Socialism defined...

2008-02-20 04:43:34

#101

PureFodder: Member; +225|6276

FEOS wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
FEOS wrote:
No. We believe that government-mandated wealth redistribution is socialist and anathema to the foundations of American life.
Using taxes to cover the needs of poor people is not wealth redistribution. Improving the conditions in which your fellow countrymen live is improving yours. That's not Communism or Socialism as you conceive Socialism. That's having a social network. If you help a poor family to send their kids to school and Uni you'll get qualified people, if you don't you'll get more people depending on Social security.
Which is why the US has a fairly robust higher education grant and loan program, along with scholarships offered privately and through the universities themselves.

Providing for those who are UNABLE to provide for themselves is one thing...providing for those who DO NOT provide for themselves (wealth redistribution) is quite another.

The US system seems overly happy to provide wealth distribution the other way round. there's a big difference between corporate welfare and social welfare, when a person gets a job, they no longer gets the welfare cheque, when a company makes huge profits, they still get it.

Wealth distribution in all countries goes up not down, the so called socialist countries merely lessen it.

2008-02-20 07:01:07

#102

Dersmikner: Member; +147|6489|Texas

Any of you who haven't read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand should go to the book store, buy it, REALLY soak it in, and come back and tell the old men with jobs what you think.

Better yet, here's socialism for you: If you REALLY want to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, a classic 1,000+ page book about capitalism, socialism, and the ill effects of cry-baby do-gooders, and you seriously can't afford it, email me at bobwheeler @ [spamstop] mail.com with your mailing address, and I'll send the first ten of you a copy free. I'll actually go to the bookstore, buy a copy, and mail it to you.

If it doesn't make you want to get up in the morning and be the best you can be, you're a lost cause and there's nothing I can do for you.

2008-02-20 07:29:18

#103

PureFodder: Member; +225|6276

Dersmikner wrote:
Any of you who haven't read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand should go to the book store, buy it, REALLY soak it in, and come back and tell the old men with jobs what you think.

Better yet, here's socialism for you: If you REALLY want to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, a classic 1,000+ page book about capitalism, socialism, and the ill effects of cry-baby do-gooders, and you seriously can't afford it, email me at bobwheeler @ [spamstop] mail.com with your mailing address, and I'll send the first ten of you a copy free. I'll actually go to the bookstore, buy a copy, and mail it to you.

If it doesn't make you want to get up in the morning and be the best you can be, you're a lost cause and there's nothing I can do for you.

Given the choice between a work of philocophical fiction and actual research, evidence and proof on the effect of capitalism and socialism, I'll go with the proof.

2008-02-20 08:09:29

#104

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6546

Dersmikner wrote:
Any of you who haven't read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand should go to the book store, buy it, REALLY soak it in, and come back and tell the old men with jobs what you think.

Better yet, here's socialism for you: If you REALLY want to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, a classic 1,000+ page book about capitalism, socialism, and the ill effects of cry-baby do-gooders, and you seriously can't afford it, email me at bobwheeler @ [spamstop] mail.com with your mailing address, and I'll send the first ten of you a copy free. I'll actually go to the bookstore, buy a copy, and mail it to you.

If it doesn't make you want to get up in the morning and be the best you can be, you're a lost cause and there's nothing I can do for you.

I can see socialism at work successfully in my everyday life. I don't need a fiction novelist-cum-philosopher to tell me about 'the evils of socialism' when I participate in a successful socialist economy. Personal life experience > one particular foreign person's take on life.

Whatsmore the absence of any kind of socialism whatsoever equals little or no roads, police, schools, hospitals, railroads, airports, seaports, telecoms infrastucture, energy infrastructure - in a word, anarchy. One need only look at the likes of post-Soviet collapse Russia and Latin America to see the failure of out-and-out untempered capitalism.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-20 08:22:19)

2008-02-20 09:26:20

#105

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|6820|Grapevine, TX

CameronPoe wrote:
Whatsmore the absence of any kind of socialism whatsoever equals little or no roads, police, schools, hospitals, railroads, airports, seaports, telecoms infrastucture, energy infrastructure - in a word, anarchy. One need only look at the likes of post-Soviet collapse Russia and Latin America to see the failure of out-and-out untempered capitalism.

So why is the United States so successful, compared to your perspective?

2008-02-20 09:29:15

#106

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6438|Chicago, IL

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Whatsmore the absence of any kind of socialism whatsoever equals little or no roads, police, schools, hospitals, railroads, airports, seaports, telecoms infrastucture, energy infrastructure - in a word, anarchy. One need only look at the likes of post-Soviet collapse Russia and Latin America to see the failure of out-and-out untempered capitalism.
So why is the United States so successful, compared to your perspective?

He's saying that roads and infrastructure are typically built using tax money for the good of the community, i.e. a country with no taxes has no ability to maintain itself, and tax money being used for public projects can be interpreted as a socialist idea (although I see it more as an investment)

2008-02-20 09:59:03

#107

PureFodder: Member; +225|6276

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Whatsmore the absence of any kind of socialism whatsoever equals little or no roads, police, schools, hospitals, railroads, airports, seaports, telecoms infrastucture, energy infrastructure - in a word, anarchy. One need only look at the likes of post-Soviet collapse Russia and Latin America to see the failure of out-and-out untempered capitalism.
So why is the United States so successful, compared to your perspective?

America's success depends strongly on who you look at. The top few percent of US society are vastly wealthy. On the other hand, the US has the highest level of child poverty amongst the rich western nations.

2008-02-20 10:15:15

#108

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6546

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
So why is the United States so successful, compared to your perspective?

Newsflash: your system has aspects of socialism too, whether you like that or not. You have heard of taxation haven't you? Public services? Utilities?...

Also, it depends on the measure of success. If success = more billionaires but far more homicide, homelessness, impoverished people and a lower average standard of living then yes, congratulations, you are a success. If success = less billionaires but a guaranteed standard of living that makes for less homicide, less homelessness, less poverty, more holidays and a higher number of educated people, that still maintains all the perks of ruthless capitalism, i.e. iPods, fast cars, widescreen TVs, free speech, food on your table, cheap travel, etc. (just marginally harder to attain) then yes Europe is a success.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080206/us_ … k_euros_dc

Europeans are flying to NYC and Boston in their droves to spend their hard earned cash in the US right now given the weakness of the dollar. I'm going to NYC myself next month and will probably spend one to two thousand while I'm there also. If socialism fails so badly then how can we be rich enough to fly all the way to the US and shop there and still enjoy the luxuries of socialism, such as subsidised healthcare, education, 25 days annual leave and the like...?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-20 10:55:51)

2008-02-20 10:19:53

#109

David.P: Banned; +649|6265

CameronPoe wrote:
(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
So why is the United States so successful, compared to your perspective?
Newsflash: your system has aspects of socialism too, whether you like that or not.

Aspects but not full fledged.

2008-02-20 11:21:43

#110

IG-Calibre: comhalta; +226|6733|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

Dersmikner wrote:
mailing address, and I'll send the first ten of you a copy free. I'll actually go to the bookstore, buy a copy, and mail it to you.

- no need, thanks to socialism we have these things called "Library's" where you can get any book that takes your fancy, have a loan of it and read it at home at your leisure for free! also DVD's, comics, all media infact - they give the use of computers / Internet etc etc..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-02-20 11:22:31)

2008-02-20 11:22:25

#111

apollo_fi: The Flying Kalakukko.; +94|6522|The lunar module

CameronPoe wrote:
Europeans are flying to NYC and Boston in their droves to spend their hard earned cash in the US right now given the weakness of the dollar. I'm going to NYC myself next month and will probably spend one to two thousand while I'm there also. If socialism fails so badly then how can we be rich enough to fly all the way to the US and shop there and still enjoy the luxuries of socialism, such as subsidised healthcare, education, 25 days annual leave and the like...?

Hear, hear. I'm going to Florida in March.

2008-02-20 11:47:36

#112

PureFodder: Member; +225|6276

apollo_fi wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Europeans are flying to NYC and Boston in their droves to spend their hard earned cash in the US right now given the weakness of the dollar. I'm going to NYC myself next month and will probably spend one to two thousand while I'm there also. If socialism fails so badly then how can we be rich enough to fly all the way to the US and shop there and still enjoy the luxuries of socialism, such as subsidised healthcare, education, 25 days annual leave and the like...?
Hear, hear. I'm going to Florida in March.

I'm using my socialism induced povery to fly to New Zealand next month for 4 weeks.

2008-02-20 11:50:46

#113

Master*: Banned; +416|6486|United States

Thats oversimplifying it.

Theres a difference between people doing bad and not wanting to do better and people who are working thier asses off and arent getting anything for thier work. Just look at slavery and segregation in American History.

Last edited by Master* (2008-02-20 11:52:54)

2008-02-20 16:27:15

#114

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

Any functional First World nation needs a coherent blend of socialism and capitalism. Where on that balance is ideal is largely opinion.

2008-02-20 16:29:03

#115

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6801|Nårvei

Turquoise wrote:
Any functional First World nation needs a coherent blend of socialism and capitalism. Where on that balance is ideal is largely opinion.

Or market socialism as we like to call it

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2008-02-20 18:40:43

#116

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Providing for those who are UNABLE to provide for themselves is one thing...providing for those who DO NOT provide for themselves (wealth redistribution) is quite another.
Not providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves because there are some assholes who take advantage of the system is worse IMO.

Read the highlighted part. I'm completely for welfare providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I never said otherwise.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-02-20 18:42:47

#117

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
The US system seems overly happy to provide wealth distribution the other way round. there's a big difference between corporate welfare and social welfare, when a person gets a job, they no longer gets the welfare cheque, when a company makes huge profits, they still get it.

Wealth distribution in all countries goes up not down, the so called socialist countries merely lessen it.

No, the US system is designed around rewarding initiative, hard work, and entrepeneurship. I'm no fan of corporate welfare, but providing reasonable tax incentives to companies that provide jobs to American workers and contribute far more than the amount of the incentives to the US economy is good business.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-02-20 18:58:15

#118

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6623|949

Dersmikner wrote:
Any of you who haven't read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand should go to the book store, buy it, REALLY soak it in, and come back and tell the old men with jobs what you think.

Better yet, here's socialism for you: If you REALLY want to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, a classic 1,000+ page book about capitalism, socialism, and the ill effects of cry-baby do-gooders, and you seriously can't afford it, email me at bobwheeler @ [spamstop] mail.com with your mailing address, and I'll send the first ten of you a copy free. I'll actually go to the bookstore, buy a copy, and mail it to you.

If it doesn't make you want to get up in the morning and be the best you can be, you're a lost cause and there's nothing I can do for you.

Ayn Rand sucks. I dated a girl who's dad was a delusional Ayn Rand fanboi. He basically forced me to read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and random essays by her. I understand the idea of personal responsibily and fully agree. Moral hands-off capitalism is somewhat oxymoronic as capitalism's sole objective is to create profit, which is often at odds with ethics and morals. Sole focus on one's own self-interest is not my cup of tea either.

BTW, Ayn Rand also saw smoking as man's triumph over nature

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-02-20 18:59:14)

2008-02-20 19:35:23

#119

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6763|PNW

IRONCHEF wrote:
+1 for socialism! End corporate greed and class separation!

Did she ask her dad if he's planning on holding on to his social security checks once they started coming? or would he revolt and tear them up since he's so anti-socialist?

I know many anti-socialists who plan to do exactly that.

2008-02-21 01:48:26

#120

PureFodder: Member; +225|6276

FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
The US system seems overly happy to provide wealth distribution the other way round. there's a big difference between corporate welfare and social welfare, when a person gets a job, they no longer gets the welfare cheque, when a company makes huge profits, they still get it.

Wealth distribution in all countries goes up not down, the so called socialist countries merely lessen it.
No, the US system is designed around rewarding initiative, hard work, and entrepeneurship. I'm no fan of corporate welfare, but providing reasonable tax incentives to companies that provide jobs to American workers and contribute far more than the amount of the incentives to the US economy is good business.

Oddly, poor people who work hard don't get a bonus cheque from the government to encourage them to keep working hard, only rich people. If you want to see how fair the US system is, just look at the last 35 years of wages and working hours for the different sections of society.
This is what Bush thinks about rewarding hard work and productivity

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42041000/gif/_42041256_wages_prod_416gr.gif

2008-02-21 02:32:20

#121

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
The US system seems overly happy to provide wealth distribution the other way round. there's a big difference between corporate welfare and social welfare, when a person gets a job, they no longer gets the welfare cheque, when a company makes huge profits, they still get it.

Wealth distribution in all countries goes up not down, the so called socialist countries merely lessen it.
No, the US system is designed around rewarding initiative, hard work, and entrepeneurship. I'm no fan of corporate welfare, but providing reasonable tax incentives to companies that provide jobs to American workers and contribute far more than the amount of the incentives to the US economy is good business.
Oddly, poor people who work hard don't get a bonus cheque from the government to encourage them to keep working hard, only rich people. If you want to see how fair the US system is, just look at the last 35 years of wages and working hours for the different sections of society.
This is what Bush thinks about rewarding hard work and productivity
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … _416gr.gif

Bush has nothing to do with it. It's called a free-market economy. I tend to dismiss graphs as a sole source, as it's fairly simple to make things look much better or worse than they are when you are developing the scale.

"Rich people" don't get "bonus checks" from the government. Companies get tax breaks to keep the company in the US, employing US workers. "Rich people" get rewards for the risks they take in the market place...those rewards come from the market. And MANY times, their reward from the market is bankruptcy. And you know what? Their "poor" employees keep getting paid, even if the company (and those bad old "rich" people running it) is losing its ass.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-02-21 02:49:06

#122

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6546

I really don't know why some people think one way or another is best. The best is a healthy balance between corporate and social welfare managed dynamically, responding to prevailing events, the current economic climate and market conditions. The black and white view some people take on social/economic policy is retarded.

2008-02-21 02:53:14

#123

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:
I really don't know why some people think one way or another is best. The best is a healthy balance between corporate and social welfare managed dynamically, responding to prevailing events, the current economic climate and market conditions. The black and white view some people take on social/economic policy is retarded.

I agree. Balance is key.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-02-21 03:32:32

#124

PureFodder: Member; +225|6276

FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
FEOS wrote:
No, the US system is designed around rewarding initiative, hard work, and entrepeneurship. I'm no fan of corporate welfare, but providing reasonable tax incentives to companies that provide jobs to American workers and contribute far more than the amount of the incentives to the US economy is good business.
Oddly, poor people who work hard don't get a bonus cheque from the government to encourage them to keep working hard, only rich people. If you want to see how fair the US system is, just look at the last 35 years of wages and working hours for the different sections of society.
This is what Bush thinks about rewarding hard work and productivity
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … _416gr.gif
Bush has nothing to do with it. It's called a free-market economy. I tend to dismiss graphs as a sole source, as it's fairly simple to make things look much better or worse than they are when you are developing the scale.

"Rich people" don't get "bonus checks" from the government. Companies get tax breaks to keep the company in the US, employing US workers. "Rich people" get rewards for the risks they take in the market place...those rewards come from the market. And MANY times, their reward from the market is bankruptcy. And you know what? Their "poor" employees keep getting paid, even if the company (and those bad old "rich" people running it) is losing its ass.

So you believe in free market fantasies?

No rich country has anything like a free market. All rich governemnts are highly protectionist and use vast amounts of public money to keep the business world going. Huge amounts of public money are used, as Cam says, for infrastructure and R&D.

What actually happens wen big companies fuck up and face bankrupcy? In comes the public funds to bail them out. I'm not saying that these things are inherently wrong, but socialism is alive and well in the US, it's just not aimed at the poor so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgFlJjnULh0

2008-02-21 03:55:42

#125

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6402|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
So you believe in free market fantasies?

No rich country has anything like a free market. All rich governemnts are highly protectionist and use vast amounts of public money to keep the business world going. Huge amounts of public money are used, as Cam says, for infrastructure and R&D.

What actually happens wen big companies fuck up and face bankrupcy? In comes the public funds to bail them out. I'm not saying that these things are inherently wrong, but socialism is alive and well in the US, it's just not aimed at the poor so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgFlJjnULh0

You're the one living in a fantasy land if you think the government bails all big companies out of bankruptcy. The ones that are generally helped in that way (subsidies) are ones critical to the DIB (automotive, aerospace, etc). There are plenty of big companies that have gone into bankruptcy and either folded or emerged with different business models.

Look at our government's entitlements budget...it's the single largest aspect of government spending. And it goes to individual citizens, not companies.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Socialism defined...

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Dersmikner wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Board footer