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 quick view of Socialism....

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I know ATSers hate it when people repost emails, but I couldn't help sharing the simplicity of these two examples! I hope you all like it, and it provides some good discussion!


#1

An economics teacher made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
--------------------------------------------
That class had insisted that President Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the teacher told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great,
but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

#2
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that virtually all of her
customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to
patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing
plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track
of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now pay later" marketing strategy and,
as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she
has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit .

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi
gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her
prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's
gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these
customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing
limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the
unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer
loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are
then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't
really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds
are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices
continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for
some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the
original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the
debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed
alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill
her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven
employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%.
The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from
issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and
had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find
they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90%
of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy,
closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, Her
beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant
and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives
are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion
from the Government.

The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed,
middle-class, non-drinkers.

Now, do you understand?




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
example number two is quite close to correct, although it describes the dangers of free market corporatism rather than socialism.

example number one is an oversimplification of socialism that misses some important details.

the most important factor missed is the fact that once people pass childhood they tend to want to do something worthwhile with their lives, where employment exists, 96% of people are employed. this has been shown to be true consistently.

the other 4% of people will be supported by the 96% weather they like it or not. if you don't pay them as a society, they'll just rob you.

EDIT: just to note, america has virtually no support for this 4%, instead it has the highest incarceration rate in the west. the cost of paying for all the prisons that are used to lock up people who are forced into crime would pay them enough so that they don't need to turn to criminality.

[edit on 5/11/09 by pieman]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Those are both old stories and the Obama part was added to the first one. When I heard it originally there was no Obama in it. More anti-Obama propaganda from corporate zombies.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The teacher was dead wrong about what socialism means. Socailism does not mean people don't get rewards for the work they do. Socialism means people getting rewarded based on the value of their work to society. It also means that if they do work that doesn't benefit society, they do not get rewards for doing so. Capitalism has reversed this to a certian degree. The biggest rewards are given to those who do the worst for society as a whole.



[edit on 5-11-2009 by sligtlyskeptical]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


So in Socialism who decides what the value of someones work is to society? In Captalism the free market decides the value.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I can't believe the amount of people that are angry out there because they believe that obama is a socialist. He is NOT a socialist, he is just in favour of a few socialist policies that nearly every western nation have already ratified. Why are people so scared of a bit of socialism? Look how well pure capitalism turned out for america in the last 100 years. 2 massive economic crashes, coupled with many other small ones. Although no socialist nation is free from its effects, the effects themselves are far less severe. Here in Canada, the only industry that has been severly affected by the recession is the manufacturing industry, specifically the car industry. If it wasn't for world war 2 and the cold war, america would have gone down like this many more times.

As for socialism though, pure socialism, and even small doses of it will never really work in america, as long as people are putting the betterment of themselves ahead of others. As long as greed and personal gain are the main driving force in everyone's lives, socialism will never ever ever work.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


It is not about greed and personal gain. It is about 3 things.
1. No more entitements.
2. We cannot afford a government run universal healthare system ran by a bunch of corrupt politicians.
3. Americans are not Socialists. We don't want to be like France or Canada.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I see another over-simplified, vague, chain email, and not a whole lot else.

And for that reason, i'm out.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The second story I liked, it showed what happened to our economy and I am not the biggest fan of capitalism in its current form because how easy it can be manipulated.

You can't blame the system though because it’s the people who act so powerless. If people stop complaining and stop actually spending money they don’t have (i.e. enormous amounts of debt from credit), which is one of the major problems, maybe they can actual come together and try to fix the system.

The system isn't going to fix itself, it takes work, but the so called work the government is doing is hurting way more than helping. Why bail out banks that did this to us in the first place. BECAUSE WE ALLOWED IT.

What have we done since? NOTHING...NO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. All we do is complain and expect someone else to solve our problems.

Next, is the first story, I can't really agree or disagree with you because I never experienced living in a socialist society. It seems to me that people love to critic economic systems that they never been a part of. If you live in the United States, then all you know is capitalism.

STOP CRITIZING OTHER SYSTEMS YOU YOURSELF DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND. Now people might cry out, "WOW, there goes a socialist." No, I'm not anything, I hate labels, and I’m just trying to be real. I'm just tired of hearing people who think they are self-proclaimed specialists in economic systems, saying that one is better than another.

There is good and bad in each of the major systems. So instead of complaining about them let's agree on what we like and make a better or even a new system. WE HAVE THE POWER, WAKE UP!

Peace.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by abandonednation
 





You can't blame the system though because it’s the people who act so powerless.


uh huh, that's it, we're just acting powerless.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 


I'm sorry, but if the US can afford to spend close to a trillion dollars, PER YEAR on military expenditures, it can afford healthcare, which would be less than 1/10 the cost of that. Although I agree with you on the fact that it wouldn't be a good idea to put this in the hands of corrupt politicians. In Canada, healthcare is basically a tool all politicians use to further their agendas and get re-elected. Healthcare is more about politics than saving lives unfortunately.

Be careful when you say that Americans don't want any socialism; are you speaking for ALL Americans? If nobody wanted to be like France and Canada, Universal Healthcare would never have been brought up, not to mention that US universal healthcare would be no where near as socialist as Canada's.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


So in Socialism who decides what the value of someones work is to society? In Captalism the free market decides the value.


I think having some independent entity selected by the workers would be the best choice. Leaving those decisions to those who profit off our backs is not the way it should be done. For instance free market forces mean that people do the same jobs for less money when unemeployment rises. As productivity continues to rise the free markets will have 50% of us unemployed. Those that are still employed wil be working for a cot and a couple of sqauaes a day. Unchecked free market economics always fails because of this. Socialistic policies are needed to keep the free market system in check. You do know you can have both and still have a successful reward driven economy?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Capitalism is the best form of an economy, as long as the government is there to use COMMON SENSE and prevent monopolies and "to much power" situations.

I am not saying millionaires/billionaires should not exist from their inventions, but government needs to use LOGIC when determining if a company is becoming to intrusive to the rights of the people and country.

edit - One thing to add...all "pure" forms of all of these ideologies are horrible ideas. When we realize that a mixture is needed, then we will succeed.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

The teacher was dead wrong about what socialism means. Socailism does not mean people don't get rewards for the work they do. Socialism means people getting rewarded based on the value of their work to society. It also means that if they do work that doesn't benefit society, they do not get rewards for doing so. Capitalism has reversed this to a certian degree. The biggest rewards are given to those who do the worst for society as a whole.
[edit on 5-11-2009 by sligtlyskeptical]


I disagree with that a little bit. In Socialism, people are rewarded for their status and connections. I have several friends that came up in the old USSR, and their stories are very interesting.

For example: You are a poor farmer and you want to buy a car, you go to the car dealer, but there is no incentive for the car dealer to sell you a car. He just doesn't care about you, you have nothing to offer him other than the purchase price of a car, but that means he would have to do extra work. So, Mr. Farmer, you can't buy a car today........now.....Mr. Professor comes in to buy a car today, and the dealer just happens to have a kid about to enter the University.......Mr Professor gets a shiny new Mercedes at a knockout price, and Mr Car Dealer gets his kid into a better class of University than originally slated for him!!

It is true that workers and students are rewarded based on their skill and performance, and they are also punished and held back according to their skill and performance, so by those standards, they often get better people into better positions than we do in the West! They aren't wasting a lot of time trying to "reform" bad students or bad workers.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Capitalism is the best form of an economy,


based on what criteria?
if overall wealth is your criteria for success then capitalism works but if you use social justice, the mental well being of the general population, the health of the people or the ability of any individual to effect change in their own lives, then capitalism is a complete failure.

capitalism is not the best form of government, it is the form that suits those that control the media, the government and the education system. that's why the media, your government and the education system have been telling you it's the best system we have for the past 80 years.

it does not free you, it makes you a slave.
it does not make you feel happy, it makes you feel inadequate.
it does not make you healthy, it uses you up and then replaces you.
it does not allow you to become rich, it takes your value and gives you a credit line.

capitalism sucks.

[edit on 5/11/09 by pieman]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I believe that a human should be able to work to support themselves. That can mean living in the wild and doing it 100% yourself, or in a society where your skills are traded through a currency, which then buys various products such as food, health care, cars, etc.

Being able to actually produce something, whether it be knowledge, schematics, or physical material, is a skill that a person should be able to contribute to society in order to live.

In todays society, it is possible to live VERY EASILY if one uses their brain. It is a shame that so many people expect to pick up their high paying jobs, or find something with normal hours and what not. Otherwise, they sit back and feed off of welfare, which should be used sparingly.

I guarantee you overall productivity will decrease dramatically if we switch to socialism. We may all be able to eat and be taken care of, but there would be more work and less reward for those gifted with intelligence.

If you have not noticed, it is technology that has improved the quality of life for centuries onward. It may be true that not 100% of people are motivated by money, but a damn lot are.

The way I view Socialism compared to Capitalism could be summed up by a linear model, and an exponential model.

For Socialism, the long run benefits would be severely reduced IMO. Capitalism, we are building for the long term.

Just my opinion...



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


So in Socialism who decides what the value of someones work is to society? In Captalism the free market decides the value.


I think having some independent entity selected by the workers would be the best choice


Isn't that entity supposed to be the government? This is supposed to be a democracy after all. What would stop another "independent entity" from becoming corrupted?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


yeah, i've heard it all before, funny thing is, the most intelligent and innovative, the people capable of production or contribution, aren't the richest. they aren't even the most innovative.

the beneficiaries are the traditional elites that control the means of production. they provide no actual benefit but gain most. universities are the innovators, and where this isn't true, the government pay the military industrial complex billions to develop to spec.

the intelligent are exploited in the mean so it ends up that, barring a few notable exceptions, it is the most exploitative and greedy that gain the most from capitalism.

captalism, like communism, is a good theory but it just doesn't work in reality.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
the first story reminds me of military units, during basic training. if one F's up the entire unit is punished...doesn't sit well obviously and the rest of them pitch in next time, so all can achieve. if the same guy F's up again he's thrown out from the unit. your story can go both ways

your second story would have never happened like that. why? because heidi would have gotten burned the first few times by doing this very same thing in the past, and didn't want to lose her own money on these alcoholics. and the bank would not have done that because they had been burned by lending to small businesses without knowing exactly where the profits would be coming from, for that business to legitimately pay back the loan. so they would not want their loans defaulted on by false profits promised by heidi's business without establishing income first.

only way this would happen is if both heidi and the banks were crooked enough to set up a classic ponzi scheme



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by oneinthesame

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


So in Socialism who decides what the value of someones work is to society? In Captalism the free market decides the value.


I think having some independent entity selected by the workers would be the best choice


Isn't that entity supposed to be the government? This is supposed to be a democracy after all. What would stop another "independent entity" from becoming corrupted?


actually that's why representative government was set up in the first place.
the people with the most money, had the most power and with human nature always wanting more, used that power to gain more of the money, until it became so unbearable for the rest of the people that they stole back their money and/or killed the people with all the money.

the wealthy have always been taught this down through the ages, but have succumbed to greed. thus the wealthy have had to allow some form of representative government to take hold, so as to put restraints on their own greed. this allowed the rest of the people to have enough money to live comfortably to the point, where the large masses do not rise up against them and steal the wealthy's money or kill them outright. and that has been the balancing act the wealthy have had to preform to survive.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by jimmyx]




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join