For anyone in the "socialism bad" chanting group

[Zork]

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

I don't need examples

then why did you ask for examples?

 

42 minutes ago, Apech said:

There is no socialism practiced in the US - although there are socialists.  High taxation is not socialism.

You mean besides Food coupons, unemployment benefits, government bailout programs for banks, the antitrust legislation, US post belonging to the state, agricultural subsidies and subsidies in general. No I can't think of any!

And i m not american. I would have more examples had i been.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Zork
additions

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, Zork said:

then why did you ask for examples?

 

You mean besides Food coupons, unemployment benefits, government bailout programs for banks, the antitrust legislation, US post belonging to the state, agricultural subsidies and subsidies in general. No I can't think of any!

And i m not american. I would have more examples had i been.

  

I asked not because I need them but because I was interested in which countries you were thinking about.

 

I'll give you US Post as state owned - but the rest is not socialism it is social policy - socialism means the common ownership of the means of production.  

[Owledge]

35 minutes ago, Apech said:

  

I asked not because I need them but because I was interested in which countries you were thinking about.

 

I'll give you US Post as state owned - but the rest is not socialism it is social policy - socialism means the common ownership of the means of production.  

Well, duh, why do you think social, society and socialism sound so strikingly similar?

At the root, capitalism means material possession (in the form of money but not exclusively) rules and socialism means the well-being of people rules. And somehow this no-brainer choice is still too difficult.

A group of people with zero socialism at work is not a society, but a jungle.

 

And I'm still waiting on some commentary on the video(s) this thread is all about. It seems like people haven't even given them a try.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Owledge

[Zork]

50 minutes ago, Apech said:

  

I asked not because I need them but because I was interested in which countries you were thinking about.

 

I'll give you US Post as state owned - but the rest is not socialism it is social policy - socialism means the common ownership of the means of production.  

If you bother to watch the movie "Too big to fail" at some point a guy high up in government is having an emergency meeting with bank representatives about the events of 2008 banking crisis and he says explicitly "Please don't tell me that we are talking about bank bailouts because this is socialism and i have been fighting socialism all my life".

 

All the examples i have given you signify that the US economy is not laissez-faire capitalism but has a healthy dose of socialism in its policies. In fact i do not know any example of a country that employs pure capitalism. As i said before, Americans can't tell what is socialism and what isn't because the term has been interchangeably used, in the USA, with communism. 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

Not technically.

 

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Has this happened in the USA?

 

 

It's headed in that direction.  That's why it needs to be stopped now, before it becomes a bigger problem.

 

So you want me to call it social welfare?  Same thing.

 

And don't be getting too technical with me.  I'm a common man.  Use common words.  Hehehe.

 

 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Owledge said:

The argument in the USA is always the same worn-out libertarian platitude:  Big government becomes oppressive, so put all power in the market.

Well, that's how America became Great.  We have had leaders who have been taking directions from the New World Order.  We need to stop that so we can "Make America Great Again."

 

[Owledge]

31 minutes ago, Zork said:

If you bother to watch the movie "Too big to fail" at some point a guy high up in government is having an emergency meeting with bank representatives about the events of 2008 banking crisis and he says explicitly "Please don't tell me that we are talking about bank bailouts because this is socialism and i have been fighting socialism all my life".

 

All the examples i have given you signify that the US economy is not laissez-faire capitalism but has a healthy dose of socialism in its policies. In fact i do not know any example of a country that employs pure capitalism. As i said before, Americans can't tell what is socialism and what isn't because the term has been interchangeably used, in the USA, with communism. 

those bank bailouts were of course not socialism, underlining your claim that people like that have no clue about it.

The bailouts were a bribery by banks having too much control over the system. Having them fail would have been socialist, because  then the government would have decided to let them play their capitalist game not to the detriment of social interests. Various measures can be imagined, but the government bending over for the banksters is certainly not socialist. The government taking ownership of those banks, now that sounds a bit more in the right direction. Holding them accoundable for antisocial activities. In socialism a business is expected to comply to the original idea that capitalists love to put forward when it's not reality: serving a social function.

Venezuela for example has been very forgiving towards criminals like that, but not been bending over. As is shown in the video. That's the right way.

[Marblehead]

35 minutes ago, Owledge said:

those bank bailouts were of course not socialism

See?  I get to agree with you on occasion.

 

 

 

(The occasion being when you are correct.  Hehehe.)

 

[joeblast]

2 hours ago, Zork said:

then why did you ask for examples?

 

You mean besides Food coupons, unemployment benefits, government bailout programs for banks, the antitrust legislation, US post belonging to the state, agricultural subsidies and subsidies in general. No I can't think of any!

And i m not american. I would have more examples had i been.

pentagon LifeLog project +zuckface = "he came up wit it in his garage/dorm room!" lmao get real

 

Google's roots are "US Gov" (I use quotations because rogue operations that spawn government corporations are illegitimate)

 

how many corporations have been created by "the us gov"

 

it is nothing BUT a network of shell corporations

39 minutes ago, Owledge said:

those bank bailouts were of course not socialism, underlining your claim that people like that have no clue about it.

The bailouts were a bribery by banks having too much control over the system. Having them fail would have been socialist, because  then the government would have decided to let them play their capitalist game not to the detriment of social interests. Various measures can be imagined, but the government bending over for the banksters is certainly not socialist. The government taking ownership of those banks, now that sounds a bit more in the right direction. Holding them accoundable for antisocial activities. In socialism a business is expected to comply to the original idea that capitalists love to put forward when it's not reality: serving a social function.

Venezuela for example has been very forgiving towards criminals like that, but not been bending over. As is shown in the video. That's the right way.

it has been the other way around for a damned long time

 

the 1800s were a nonstop relentless attack on the sovereignty of the usa, its laws, its constitution

 

the 1900s then became a nonstop relentless attack on its people...and the people of the rest of the world, too

[joeblast]

and come to think of it,

 

the covert attacks of the 1900s gave way to overt attacks against the people of the world in the 2000s in a more sinister way.  they know nobody's going to fall for WW1 or WW2 again, despite their tries to get it movin

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

8 hours ago, Owledge said:

Saying that capitalism is good unless it corrupts is like saying firearms are good as long as they're not hurting anyone.

 

I don't recall ever saying this. Obviously corruption is bad. All societies need to be vigilant against it. That said, where is there more opportunity for corruption to hide: in the free market or in large government?

[rideforever]

People argue about things .... but they are not the things that are at the root.
What is at the root ?
What is my field of opportunity ?

[Owledge]

12 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I don't recall ever saying this. Obviously corruption is bad. All societies need to be vigilant against it. That said, where is there more opportunity for corruption to hide: in the free market or in large government?

Corruption has opportunities to hide anywhere.

And you, too, made the flawed association of free market = capitalism and big government = socialism.

[Owledge]

14 minutes ago, rideforever said:

People argue about things .... but they are not the things that are at the root.
What is at the root ?
What is my field of opportunity ?

At the root of all 'evil' is fear.

We can never fully get rid of it or this realm would not exist. But the pursuit of ridding oneself of it is most worthwhile, albeit potentially perilous when not shared among peers.

It's not about reaching a goal, but about making the journey more pleasant.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Owledge

[Lost in Translation]

4 minutes ago, Owledge said:

Corruption has opportunities to hide anywhere.

And you, too, made the flawed association of free market = capitalism and big government = socialism.

 

You are correct. Capitalism is an economic system whereas socialism is a government system.

[Owledge]

5 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

You are correct. Capitalism is an economic system whereas socialism is a government system.

Not even that. They are both ideas of how to organize social conduct. They can be applied to economies and governments.

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, Owledge said:

Corruption has opportunities to hide anywhere.

 

It's good to talk about corruption. Since it can hide anywhere it makes sense to keep governments small and decentralized to minimize the damage government corruption can cause.

[Owledge]

16 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

It's good to talk about corruption. Since it can hide anywhere it makes sense to keep governments small and decentralized to minimize the damage government corruption can cause.

That's still not getting to the core. A big government can be just as unappealing to corrupting forces than a small government if the big government is under tight control by the People. Small government is a defeatist attitude in that regards. And as I tried to convey, corruption is not a systemic thing. It's a personal thing. Any single person, wherever they are, can act selfishly to the detriment of the common good. And no system can solve this problem because systems emerge naturally from the People. Work on the people is the most important, the crucial and unavoidable activity for a better future. This is why spiritual care is needed for a healthy society. Promotion and cultivation of love, if you will.

 

I see some very interesting, potentially enlightened (I say potentially because there might be pragmatic necessity in the mix) approaches from Russia and Venezuela. Not even putting people guilty of treason in prison, but realizing that the country is strong enough to not give them power and if they keep trying they are only sabotaging themselves further, is very risky and requires additional sacrifice, but it is an attempt to not play into the hands of the core driving force - fear. It's not personal, but always seeing fear as an actor, and also kinda conveying equality for a country's citizens, even if they 'went astray'.

 

Russia is applying a strong peace-promoting stance, too, almost infuriatingly so sometimes. But there are higher virtues than justice or mere righteousness, and some countries have understood that and the power in it. Look at how Russia reacts to the land disappropriation of Boers in South Africa. Not as a righteous crusader like the USA would pretend to be, but by inviting them and their agricultural know-how to move to Russia, thereby not feeding the tensions that may be to some degree understandable. (For once, the situation is the other way round, not colonial invaders reaping all the benefits.) Now South Africa carries all the responsibility for making something good out of that, and they won't have to struggle with an ugly conflict that could potentially serve as some kind of excuse. (Although the USA will likely intervene as soon as their approach shows to be working. The USA just can't allow a good example for the world, and they have already established their drone assault base in the center of the continent.)

Edited August 7, 2018 by Owledge

[idquest]

The key difference between democratic capitalism and socialism is that capitalist systems have checks and balances built into them. By itself, capitalism is as bad as any human society taken over by thugs on the top. But in democratic capitalism those thugs are watched by other groups of thugs who want their share of the pie and this creates balance.

 

In socialism though, all dissent is ruthlessly destroyed. That means that thugs in power don't have any checks and balances and they rule until they are destroyed by powerful economic realities.

 

Talking about intelligent society is just utopia in its clearest form. There is exactly zero chance of such utopia to be realised in real human society. Examples are abundant.

 

The success of USA democracy is because of two things, in my view. First - there were checks and balances built into the system from the very beginning. Second - nations that formed that society (ango-saxons, irish, scottish, and later from other parts of Europe) had sufficient political culture to fully adopt these values in their society. This is one of the reason why USA-made type of society does not work in other countries - peoples are just different out there and they just need different social systems.

[Lost in Translation]

In capitalism, a business succeeds by providing a good or service that people want at an affordable price. It is the definition of win-win. It's only when the market stops being free due to government influence that problems get out of hand. Ask yourself why do illegal black markets form?

[Aetherous]

10 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

In capitalism, a business succeeds by providing a good or service that people want at an affordable price. It is the definition of win-win. It's only when the market stops being free due to government influence that problems get out of hand.

 

Well, that's not the only time. If there were zero government, problems would certainly get out of hand. A free market has no concern for society or even individuals...it's only win-win in terms of the business and the customer who buys there. Some people like Libertarians think a free market is self regulating, and would improve society...for instance because customers would want an improved society and put their money toward it...but there's zero evidence that would occur, and if you give it some thought, the opposite would most likely happen - gradual destruction of society. I think the solution is just a tight rope walk that the government does between benefiting society in the midst of a relatively free market, and not infringing too much into it.

[Lost in Translation]

5 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

if you give it some thought, the opposite would most likely happen - gradual destruction of society.

 

I hear you but I disagree. A powerful and 'evil' business has control over only that area of your life where you let it. The people can regulate a misbehaving business' behavior with their wallets. A power and 'evil' (corrupt) government can arrest you at gunpoint, tax you into submission, fine you into poverty, lock you away in prison and kill you. It is for this reason that governments should remain small, and stay out of business unless absolutely necessary to safeguard the people's well being (an ill-defined, slippery slope)

 

( Yes, I'm being a little bit melodramatic, but only a little bit. )

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, Owledge said:

I see some very interesting, potentially enlightened (I say potentially because there might be pragmatic necessity in the mix) approaches from Russia and Venezuela.

 

Since you mention Venezuela...

 

Quote

IMF projects Venezuela inflation will hit 1,000,000 percent in 2018

 

(Reuters) - Venezuela’s inflation rate is likely to top 1,000,000 percent in 2018, an International Monetary Fund official wrote on Monday, putting it on track to become one of the worst hyperinflationary crises in modern history.

 

1,000,000 percent means that an item that cost 1€ on January 1st will likely cost 10,000€ on December 31st. This is what you get when the government tries to control something that they have no capacity to control.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-economy/imf-projects-venezuela-inflation-will-hit-1000000-percent-in-2018-idUSKBN1KD2L9

[Aetherous]

45 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

The people can regulate a misbehaving business' behavior with their wallets.

 

Most of the time this doesn't happen.

 

People buy primarily out of self interest...not just in terms of what they're buying, but also how cheap it is. Self interest isn't always in the interests of the larger society, or other people in it. Not just with consumers, but with producers...they look to get the best profit from their service, and to not lose those profits to wages.

I don't think capitalism is bad, or that business is evil...I'm a capitalist who believes in business of any size.

I just think the free market won't ever consider those who don't directly benefit it, and they won't see the repercussions of the lack of consideration. A government is needed, for instance, to set up unemployment insurance in case workers lose their jobs, food stamps in case local jobs aren't paying enough to survive, etc...so that these people can contribute to businesses (even if they didn't earn that money themselves, like with food stamps) and not ruin the areas these businesses operate in (like laying in the street, begging, annoying shoppers).

For instance, what business wants to move to the poverty stricken areas of Detroit? There's no prosperity there, so it becomes basically a wasteland that everyone moves away from. How is that good for business?

[joeblast]

7 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

For instance, what business wants to move to the poverty stricken areas of Detroit? There's no prosperity there, so it becomes basically a wasteland that everyone moves away from. How is that good for business?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-07/stealth-mortgage-your-house-reality-looming-pension-crisis

 

Quote

On average nationwide, unfunded state and local pension burdens represent 20% of real-estate values. This ratio can rival or exceed an owner’s home equity, depending on the size of his mortgage. If real-estate prices adjust to reflect unfunded pension obligations, many homeowners’ equity could be at risk. As we’ve seen in Detroit, the public pension stealth mortgage can ultimately devastate the housing market.

that said, there's money to be made when corrections happen

Edited August 7, 2018 by joeblast