Re: Socialism is so gay.
- From: Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 09:08:21 -0700
In article <marek1965-D41A7C.21484130072011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
In article <20110726123218.2A3E31A2509C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Andrew Usher <03391618@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, first, we're a much wealthier society today.
Specious argument. Wouldn't a wealthier society have less of a need of
socialist government than a non-wealthy one?
If that's an honest question, the answer is: It depends on the
distribution of the wealth. If 2% of the people have 98% of the
wealth, the country may well end up socialist---as happened in
the USSR. If the distribution is more equal, you can still end
up socialist to the extent that the society believes in an economic
safety net---as is the case in Sweden and Germany.
For example, food stamps. Before Obama kicked off inflation at
supermarkets, :-), food was and still is quite cheap in the USA compared
to housing, energy and transportation.
Hence, this is why there are no calls for "single payer" food
Should we then expect "single-payer" gasoline distribution? ;-)
and local government has not grown nearly as fast. A better
comparison would be the portion of GDP spent on all levels of
government, which as I recall has not grown more than a few
times. Besides, making cuts of this magnitude in the federal
budget requires cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or
defence. Republicans aren't willing to cut defence by one cent,
and know that the other two are politically impossible. So,
naturally, it won't happen and you need to deal with it.
Even if they cut defense altogether, it wouldn't solve the other two
problems and you know it. In addition, a deficit going on nearly the
size of all tax receipts isn't going to be "taxed" way since doubling
taxes overall isn't likely (since the wealthy who hire Obama's relatives
and friends will find loopholes out of it. GE, we bring good things to
Thanks. You've just pointed out one of the greatest problems in the
US tax system. It's not the rates---it's the exceptions.
So saying "I" have to deal with it while you just get to propose big
govenrment "solutions" that you then say don't need to be "perfect" is a
double standard. I have to propose perfection and make it work while
you just worship at the big government altar.
The biggest exercise of power that's legal
in our society is that of employer over employee, which is why I
oppose the capitalist system in its current form.
I call bullshit. You can argue with your over your paycheck and walk
away and go to a new one. I've done it before.
Perhaps you have. But this seriously underestimates the
difficulty of finding a new job for most people.
Specious claim. "Most people". 51%? Really?
Probably. However, it might be easier---if a bit more economically
upsetting, if 51% of people left at once. Then they could just play
musical chairs. The reality now seems to be that if you leave
a job after 10 to 20 years in the work force, you can only find
a job with less pay and benefits. Company profits are up more
than employment. For the company this is 'productivity'. For
the unemployed, it means its tough to find a job that pays what
the old one did.
Companies let people go for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do
In this particular economy, it is a lot harder to find work but even
then, the current unemployment that Obama has kept under 8% with a
trillion dollar stimulus (oh, wait, that's right, he didn't) anyways,
it's still at 10%. Not 51%.
In fact, if it
really were that easy, no one would be afraid of getting fired,
while how people actually behave at work shows dramatically
People are afraid of getting fired because it makes it harder to find a
new job with conditions as good as their old ones since that goes on
their employment record.
with the workers' performance. I suppose this may devolve into
an argument about the differences between 'quit', 'laid off' and
In any case, that's apples and oranges since leaving a position one
dislikes and going to a new one is quite common and, again, you know
What is 'quite common'. Is is the reason for 51% of people leaving
On the other hand, try
to stop paying your taxes and go to a new government without leaving the
The problem here is not that it would require leaving the
country (that's only natural) but that legal restrictions
prevent us from doing so freely.
Indeed! Not necessary by the capitalists here but rather the socialist
countries that have unionized workplaces with 10 year waiting lists for
cronies that the young in those countries wait until their 30's to land.
This is why leftists I argue with who proclaim how stupid the USA is
compared to western Europe claim "Well, I LOVE the USA! So there!"
Translation: They are insecure about being unable to leave the USA due
to their own lack of ability AND not being welcome in their beloved
utopia and don't want to admit it.
Unlike them, I'm MAN enough to be honest and say that if I could land a
high paying job in Poland I would be there in a minute. While I
disagree with many government policies there, I truly do like the place
at a cultural level.
What would you consider "high-paying"? Would you move there for the
same salary you get in the US? Could you live there for less?
If you found that job, would your wife be happy with the transition?
There are many
ways to ameliorate that other than abolishing private business
Indeed. As the former USSR learned the hard way, it's rather hard to
keep a socialist economy going without wealthy businessmen and
corporations to tax. :-)
This is not why the USSR failed.
Yeah, right. :-)
Unsupported claim. Or as Andre would put it: Claim unsupported. Proof
A fully nationalised economy
doesn't need any taxation, anyway.
In the former USSR, there were taxes paid by residents who sold their
personal homes and apartments.
What I meant is that there
are ways to give more power to employees without moving to such
an economy (which arguably doesn't actually give more power to
workers, anyway). Obviously, the guaranteed income is one of
those, which is why I titled my first post about it 'Help end
wage-slavery'; it is not, though, the only one I can think of.
This is already largely the case in western Europe and it is evolving
more quickly to our Detroit inner city welfare state than the USA is
evolving into 1980's Sweden.
And so are many silly things. What my point was is that given
human nature, perfect capitalism is no more possible than
Except that capitalism neither promises perfection nor depends upon it.
Neither capitalism nor socialism does in practice.
Weasel. Socialists criticize capitalism based upon it's shortcomings
and inperfections and claim that capitalists are evil and heartless for
failing to ensure perfect fairness and elimination of poverty.
Yet, the fact is that in the multi-ethnic United States with high
immigration rates, socialist welfare solutions haven't worked. As
immigration continues in Western Europe, it is readily apparent it isn't
working there either!
Define "hasn't worked" and "readily apparent". If it hasn't worked
in the US and isn't working in Western Europe, why do people want to
move to those places? Could it be because less socialist countries are
even less appealing?
_philosophical argument_ for capitalism does depend on the
assumption of perfection for the free market,
Strawman. It doesn't. Show otherwise please.
whereas that for
socialism does not require perfection by the government, only
that it can do a better job of protecting social welfare than
the free market - which isn't hard.
As evidenced by the welfare state and high spending on public "single
payer" education in the USA.
Now you're mixing apples and oranges. Cuba certaily has single-payer
educational system, yet their high school graduation rate is better
than that of the US.
"Cuba?s high school graduation rate also bests that of the United States
at 99.1 percent, according to UNESCO. The U.S. graduation rate is around
73 percent now, and in some predominantly black school districts such as
Detroit, the graduation rate is a dismal 25 percent."
It seems that it is not who pays for the education that counts, but the
value the society places on that education.
Now you're just making balderdash. Certainly, it would appear to be
that way because a noble dictator in theory will act better than a free
market but that could also be used to undermine faith in democracy
- Re: Socialism is so gay.
- From: PolishKnight
- Re: Socialism is so gay.
- Prev by Date: Re: Socialism is so gay.
- Next by Date: Re: Wait Til The Teabaggers Vaporize Your 401K
- Previous by thread: Re: Socialism is so gay.
- Next by thread: Re: SIXTEEN YEARS IN A ROW...Carolyn Jean Fairman goes hungry AGAIN! SIXTEEN YEARS IN A ROW!