would say we have found common ground.

reply to post by SolarSeaman

---

Yep, and they use this money to subsidize to illegals to lower the wages.

It all works against the average guy working hard to get ahead.

Effective? Government throughout history has been shown that it is only effective in killing and destroying and not making people better off.

The only effective form of government is limited government. Not larger and effective government, that would be an impossibility. LARGER by its very definition means ineffective, hence its SIZE to try to cope with what it perceives as a problem.



This is where I disagree. For example; you think a LARGE FDA will protect the consumers from poorly made products? I disagree, corporations naturally want to protect themselves by providing the best products they can. Take the case of the products made from China; WALMART has taken steps to protect themselves and their customers from poor products by going far beyond the Chinese and U.S. governments' regulations and "SELF-REGULATING". See here





This would be nice if the consumers were apt to know about the Computer Industry, Metal Industry, Energy Industry, Banking Industry. The fact of the matter is that it is NOT. Any time any form of regulation is legislated on I can GUARANTEE that it was first LOBBIED for by the very same industry to protect itself. You think the PUBLIC is organized and savvy enough to call for this regulation.

All you need by government is enforcement of property and contract rights. Therefore If someone impeded or destroys my property they are liable to compensate me to the fullest, be it environmental or health related.


No, the existence of our society and standard of living is testament to that. We have become a wealthy society that over time has adopted a growing and ever growing larger government. We didn't have a LARGE government and then a successful country. Here you have it backwards.


What makes generally Latin American countries poor is the existence of LARGE government offering to take care of them from cradle to grave. And since they have these large socialist government schemes and can hardly afford them they go heavily in debt. They are countries that offer too much, without any personal wealth to pay for it.

These countries are not poor because they have mass industries, they are poor because they have mass government impeding growth in their private sector. They have massive government regulations.


I have no problem with representative government, that being said; a government that is decentralized just as OURS once was is a far more successful government than one that is massive and centralized.

Again I have no problem with democracy, but we must not forget. Government is there to take its share of the wealth. The very existence of Governments mean redistribution of wealth. Whether its Obama to his bio-fuel buddies, or medical industry, or Mcain to the military industrial complex, or his Oil friends...it is redistribution no matter how you slice it.


I have to disagree with your last statement. In order for a GOVERNMENT to control the means of production would require a MASSIVE type of government. How else are shoes, amount of clothes, food, energy, TVs, etc. are to be distributed to everyone equally? Communism/Socialism = Gigantic Government




[edit on 1-11-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway

---

Hmm, really, are the governments of third world nations smaller or larger than the governments of first world nations?

Every claim you have made is based on theories that have yet to be proven, and any study of history shows the opposite to be true. Form of government certainly is the most important factor in how well a society succeeds. Effective is determined by form.

Who conrols government is what decides everything. When governemnt is slanted towards the rich, as in free economic principles, then the control of government is slanted in favor of the rich.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by poet1b]

reply to post by Gateway

---

On your last point, the communists always claimed they were for smaller government, but what they always created was larger forms of government. Just like the free market people.

reply to post by poet1b



Of course they are smaller than comparable to the behemoth we have imposed on us. Your being facetious here, I'm talking relative proportion to their populations and thus their taxable revenues. But let us take one of the countries in Latin American for example beginning with the poorest; take Nicaragua for example here we have a nation of 5 million people, well here is the list of bureaucracies within this small nation:


And this is only a small portion of their government to get a better idea go to the link.

Source:en.wikipedia.org...

Vice-versa, this country was great because it limited itself in our markets. The fact that it has interfered in our markets take the rate of interest through the inception of a central bank, regulated home ownership through "community reinvestment act", and is now interfering with capital market has continued to see us GROW poorer not wealthier. Markets create wealth because people not through coerced actions of government CHOOSE to trade are therefore better off.

Governments can never make markets, they hamper them.


That's why government and its tendency to do evil should be curtailed, not expanded.

In a communistic/Socialist society an incalculable amount of evil will exist.


NO you mean in our present state, which is not capitalistic and is in fact Corporatist will be slanted towards the rich.

We do not live in a free-market. Why do you insist on thinking we live in Capitalistic society? We live in Mercantilism/Corporatist society fascist society that creeps everyday towards socialism.

Fascism and Socialism are leftist ideologies.







[edit on 1-11-2008 by Gateway]