I think socialism is bad. It screwed Venezuela over.
Socialism
Posts
Total:
28
-->
@Pinkfreud08
We can discuss socialism on this fourm if you want. I don't have the time for a debate, but I might have the time for a fourm if you are interested.
-->
@Alec
Alright well what's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
And what's your stance on the redistribution of wealth?
Position on universal healthcare? I don't ask about universal education since there aren't enough clear statistics on it.
The point I'll try to get at is that if you're a conservative your interests would be better enacted by a more socialist economy than a capitalist economy.
-->
@Alec
Venezuela I wouldn't count as socialist, it really lies more in a fascist ideology than a socialist ideology.
You may point to countries such as the Soviet Union and Venezuela however you have Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, United Kindom, and Australia.
These are countries with very robust economies with high levels of socialization.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Alright well what's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit shows my ideal requirements for coming into the US. A right winger approved of the list generally as well as a liberal teacher and an illegal/undocumented immigrant.
And what's your stance on the redistribution of wealth?
The rich generally earned their wealth so they should be allowed to keep what they earn.
Position on universal healthcare?
I'm fine with this since it's cheaper in taxes then private healthcare is in premiums. It will be expensive to do though (about $2 trillion per year I've heard)
Venezuela I wouldn't count as socialist, it really lies more in a fascist ideology than a socialist ideology.
Doesn't fascism in Venezuela's case come from socialism? There were politicians that accused Venezuela of being too capitalist and the people decided to make the country socialist. Latin America is generally historically left wing on policy, except for abortion. America is right wing.
You may point to countries such as the Soviet Union and Venezuela however you have Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, United Kindom, and Australia.
All countries with a lower GDP per capita then the USA, except for Norway, but they have an oil advantage. This is including the fact that Europe tends to be more urban then America.
Economics forum....
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sorry about that.
-->
@Alec
It's fine, just I don't want the only peaceful forum to be over-run with politics and economics.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you know how to drag this forum into Economics or Politics?
-->
@Alec
Ask the mods
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
Do you guys know how to move this thread to Economics or Politics?
-->
@Alec
Done.
-->
@Alec
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEO-QIEwB1LmUlH1haJh3n495fqmxXAQ1Phrlj3YKf0/edit shows my ideal requirements for coming into the US. A right winger approved of the list generally as well as a liberal teacher and an illegal/undocumented immigrant.
Alright, so it seems we both agree that we need to look after the interests of our country over other countries/economic nationalism.
Ok, I agree with you so let me ask you a question.
Why are you supporting capitalism when it's in the economic self-interest of corporations to allow illegal immigration and mass immigration since they believe it will shrink the native wages and thus increase their profits?
If you are a conservative concerned with illegal immigration you won't get immigration reform by shilling for the capitalists, the capitalists aren't economic nationalists.
If you're so concerned with the working class and illegal immigration your interests would lie more socialized policies such as a 15 $ minimum wage which would disincentivize mass immigration and more border security through the redistribution of wealth.
The rich generally earned their wealth so they should be allowed to keep what they earn.
Ok so then are you completely against taxes because from what it sounds like you're an anarchist.
I'm fine with this since it's cheaper in taxes then private healthcare is in premiums. It will be expensive to do though (about $2 trillion per year I've heard)
Ok good, we agree on that, however similar to immigration you do understand that you won't get socialized healthcare under a pure capitalist system since it's in the economic self-interest of pharmaceutical companies to push against socialized medicine.
Doesn't fascism in Venezuela's case come from socialism? There were politicians that accused Venezuela of being too capitalist and the people decided to make the country socialist. Latin America is generally historically left wing on policy, except for abortion. America is right wing.
Fascism is associated with the right wing and not the left wing.
Venezuela does have some socialist policies however it lies more in fascism than socialism and isn't representative of socialist countries.
All countries with a lower GDP per capita then the USA, except for Norway, but they have an oil advantage. This is including the fact that Europe tends to be more urban then America.
Firstly, there are more countries with heavy socialization with higher GDP's per capita than just Norway. Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, Luxembourg, and Ireland.
Secondly, socialism comes at a small cost of economic efficiency.
Economic efficiency isn't the only thing that matters, what about healthcare, wealth inequality, and education? All of which the US is falling behind in.
The fact that there are successful countries with great healthcare and education and less wealth inequality with great economies shows that higher levels of socialism can provide a great economy with good distribution.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Why are you supporting capitalism when it's in the economic self-interest of corporations to allow illegal immigration and mass immigration since they believe it will shrink the native wages and thus increase their profits?
I support mass immigration. More people means a higher GDP so we stay ahead of China. What I don't want is illegal immigration. I support making the process easier though so more people come here, increasing America's GDP and keeping us ahead of China. Since urban areas tend to be wealthy, more people means more urbanization and a higher GDP per capita. Capitalism helps increase our GDP per capita and our GDP compared to socialist countries. The US has a higher GDP per capita then almost every European country.
If you are a conservative concerned with illegal immigration you won't get immigration reform by shilling for the capitalists, the capitalists aren't economic nationalists.
I'm a conservative more concerned about the economy then illegal immigration. Illegals ought to follow a process to get here. They ought to fulfill all the requirements on the document I showed you in the link.
Ok so then are you completely against taxes because from what it sounds like you're an anarchist.
We need some taxes, but the taxes should be just a sales tax and some sin taxes. I think the income tax ought to be abolished and replaced with the sales tax.
you do understand that you won't get socialized healthcare under a pure capitalist system since it's in the economic self-interest of pharmaceutical companies to push against socialized medicine.
I guess. Healthcare is just one aspect of it though. Socialism is when everyone gets paid the same wage. Under a socialist system, the minimum wage and the maximum wage in America would be about $60,000 per year, even for CEOs. This discourages people from taking on hard, productive jobs to society.
Firstly, there are more countries with heavy socialization with higher GDP's per capita than just Norway. Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, Luxembourg, and Ireland.
Like who? Ireland is right wing BTW.
what about healthcare, wealth inequality, and education?
Healthcare can be socialized. However, wealth inequality is fine. Those with higher then average GDP per capitas earned their wealth. The poor ought to emulate the rich rather then want what they have without earning it. They should get productive obs and invest the money.
As for education, would you rather be a plumber or a teacher? One of them isin't educated, but they're rich. The other is educated, but not rich. I would say being a plumber is better for the individual because they get more money without having to go through college.
The fact that there are successful countries with great healthcare and education and less wealth inequality with great economies shows that higher levels of socialism can provide a great economy with good distribution.
None of these countries are socialist, otherwise there would be no especially rich or poor people relatively.
-->
@Alec
" Capitalism helps increase our GDP per capita and our GDP compared to socialist countries. The US has a higher GDP per capita than almost every European country."
- This is changing, China is steadily catching up to the US which is a more socialized economy.
Not to mention other socialist countries which I mentioned which have high levels of socialization with higher GDPs per capita.
And again why are you supporting the capitalists who have been supporting illegal immigration since they believe it will shrink wages thus increasing their profits.
" I'm a conservative more concerned about the economy then illegal immigration. Illegals ought to follow a process to get here. They ought to fulfill all the requirements on the document I showed you in the link.
Capitalists, don't care about your immigration reform.
Their interests are opposing your own, capitalists are supporting mass illegal immigration regardless of who these people are as they believe it will shrink native wages.
We need some taxes, but the taxes should be just a sales tax and some sin taxes. I think the income tax ought to be abolished and replaced with the sales tax.
Ok so why are sales and sin taxes ok but income taxes aren't?
If you want to fund services such as the military and healthcare, you won't be able to fun these programs effectively without an efficient tax.
. Socialism is when everyone gets paid the same wage. Under a socialist system, the minimum wage and the maximum wage in America would be about $60,000 per year, even for CEOs. This discourages people from taking on hard, productive jobs to society.
Well, perhaps we should define socialism because I assumed we were using the definition in the debate description.
Are you 100 % capitalist ( which it seems you are ) or are you in favor of a mixed market?
Like who? Ireland is right wing BTW.
I just mentioned other countries such as Switzerland and Singapore with heavy socialization that have higher GDP per capitas.
How is Ireland right wing?
They have socialized Healthcare and education.
However, wealth inequality is fine. Those with higher then average GDP per capitas earned their wealth.
Interesting so you believe they earned their riches.
Do you have any evidence of this, because this is common sense?
Who do you believe is more likely to become rich?
Bob a boy who grew up in a rich family, had access to a wealthy private school, never had to hold a part-time job in college, and had a healthy household,
Or Bobby who grew up in a poor family had access to an underfunded public school, had to hold a part-time job in college and could barely afford college, and had an unhealthy household without a father.
Which person do you believe is more likely to be successful?
Inequality matters too because if you have a society where there's a vast amount of wealth inequality with a shrinking middle class, you'll have an upper-class who secures the political system in their interests rather than the interests of the people.
As for education, would you rather be a plumber or a teacher? One of them isin't educated, but they're rich. The other is educated, but not rich. I would say being a plumber is better for the individual because they get more money without having to go through college.
Ok, how so? What about the benefits teachers get such as pensions and healthcare benefits?
Also, this analogy fails since a good chunk of plumbers go to trade school.
None of these countries are socialist, otherwise there would be no especially rich or poor people relatively.
Note how I mentioned higher levels.
I am not advocating for a complete socialist revolution where we eliminate the class system, I simply believe we need higher levels of socialization as seen in European countries to ensure we have a proper distribution of resources and wealth.
Whether it be with provided housing, socialized healthcare, redistribution of resources IE food and water, and socialized education.
I think the first problem is defining what "socialism" is.
Is Sanders's/AOC's social democracy a form of socialism?
Is complete state ownership over the means of production socialism? What about organizing the entire economy into cooperatives? What about a mixed economy with 51% state-owned enterprises? What about libertarian socialism?
-->
@Pinkfreud08
What do you mean by "socialization"?You may point to countries such as the Soviet Union and Venezuela however you have Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, United Kindom, and Australia.These are countries with very robust economies with high levels of socialization.
Certainly, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, and Germany are dominated by the private sector. And while Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have large state-owned enterprises, powerful unions, and a welfare state, they also have relatively free markets.
-->
@Tejretics
What do you mean by "socialization"?
More socialistic policies whether it be to enact a minimum wage, socialized healthcare, or socialized education.
Certainly, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, and Germany are dominated by the private sector.
Ok, elaborate these countries have higher levels of socialization with socialized medicine, education, powerful unions, minimum wages, regulation, and the redistribution of wealth.
-->
@Tejretics
This is my definition of socialism.
I personally am not in favor of a 100 % socialist system just 70 % socialist and 30 % capitalist.
Not against the abolition of ALL private property however just some like medical services and education.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
More socialistic policies whether it be to enact a minimum wage, socialized healthcare, or socialized education.
Most academics would consider that “social democracy,” not “socialism,” and even then, only when coupled with strong unions.
The US has a minimum wage. So it already meets one of those three criteria.
Ok, elaborate these countries have higher levels of socialization with socialized medicine, education, powerful unions, minimum wages, regulation, and the redistribution of wealth.
Switzerland doesn’t have socialized medicine—all health insurance is private (i.e., there’s no state-run insurance—even the US has a more socialized system in that respect than Switzerland), but signing up for health insurance is mandatory. K–12 education in Switzerland, as far as the level of state ownership goes, isn’t that different than the United States. I’m not in the mood to go through each of these countries, but a lot of this still applies. For example, the Nordic countries don’t have higher “regulation.” As another example, the UK doesn’t have “socialized education”—just like America, it has public and private universities. Even Oxbridge are private universities.
“Socialized” means predominantly owned and operated by the government. But I would contend that unless industry, to a significant degree, is owned and operated by the government—and not just goods that have positive externalities that need to be internalized and treated as public goods—it’s not a socialist state. The Nordic countries meet that criterion, but they have sufficiently free markets that I’d say they’re not socialistic.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Virtually every modern state redistributes wealth.
Even a 10 percent flat tax would tax the rich more and the poor less in absolute quantity, and some of that money would be spent on services used by the poor. That’s clearly not a sufficient standard. The question is the level of redistribution.
-->
@Tejretics
Most academics would consider that “social democracy,” not “socialism,” and even then, only when coupled with strong unions.The US has a minimum wage. So it already meets one of those three criteria.
Firstly, social democracies and socialism are essentially the same concepts just worded differently.
A social democracy according to Britannica.com a social democracy is defined as,
Social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism
Therefore from this, we can assume a social democracy is essentially a mixed market economy with gradually higher levels of socialization which is what I'm advocating for.
Secondly, the US does have a minimum wage which is one of the factors that make it a mixed market.
However, the US doesn't have a high enough minimum wage to protect native wages in some states.
Also, I am not exactly in favor of a national minimum wage, the ultimate goal is to be like the Scandinavian model and have very powerful unions so that they have more room to bargain with the capital owners.
Granted this will take a long time so for now I'm in favor of a national minimum wage until unions become more powerful and frequent.
Switzerland doesn’t have socialized medicine—all health insurance is private (i.e., there’s no state-run insurance—even the US has a more socialized system in that respect than Switzerland), but signing up for health insurance is mandatory. K–12 education in Switzerland, as far as the level of state ownership goes, isn’t that different than the United States.
You can argue that this is a form of socialized medicine since it guarantees healthcare for all on a government regulation level.
Even if we brush aside Switzerland there are still many more countries such as Norway, Spain, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, and the united kingdom with successful socialized medicine.
For example, the Nordic countries don’t have higher “regulation.”
They have state-run medicine which is a form of regulation since you're preventing private insurers from letting people die and charging 4,000 dollars for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make, and preventing capita owners from exploiting workers.
You also have Nordic Countries such as Denmark and more socialized countries such as Singapore which rank higher in terms of regulatory efficiency than the US.
As another example, the UK doesn’t have “socialized education”—just like America, it has public and private universities. Even Oxbridge are private universities.
Socialized is still socialized.
Even if you brush aside the United Kingdom what about Norway, Denmark, and especially Finland which is ranked as the highest and most successful education system in the world?
Socialized” means predominantly owned and operated by the government. But I would contend that unless industry, to a significant degree, is owned and operated by the government—and not just goods that have positive externalities that need to be internalized and treated as public goods—it’s not a socialist
From the definition I cited which I assume you agree with considering you've had no objections, these countries do meet the criteria.
Besides I am not calling these countries 100 % socialist, just social democracies with mixed markets favoring higher levels of socialization.
-->
@Pinkfreud08
A place for everyone and everyone in their place.
Otherwise who's going to do all the donkey work.
Which is better the carrot or the stick?
What is the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist? As I understand the former perceives injustice and is inclined to use government intervention to regulate imperative aspects of the economy within a liberal capitalist framework. A democratic socialist views social democracy as a means to an end of transitioning from capitalism.
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok, you do understand that I am advocating for a social democracy right?
Which is a mixture between capitalism and socialism favoring socialism.
We'd be providing the basic necessities for survival such as socialized medicine, education, and redistribution of resources.
Eventually, with the rise of AI intelligence, more and more people are unable to work which is why at some point we'll transition to a fully socialist system with seizing the means of production and universal basic income.
-->
@Snoopy
Pretty sure that's the definition.
Social democrats are in favor of a mixture while democratic socialists as you said see a slow transition from capitalism to socialism which is what I'm advocating for.
Personally, I believe that's one ( of the many ) reasons why communist revolutions failed, a radical change such as communism can't just happen that quickly overnight, it needs time.
-->
@Alec
Try comparing the bottom half, or even the bottom two thirds of the U.S. per capita income to those other countries you mentioned.Capitalism helps increase our GDP per capita and our GDP compared to socialist countries. The US has a higher GDP per capita then almost every European country.
Saying the U.S. has "the best per capita income" is extremely deceptive if you're mixing minimum wage workers with billionaires and then calculating an average.
7 days later
-->
@3RU7AL
LINK Fullers Old Man River design allow for those who felt like socializing to go to inside part of the crater and with binoculars and if the people their looking for are out there, there is good chance you can visually see them and their specific local enviroment ex you could tell them that there is man with a gun or knife 30 ft to their left.Saying the U.S. has "the best per capita income" is extremely deceptive if you're mixing minimum wage workers with billionaires and then calculating an average
If were not feeling social we can go to our dwelling on outside of crater and see outward as far as the eye can see with any interaction with others.
Socialization { extroverted } takes place inside the crater.
Anti-socialization { introverted } takes place on outside of the crater.