Why Socialism is a Good Thing: An Example

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Because it's just ducky wonderful to be forced into an inner city school ... Believe me, I tried to teach there, and the whole system, from the top down, is baked against those kids. But who cares about actually implementing a system that works for those who want to get out?

ketsuko
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

Because it's just ducky wonderful to be forced into an inner city school ... Believe me, I tried to teach there, and the whole system, from the top down, is baked against those kids. But who cares about actually implementing a system that works for those who want to get out?

nobody in the upper chairs need anyone else educated enough to know how to dispute their position, so they can hold theirs...

What you failed to mention in your story is that the reason the company moved to another country was corporate taxes imposed by the government. That the reality of these real world scenarios.

ChuckNasty
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

Good example of socialism. In the ideal socialism model, using your example, the government should have stepped in and prevented the corp from going overseas.

I am proposing "penalties" or laws even against any outsourcing and globalization since it's my firm belief that it's the main reason for the misery we're in right now.

However, I realize this is extremely, extremely unrealistic since it would not only be entirely against any "free", capitalistic principles....it will likely also be entirely impossible to impose sanctions on global trade/manufacturing etc. in a world which otherwise is extremely "global".

Rest assured, someone telling a company or a business owner he cannot outsource or manufacture overseas would result in a lot of cries...and I have doubts whether such would ever be happening. But somehow I think it's the only solution. There must be some limits and someone has to impose them. My $0.02

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


And there are at least 60 million reason why Socialism is bad, ask any Russian.

In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,” I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

Stalin who some will say was a Fascist, others would say Communist, was a staunch "Allie of Socialism in one country" and as long as you agreed with him and did his every wish, and in many cases even if you did he still made an example of you. Socialism does not work any better than the warped Republic we now have, there are always the Have's and then there are the Have Not's, at least now we have an opportunity to be one of the Have's without somebody taking it and giving it to someone else and then later coming back and shooting you until dead and maybe a few times after you're dead for good measure.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


I applaud your point but your example can use work. Don't let the ****s get ya down.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


In theory it sounds good, but it will never work in practices because power hungry people will end up at the top of the food chain and will used socialism as a tool to control the masses.

That's why socialism always fails. Sounds good, but it ends up being something else. Too much power is centralize in socialism.

amfirst1
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

 

In theory it sounds good, but it will never work in practices because power hungry people will end up at the top of the food chain and will used socialism as a tool to control the masses.

That's why socialism always fails. Sounds good, but it ends up being something else. Too much power is centralize in socialism.

edit on 10-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

You are complaining about "power hungry people" but entirely fail that in REAL LIFE (and so in my simple example) the problem is brought on by the power-hunger and greed of the people running the corp, right?

Without the greed of the company to cut costs the problem wouldn't have appeared in the first place.

There is NO NEED to theorize about power-hungry politicians, from a certain P.o.V. it doesn't matter WHERE the power-hungry people sit, whether in the government or on the boss-chair of a corp, it' doesn't matter.

Also...there were multiple examples of communism/socialism given like in the former USSR and other eastern European countries. I have never said and would never ever say that socialism in those countries worked (obviously it didn't!!) - but this is also not the socialism I am implying.

Please don't be so foolish and say "socialism doesn't work" and then give the example of a fascist/communist regime like in the former Soviet Union etc...a dictatorship/fascist regime which shoots people trying to cross borders etc. has really not a lot to do with "Socialism". Don't give extreme examples because that's certainly not what I am "proposing". My idea is capitalism with "socialist elements" which benefits people, not a dictatorship.

See that in my example, the "aid" given is actually SUPPORTING the corporate and employment of the people at the corp. Basically, the socialist financial aid is actually supporting the capitalist principle, not against it. At the core of everything is still that employment and the well-being of the CORPORATE is the utmost important thing everything depends on, something which is extremely, extremely "capitalist" you will hopefully agree.

(In the extreme example of previously failed socialism dictatorships, the gvt would probably seize the corporate and take ownership of the corporate. In my example, the principle of capitalism is NOT touched, it is actually supported)

>>
power hungry people will end up at the top of the food chain
>>

Like they're not there already in the current system.... Isn't this one major root cause of many problems?

I believe the OP story is NOT socialism, it is NOT how it works.
In true socialism, the goverment will create another company which will produce Blue Widgets and sell it to local market at cheaper price. The "MericaCorp" company with its 5 employees is let to rot by themselves and compete with cheaper "local" produce or move to other country.

In true socialism, the goverment DO NOT sit down and talk with CEO, that is capitalist way of doing things.
In true socialism, the government DECIDE ON ITS OWN what to produce (Blue Widgets), how much to produce and how to distribute.
In true socialism, there will be NO CEO at all in MurricaVille, just manager.
In true socialism, you will NOT have the healthcare problem and no federal debt, just plain between countries debt.
In true socialism, there is no unemployment problem, because you need to work to make "Blue Widgets", regardless needed or not.
In true socialism, if China produce cheaper "Blue Widgets" then the government decide, buy from them or produce ourself.
In true socialism, "MericaCorp" will not exist at all, MurricaVilleCorp exist, and owned by the goverment, and everyone works there, all 500, and nothing else.

Obviously, you guys (and the OP too) live too long in capitalist country to understand what is true socialism/communist.

WesternIowaParanormal
What you failed to mention in your story is that the reason the company moved to another country was corporate taxes imposed by the government. That the reality of these real world scenarios.

The reality is the free trade agreements. When the companies move overseas, they now have to import their products back into the states. With no embargos or trade tariffs in place, they can just ship this stuff back over here for next to nothing (or nothing). Corporate taxes are actually a completely different entity since they use offshore holdings to get around those pesky things.

WesternIowaParanormal
What you failed to mention in your story is that the reason the company moved to another country was corporate taxes imposed by the government. That the reality of these real world scenarios.

Actually, it's more like the company failed to donate to the right politicians or pay enough to their lobbyists to kiss up to the right politicians, so when the tax breaks and loopholes were baked into the latest thousand page laws, the company didn't get any and actually had to pay its full liability. Hence, it went out of business, and red widget corp over in 'Forniaville successfully gained a monopoly on American-made widget production and even further hurt Mericacorp with a successful "Buy Amercan, By Red!" ad campaign they aired during the Super Bowl with a sexy red-haired Hollywood starlet kissing a monkfish that took off virally afterward and raised controversy and made everyone proud to Buy Red! Buy American! Incidentally, Congressman Murkan made a killing of the many shares of Red Widget stock he bought on a hot tip from the widget lobbyist ...

And the band plays on and no one seems to notice the cronyism.

Krazysh0t
WesternIowaParanormal
What you failed to mention in your story is that the reason the company moved to another country was corporate taxes imposed by the government. That the reality of these real world scenarios.
.....
The reality is the free trade agreements. When the companies move overseas, they now have to import their products back into the states. With no embargos or trade tariffs in place, they can just ship this stuff back over here for next to nothing (or nothing). Corporate taxes are actually a completely different entity since they use offshore holdings to get around those pesky things.

All of you need to read my post above why these things DO NOT happen in a socialist country.
Yes, socialism have problems, but its not what are you guys debating about.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

Why Socialism is a Good Thing: An Example

I find it interesting that the only "Example" you can point to for the "Good" of socialism, is a hypothetical scenario that you contrived yourself.

While in the real world, socialism typically robs from everyone, starves its people, murders them en-mass, etc....



Ergo, the best example of why socialism is a BAD thing, is actual, real world socialism.

Socialism is great until all the capital (not money, capital) runs out.

At this point, governments usually start rolling out the money printers. This results in the dilution of the remaining capital (using stealth means such as their own central bank buying up all their IOUs).

Society as a whole gets poorer and once the people cotton on to the money dilution you start getting hyperinflation.

Cute story.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


I haven't had a chance to read this full thread yet, but I will comment on your OP.

What prevented these people from moving to the probably now booming area where blue widgets are being made? Apparently it is a great up and coming area?

Are blue widgets only sold in this one specific town? Are the townspeople the only ones who buy them? You would think with the now cheaper cost of blue widgets they could expand their marketing department, sales department etc. They would shift from being a labor force to an office force. People would need to learn new skills. If the company didn't do that and their sales died, then why would you prop up such a bad company with apparently such bad management they had 5 workers doing nothing...?

Honestly, the whole story you came up with reeks of someone who hasn't taken a single finance class.

I highly suggest you read "Freedom to Choose" by Milton Freedman.

reply to post by NullVoid


You are describing communism, not socialism. They are drastically different.

www.diffen.com...

Communism The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.
Socialism The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

Communism holds the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" which means people who can do very little may get a whole lot.

Socialism holds to the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution

You seem very mistaken on what Socialism is.

reply to post by raymundoko


Yes, you are correct, but the difference is subtle, socialism led to communist.

What you guys arguing is characteristic of capitalism. You guys really do not know the problem with socialism/communist and yet pose what capitalist encounter as a problem as a socialist problem. Pot calling saucer black situation.

People, the problem with distributed wealth/socialism/communist is not about economy, in fact its the solution. Socialism/communist Achilles heel is about progress and improvement, seldom about economy, put that in your brain people. If you say about money/capital, you are dead wrong, if you talk about improvement/new finding/challenge environment, you on right track.

Once, I'm a capitalist, now, I'm a communist. I know, its not a popular choice and with current era, it wont go anywhere except just a theory inside a book. Dont worry it become big, it wont, at least in our lifetime.

Yet I will use capitalist tools to destroy capitalist, once the economic breakdown happen, be sure to know, I did it with capitalist own tool, it cant be helped, people are too brainwashed to see whats good for them, I'm with the big bad boys in this one, peoples are stupid and they deserve it to repeat.

Last time, I silently jumping in joy when Greece throwing stones at their Parliament, as a capitalist, its was moment meant to celebrate, lots of money to be made from there , Its like what Soros did and done - manipulation of the open market, you know, it cannot happen in a communist country?.

Again, not to worry, socialism/communist wont get anywhere your TV, its not popular.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


To look at this in a vacuum as you have, it is easy to present your point but you have left out the variables necessary to determine just exactly how this scenario would play out to the end.

For instance, what if a persons from your "Mericorp" decided that they can provide a better product and entered into competition against?