Why socialism Doesnt Work

I think some people are over looking something..

Socialism isn't something for nothing. If it were, it would have never even began to work. It is caring for those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. This includes the poor,the abandoned young, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

But when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

When government is in the position to deny you any rewards, that is not Socialism. The professor made, administered, and graded the tests. There is another word for when one person rules over all and makes all the decisions, isn't there? Then again, the entire premise rests on the idea that "students" with little to no control over anything other than their RESPONSES to what is HANDED THEM to prove socialism does not work. Seems a tad off to me but then that is probably why it is not a true story.

Originally posted by tempesillest


Well when 1% of the population hold the vast majority of the wealth I think that gets somewhere in the "too much" category.

I think people should get out what they put in

and our money is already redistributed by an incompetent and criminally corrupt government

Ok, so those who put nothing in get nothing in return right?

Those who pay no income taxes dont get welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc etc correct?

Damn good idea, I could support that.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Kaploink

 

States and Local governments pay for Grade School and High School. Not the Federal Government. State Colleges and universities are funded by the state, alumni, and Tuition from college students who get them from student loans, parents, or working to go to college.

I have Federal grants that are paying for my college that say you're wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!!!!!
I get Federal & state grants and sally may loans...which is only really 1/8th of the total cost

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


With that logic, I say BigTimeCheater 2012!

reply to post by tempesillest

Where did I say people deserve something for nothing. What I am trying to get at is some people make ridiculous amounts of money for pretty much zero labor, while there employees work there ass off just to make ends meet.

You're attempting to equate labor to economic value. Realistically, however, labor is not of any value to any economic system. The reason the economy exists, at all, is to reduce labor. If I had to build my house, maintain crops, cook food, raise kids, etc all by myself (or as a single family) - I'd not have much time to do anything. Dividing up the tasks and doing them more efficiently through specialization allows everyone to enjoy more bountiful resources - one of which including time to do things other than survive.

I know, it's a crazy new concept sweeping the human population. Times are changing, man.

Now, let's resume.

I have $2M. Realistically, I can put that into a bank and live quite comfortably off of the interest.

Or - I can spend the majority of that to start a business. smallbiztrends.com... - statistically, you have a 34% chance of failure within the first two years, 66% within four. Different markets have different rates of attrition (for example - many areas are so saturated with food-service that I'd never start a restaurant), but overall, starting a business is not a very secure deal. You're better off playing the stock market.

With that business, I do not usually see a profit until about two years into business. This means all expenses of the business must be accounted for prior to starting (more or less). That means operating expenses and employee wages for the first two years should be in a bank account somewhere.

Now, I've gone through the risk of starting a business, and now have created several jobs, perhaps even a few dozen, and am producing things that other people/industries need and/or want. Yay me. That's something I should be proud of. But, let's be modest - part of the reason I did that was to get a return on my initial investment. I can make more money off of that $2M if I succeed in a business venture than I can by simply locking it up in a bank or mutual fund. Because I took that risk - I created jobs, and wealth in the area. Why should I not see a return on my investment that allows me to live more comfortably?

Now, were I to actually start a business - I would certainly respect the employer-employee relationship and do my best to find top-notch people and pay them every penny they are worth with as hospitable of an environment as possible. I cannot say the same for other employers - but, honestly, if you can't figure out how to survive rather comfortably on this country's hideously high minimum wage, then social darwinism has become a relevant factor in your life.

Where the economy hits and the CEO isn't making his regular 20 million but rather 15 million and decides to cut his employee's paychecks. I mean poor ceo he deserves that 3rd ferrari.

The CEO generally has no authority over wages. That's a board of directors issue. Further - part of the reason CEOs are paid so highly is because most companies would rather keep those CEOs from running off to other companies with information. CEOs and other administrative staff have caused companies to fail in the past - Sega can tell you all about that with the Saturn. One man completely destroyed an entire product line in less time than it takes to take a crap.

Any company with enough revenue to have a CEO paid in the $M bracket has enough employees that a cut to the CEO's paycheck is not going to reflect on the company's revenue. Those companies have trillions of net-worth passing through them every year (through them - most of that is consumed in operating costs and labor). Cutting spending on labor is one cost-saving approach. Losing a few line workers to job attrition is nothing by comparison to having your PR representative go out on international television and announce support for the present product is going to be discontinued in favor of a new project (A La: Sega Saturn) despite it being factually inaccurate.

Not all CEOs are worth their pay - but there are quite a few who are and are effective executives. Their function is vital to the success and survival of the company. That means they may have to make the decision to lower your wages. If you can't adapt to that, then seek another job. If you can't find one - then it's probably a good thing you have one at all.

When is it too much money? when you can buy a island... when you get chauffeured around in a limo... when you have enough property to house a thousand+ people... etc etc etc

Why is that too much money?

I really don't understand the reasoning. Sure - I consider it rather wasteful spending and can think of things I'd rather do with that money - but I'm not so arrogant as to believe I have the right to judge someone based on the wealth they have and the decisions they make with it. I may disagree - I may think it rather foolish - but I can't grasp the concept of "you shouldn't have that!"

I'd turn it around on them - make something they would be willing to spend that money on, or provide some service. If they have nothing better to do than spend money on having me sit there and tell jokes or advise them on common-sense solutions... then who am I to stop them?

All it requires is a shift of perspective from one of being an employee to one of being an entrepreneur. You've been conditioned by society to think like an employee. While there is nothing wrong with being an employee - there is something wrong when you lose sight of what the market is all about. It's not about how much you work - it's about what you make, and how costly it is for you to make it. An employee sees things in terms of wages and hours. An entrepreneur sees things in terms of product and customer.

Those rich people who have nothing but excessive amounts of money in your perspective... shouldn't be too hard to get them to part with it. No need to involve the government - create a business selling them something they are willing to pay for. It doesn't have to be anything useful or sensible by the logic of the average person - it only has to make sense to the people buying it.

That is the free-market version of wealth-redistribution.

The only problem with it is that it requires initiative, ingenuity, and risk. Not necessarily the most enticing offer for many.