BF2S Forums How Socialism Works in the Real World: A lesson in Barstool Economics

^^^^
for the above reasons, social programs cannot be left as charity, they must be funded by taxes.

In fact, the story shows that point when the richest person does not return to bestow charity beers on his friends.
Nothing in the law can force a person to be charitable, but taxes can/should be levied to pay for things that society requires to function.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The motive for capitalism is to accrue wealth.  There is nothing about morals and ethics inherent in capitalism.  Capitalism appeals to the most basic selfishness of humans (and seemingly rewards them for it).  You recognize basic human tendency, seem to sardonically question my desire to turn around this most basic tendency, then say that we need to educate humans to break their most basic tendency.  K, good one.

I mentioned them all because they are not the same thing. If they meant the same thing I would have just used one word instead of three.

We need to educate humans in moral principles because that is how the most efficient society is achieved. Capitalism appeals to and rewards the basic selfishness of humans as you say, but uneducated selfishness can be blinding and ultimately inefficient in the satisfaction of needs for all of those involved. Morality is a way of demonstrating that a strict ethical standard yields the best results for the most basic human tendency of selfishness.

There is a difference between educating ignorance and preaching against innate standards.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

By the way, when I said people want money (and by extension, power), I thought that was sufficiently elucidating my understanding of the money/power relationship.  Unfortunately I wasn't successful, seeing as your little explanation to me about the power/money relationship was essentially a rehash of what I said

You said that people desire money, and that power is an extension of money, this is not quite  true.  People desire power, not money, they only desire money so that they can attain power. If acquiring wealth was no longer a route to power, as would be much more the case in a truly capitalist system, the desire for money for the sake of money would be gone. As this was key to my point about ethics, I felt the need to clarify.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

By the way, patriotism has virtually nothing to do with capitalism.  It can be a successful tool for enacting massive reform and changing public sentiment on a large scale (positive or negative). but it is far from a prerequisite.  Caring about and wanting to improve the human condition trumps the most fervent patriotism.  If anything, patriotism rewards and promotes favoring one group over another to the detriment of society as a whole.

They are far from related, hence the reason I felt the need to mention them both. To have a successful capitalist system you need patriotism to be the social glue, or the country will become weak in foreign relations and ultimately fall into anarchy.

Patriotism erases intranational boundaries and promotes a common goal. I do not see how it promotes favoritism of any kind.

Pubic wrote:

All systems have their pros and cons.  The key is to have not one pure system, but a mixture of systems - the objective being to maximise the pros and minimise the cons.

Try to think of it as food groups. You can survive for while on nothing but fruit, but the guy eating fruit, veggies, grains, meat and dairy is going to thrive. It's all about balance.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You limit your ideas utterly by tradition and current experience. There is no progress in doing what you have always done.

There is no real world evidence because it has never been tried before. Every time the economy has taken a significant turn for the worst, the government has stepped in.

Governments should be involved less than in the "freest economies of the world".

"Either way, government will always be involved.  This is why socialism is necessary."

The socialist idea of government intervention is the reason for why socialism is necessary?

Government does not have to be involved just because government has always been involved or is currently involved in every other country.

There is evidence of what happens when government doesn't get involved -- at least, not in the form of socialism.  Probably the closest thing to a free market that existed in history was France before the French Revolution.

Back then, wealth disparity was drastic, and the working class eventually got so desperate and angry that they overthrew the government.

I don't think you want to return to that.

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You limit your ideas utterly by tradition and current experience. There is no progress in doing what you have always done.

There is no real world evidence because it has never been tried before. Every time the economy has taken a significant turn for the worst, the government has stepped in.

Governments should be involved less than in the "freest economies of the world".

"Either way, government will always be involved.  This is why socialism is necessary."

The socialist idea of government intervention is the reason for why socialism is necessary?

Government does not have to be involved just because government has always been involved or is currently involved in every other country.

There is evidence of what happens when government doesn't get involved -- at least, not in the form of socialism.  Probably the closest thing to a free market that existed in history was France before the French Revolution.

Back then, wealth disparity was drastic, and the working class eventually got so desperate and angry that they overthrew the government.

I don't think you want to return to that.

They had the best system of taxation ever though.

huh?

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flecco wrote:

They had the best system of taxation ever though.

huh?

I was joking. The taxation system in place at the time before the first French Revolution was hilarious in its complexity, ineptitude and disorganised nature.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector failed...  lol...

nickb64 wrote:

The first person (the poorest) pays nothing.  They get to drink for free.
The second and third pay $2
The forth pays $4
The fifth pays $8
The sixth pays $10
The seventh pays $15
The eighth pays $20
The ninth pays $25
The tenth person (the richest) pays $14. (because he had a coupon)

Fixed.

BTW, since it's apparent that posting chain emails is a perfectly valid OP in some people eyes, can I post those ones that say "If you forward it to 25 people your crush will kiss you and you'll live happily ever after"?

I think the proper question to ask here is what kind of dickheads these "friends" supposedly are.

Since the Mississippi Bubble burst in 1719 capitalism have shown how fragile it is ... that was the first economic "crack" and is it coincidental that paper money was introduced just 1 year earlier with less value than the paper it was printed on?

And this situation does not resemble socialism at all, unless he has done the old Orwellian trick and defined socalism as whatever it is politically most expedient to make it mean.

nickb64 wrote:

Let's suppose that a group of 10 graduate students regularly go out to a pub for beer, and the tab for the 10 comes to $100 total.  If they pay for their bill the way Americans pay for our taxes (based on our so-called "progressive" tax system), the breakout would be like this:

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing.  They get to drink for free.
The fifth pays $1
The sixth pays $3
The seventh pays $7
The eighth pays $12
The ninth pays $18
The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.

Quick question:

Is the top income tax bracket in this example 59%?