Socialism crushes the economy

even though on paper, as many other ideologies, capitalism sounds nice...if it weren't for the motif ingrained in the ideology. It is not the pursuit of happiness, it's the pursuit of profit. It puts profit first. This is especially true for the corporations.

The problem with starting off with capitalism, is the starting point...which is the question..."how can I earn money ?", and not "how can I contribute to society or a local economy?". In order to sell more (because without constant increase in sales the ideology would crumble) one needs to speed up production, reduce expenses. What this brings is a reduction in quality of products and reduction in wages for the working class. Examples of this is contained within all too well known social meme..."made in China" or "made in Taiwan".

Capitalists are playing dumb...without the second/third world countries which are used as cheap labor, there wouldn't be any capitalism. There wouldn't be any corporations.

A woman in Taiwan gets paid 0,50 cents per pair of NIKE sneakers...and they sell for 200 $ back in the US. (don't quote me on this one, I watched a doco online some time ago about sweat shops).

Anyway...most of us know the ugly head of Socialism...how it can turn to bad from a good starting point. But I say...Capitalism is no different. It sort of gives you opportunities, but behind the scenes...it's still oppressive.

Actually...people are oppressive...but Capitalism gives them a context to be so. Worrying only about profit, makes you sort of free of responsibilities...towards your community or people that work for you. You can sack people, destroy the environment and incite wars...if it is about making money...you will even be helped (protected) by the state.

What is the point of opening a bakery in a street full of bakeries...? society wise...no point. Individually looking, those bakeries are doing well and you would want to emulate their profit making...by creating the same...because you need/want money. Whether this is needed by your community is not something that is even considered by a capitalist society.

Fortunately or not, Socialism provides much needed boundaries for people. Although it sounds like the dreaded american horror story..."they are taking our freedoms"...ultimate freedom to do what you want, which is provided in a capitalist context, requires great responsibility. One not currently present in human mind set.

At one time the U.S. was among the most completely independent and self-reliant countries on the face of this earth, when people were expected to pull their load and CEOs, boards of directors, etc were not completely pillaging the companies. Just because foreign slavery is now part of the mix does not mean that is how it started nor does it mean that is how is has to stay.

How is an economy supposed to thrive if so many illegals are given mandated free medical and bankrupting hospitals? Mixing mandated socialism with capitalism can probably never work.

Originally posted by Merinda
Which economy is going to run more smoothly? The one where the wealth trickles up fast or the one where wealth is kept in the loop?

Real socialism doesn't create wealth. It causes trickle up poverty. It causes those who produce not to work as hard ... why bother working extra hard when the fruits of that work will just be stolen to support others who don't (or won't) work for their own good? Socialism is not a utopia and it has never worked when fully implemented.

Originally posted by the owlbear
You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.

You know what 'consumer goods' are bought by poor people? Not all of it is put back into circulation as you say .... drugs ... weapons ... hookers .... cigarettes ... booze ... Did you see what things were bought with the aid money given to Katrina victims ... sex change operations .. divorces .... tatoos .. etc etc ... there was a whole lotta' non-essentials being bought ....

Yes yes .. not everyone does that. But there is a whole lot of money being handed out that shouldn't be. And those who work for their money shouldn't have it taken away to support this kind of waste.

FEMA Funds Use
[url=http://local.msn.com/audit-says-katrina-aid-may-have-been-misspent] Katrina Funds Misused [/url

reply to post by FlyersFan


An example of socialism can be found working in government sector. Government departments dont produce real products and they dont have to worry about cash flow or overheads as they receive their funding from tax payers.

In the private business sector business compete selling their products and services in a market place and their ability to survive is based on the volume of customers.

Two different business models for different sectors but the fundamental limitations of both being defined by money. I would like to here of a business model that can work without money.

The one thing I never understood about the redistribution of wealth is this:

What happens when we take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The poor buy shiny new rims, high price shoes, and dinners at red lobster. Give them 15K in march and it will be back in the hands of the rich by June. When they are poor again, do we simply repeat the cycle?

Here in America we do this already. It's called EIC and it works as I stated above. The difference is it is paid for by the tax payer and given to the none tax payer. Rich become (and stay) rich by knowing when to spend and knowing what is disposable. The "poor" do not have this distinction. All money is disposable money to them. Some of them actually do not understand the concept of priorities. Food before beer, not the other way around.

Denmark and their socialism seem to be doing quite fine. As always, the issue is in implementation.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
even though on paper, as many other ideologies, capitalism sounds nice...if it weren't for the motif ingrained in the ideology. It is not the pursuit of happiness, it's the pursuit of profit. It puts profit first. This is especially true for the corporations.

The problem with starting off with capitalism, is the starting point...which is the question..."how can I earn money ?", and not "how can I contribute to society or a local economy?". In order to sell more (because without constant increase in sales the ideology would crumble) one needs to speed up production, reduce expenses. What this brings is a reduction in quality of products and reduction in wages for the working class. Examples of this is contained within all too well known social meme..."made in China" or "made in Taiwan".

Capitalists are playing dumb...without the second/third world countries which are used as cheap labor, there wouldn't be any capitalism. There wouldn't be any corporations.

A woman in Taiwan gets paid 0,50 cents per pair of NIKE sneakers...and they sell for 200 $ back in the US. (don't quote me on this one, I watched a doco online some time ago about sweat shops).

Anyway...most of us know the ugly head of Socialism...how it can turn to bad from a good starting point. But I say...Capitalism is no different. It sort of gives you opportunities, but behind the scenes...it's still oppressive.

Actually...people are oppressive...but Capitalism gives them a context to be so. Worrying only about profit, makes you sort of free of responsibilities...towards your community or people that work for you. You can sack people, destroy the environment and incite wars...if it is about making money...you will even be helped (protected) by the state.

What is the point of opening a bakery in a street full of bakeries...? society wise...no point. Individually looking, those bakeries are doing well and you would want to emulate their profit making...by creating the same...because you need/want money. Whether this is needed by your community is not something that is even considered by a capitalist society.

Fortunately or not, Socialism provides much needed boundaries for people. Although it sounds like the dreaded american horror story..."they are taking our freedoms"...ultimate freedom to do what you want, which is provided in a capitalist context, requires great responsibility. One not currently present in human mind set.

Capitalism isnt an ideology at all. Quite the opposite. The argument of capitalism is to channel peoples selfishness and own interest into being productive for the society. Like the founders of apple founding apple to become rich. All good and well, thats a very positive example of capitalism.

But why bother to contribute if you find ways to take the money off the printing press straight into your pocket. And then there is the problem the thread started with, if capitalism is too unregulated you end up with a situation where it can not sustain itself. "new socialism" the socialism Americans refer to when they speak of the more affluent European countries, merely seeks to mitigate the drawbacks of capitalism. European countries like Sweden Germany Denmark embrace capitalism and try to work out a system that runs smoothly. Thats a far cry from being opposed to capitalism.

Of course there are communist wannabees in Europe, whom live in nice houses drive German luxury cars have fine wine with their dinner and praise marx the 68ers and social equality, but thats a whole different topic.

Originally posted by Merinda
Capitalism isnt an ideology at all. ...
The argument of capitalism is to channel peoples selfishness and own interest into being productive for the society.

Funny, you just described an ideology.

reply to post by Merinda


here's a better thing to do in order to understand why this won't work. Look at who is in office, both congress and local government, now think to yourself, do you want to do that job? Most of you say no, but have opinions on how things should be done. But the fact is, it takes a certain kind of person to do these jobs, and when you top that with the hidden fact that if you have money but not an opinion you can easily buy one.

if socialism was to be done, it would be a massive opinion buying wealth train, looping around and around until everyone had their rings of opinions and nothing changed, ever.

If you want equality in our government, do the DEMOCRATIC THING and OPEN SOURCE GOVERNMENT, not this voting crap, we don't live by the honor system anymore, I want to see the nitty gritty.

reply to post by the owlbear

What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.

Same thing those evil rich folks do socialism in a nutshell is tax the rich so the poor can go out, and buy more corporate products..

And no that money is put back in to circulation doesn't make new wealth.

reply to post by onequestion


Perhaps the on-line version does not show the full effect. On a print version, each yer is shown on the horizontal axis, important events yearly on the vertical. Bond, Stock, Interest rates, oil prices etc.are clearly marked,.
Good luck!

reply to post by buddhasystem


I know one thing about you buddhasystem.
You're trolling this thread.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by the owlbear

 

What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.

Same thing those evil rich folks do socialism in a nutshell is tax the rich so the poor can go out, and buy more corporate products..

And no that money is put back in to circulation doesn't make new wealth.

But you just said money put back into circulation would create new wealth...
Im confused now...maybe because I dont watch tv or let other people what to tell me to think.

Trickle down...trickle down...

Originally posted by cenpuppie
Denmark and their socialism seem to be doing quite fine. As always, the issue is in implementation.

Denmark is not socialist. The welfare state is not socialism.

This article explains it quite well...

For the first post in my Responding to Capitalists Series, I want to address a misconception that is used by both capitalists and self-described socialists alike — the idea that a welfare state is socialism.

There are many today who think that socialism is just a state with public healthcare, public education, public transportation, unemployment benefits, and so on. This is the case in many parts of Europe where “socialists” really just advocate for more state welfare, and it is the case with many Americans who think that socialism is what the Democratic Party advocates...

...The historical and correct definition of democratic socialism is a grassroots, anti-authoritarian socialism that wants to get rid of capitalism by labor organization, elections, and other democratic, decentralized means (think Eugene Debs). Then, you have the modern redefinition that inaccurately calls democratic socialism a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism (think Sweden) [or Denmark, ANOK]...

...Socialism is collective and cooperative ownership of the means of production (e.g. factories, farms, etc.) and that those who produce and earn wealth (the workers) should be the ones who reap the fruit of their labor. This manifests in either state ownership or worker ownership of the means of production (though worker ownership is the historical use of the term).

Socialism is not a welfare state

The welfare state is liberalism, not socialism. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, an economic system, not a form of government. Welfare was started to help ease some of the problems caused by capitalism, but it does not replace capitalism. It is still a capitalist economy, not a socialist economy.

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I know one thing about you buddhasystem.
You're trolling this thread.

This statement is rich in irony, since it's pretty content-free in itself.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by the owlbear

 

What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.

Same thing those evil rich folks do socialism in a nutshell is tax the rich so the poor can go out, and buy more corporate products..

And no that money is put back in to circulation doesn't make new wealth.

I do see poor people using food assistance, and I don't see them party at the Ritz so much.

By the way I think some of the food assistance is not justified in the first place, I saw benefits cards used to buy items I usually wait until the next sale to buy, but that's all right.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Whatever.
To each their own.
I will no longer dignify you with any further response.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Merinda

Never mind misread the OP, sorry comrades, carry on...

edit on 5/27/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Propping up your fellow travelers are you

Von Mises Austrian School of Economics

What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.”

“The Santa Claus fables of the welfare school are characterized by their complete failure to grasp the problems of capital. It is precisely this defect that makes it imperative to deny them the appellation welfare economics with which they describe their doctrines. He who does not take into consideration the scarcity of capital goods available is not an economist, but a fabulist. He does not deal with reality but with a fabulous world of plenty. All the effusions of the contemporary welfare school are, like those of the socialist authors, based on the implicit assumption that there is an abundant supply of capital goods. Then, of course, it seems easy to find a remedy for all ills, to give to everybody "according to his needs" and to make everyone perfectly happy.

lamar.colostate.edu...