Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Your position removes all desire of anybody to want to take risk to open a business.

Why would anybody do that? Why would anybody mortgage their home or risk their savings in order to start a business of any "excess" profits are not allowed?

You answer that, and we can talk about your position in greater detail.

 

Not only do you not understand Socialism. You do not understand the relationship between Totalitarianism and Collectivism either.

 

Yes I do. You're the one who doesn't understand. Maybe you should do
some research, unless you're afraid it will show your desires to be wrong.

Once again, I never brought up Socialism. You need to get over it.

 

I would just correct you on one thing. You have lumped land in with capital and this is not correct. The three factors of production are land, labor and capital. Good economists know that land must be kept separate from capital because it responds totally different to taxation. Land is fixed in supply so it does not respond to taxation as capital does.

If you place a 100% tax on the value of capital then no new capital will be produced and the economy would fall into a wicked depression. One the other hand, if you put a 100% tax on the value of land, production and trade would actually increase and more wealth would be created. Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you wrote.

I am a Geoist, which means that I would replace taxes on production, capital and trade with a tax on land values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

 

You completely botched the relationship between collectivism and totalitarianism as well. I pointed this out to you in a previous post.

 

The problem with your argument against capitalism is that we have nothing even approaching a free market. Wages are strictly controlled, price controls dominate many sectors of the economy, regulations crush all individual initiative on the part of small businesses, and the monetary system constantly siphons off money for nothing to the rich bankers in bed with Washington.

I am in Morocco at the moment. Clearly it's not a perfect country, but the markets in the medina, that's where the free market operates: no wage controls, no regulatory oversight, etc. It's a very different experience indeed. Funny how capitalism is often found in the most unlikely places, and is absent where you'd expect it.

 

<Off-topic>

I didn't botch the relationship between Collectivism and Totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is the supreme goal of Collectivism.

<Rule 2>

 

Socialists hate the white working class and mock them at every chance and will replace the white working class with non-whites for votes. It doesn't work.

 

LOL. "Diversity is evil." You know that sounds like an exact quote of Hitler. And no, I am serious. You confuse socialists with the liberal party.

 

just because Hitler was against the same thing doesn't mean im wrong.

What is the difference?

 

Liberalism advocates only the regulation of capitalism with limits, these days it advocates corporate socialism which is an oxymoron.

Actually, it does. If you have proof alternatively, please bam, prove it.

 

What complete nonsense. Hitler supported full employment, he established the autobahn, he did a great many positive things. Putting the burden on others to show that policies Hitler supported aren't evil is ludicrous, they should be judged on their merits without prejudice.

 

Nor is "profit" a dirty word in my world either but the "distribution of profit" is a problem under capitalism. When 30% of the profit goes to less than 1% of the people while 40% of the people are "operating at a loss" (i.e. earning less than the cost of living) then there's something inherently wrong with the distribution of the profits of enterprise.

 

We were talking about Hitlers views on diversity. Nice strawman.

 

I grew up (1947 to1968 ) in "Socialist Britain" and benefited enormously from the National Health Service, excellent publicly owned bus and rail transport, excellent publicly owned telephone, electricity, gas and water utilities, publicly subsidised private schools, publicly owned radio and television broadcasting and a myriad other socialist things.

It all started to go downhill when Thatcher started selling it all off to private capitalist hands.

 

You mean when she saved britain from stagnation due to socialism? Thank God for thatcher.

 

Are those 40% of people capable and willing to take the risk to offer their services in the market place for more profit?

I refuse to see employees as victims. They accept a position for a certain wage. They agree to perform X tasks for Y money. The profitability of the company beyond that agreement has no bearing.

If those employees feel that the company is not properly compensating them as a result of that margin, then they should entire the market place independently and offer similar services with less margin which would be more cost effective for the consumer.

Win win.

 

Hooray for Thatcher.

Socialism should go down hill. I too grew up in a similar time and have 100's of stories by
Brits who abhorred the socialized medicine and much of what you mentioned.
The same goes for Canadians. There are thousands of Canucks who would come
to the US for their healthcare because they needed immediate attention.

Socialism is unnecessary and nobody should be subjected to it.

 

Socialism works in advantage for the ones who invented it. Has not been invented in the benefit of society (else there would be no need of politics, all problems were solved, and they aren't) Socialism was clearly also invented to create pro and anti attitudes (to increase fight in people, as this thread shows) and to let people think with the same mind set as the inventors (people copy new ideas that sound and feel good, but the end result is never good and peaceful)
Socialism means, new information injected (via politics plus media) into a society that used old thoughts an ideas before. 'Before' is suppressed by the more powerful new information (the new socialist political ideas), when socialism is gone the good old thoughts come alive again, and an information war is ending (will not happen soon, because television, media and politics is dominating in people's living rooms, dominating their minds, people could start to talk about other things than information seen and heard on tv, will not happen, society is media and tv addicted)

 

You said that Totalitarianism = Collectivism which is simply not true.

In conjunction with your boasting about your knowledge on the subject matter and claims that others had no clue, this is a bit of a gaffe wouldn't you say ?

 

This is so illogical that it defies description. First and foremost the right of property is not established by taxation.

Next is the stupid statement that land can be taxed at 100% of it's assessed value which would result in a default in taxes because no one can pay 100% of the value of the land annually in taxes to the government. All that would result is the government foreclosing on the land and taking possession because no one could afford the taxation being imposed regardless of whether they were the landowners or the renters that had to pay rent for the use of the land which would include the taxes the landowners had to pay.

I would also agree with John Locke that a person can't actually "own the land" but instead can establish a "right to use the land" based upon their continous labor to increase the "fruits of the land" over what nature provides. We can note that virtually all Native-Americans also believed in this as they could own the "tee-pee" and use the land it sat upon but they didn't own the land. Their "tee-pee" provided shelter that the nature failed to provide and for that purpose they could use the land it sat upon. They didn't own the land, they owned the teepee. A person that doesn't constantly renew their "right to use the land" by their labor should lose any right of ownership related to the land.

 

Well, I'm sure socialism is great if your career is flipping burgers, but if you have a skill that you learned and earned than it is terrible...

 

Under a socialist government I

• earned a bachelors degree
• worked as a flight navigator
• worked as a programming manager
• ran my own software business

​