Socialist Lies (and the truths of the dangers of Socialism) - Thread

Germany would actually be a great place for you to live.

 

How does Socialism favor the children? What happens when the majority opt to not have children and just choose to bathe in their narcissistic life style? We are seeing that trend taking place. Socialism is just a "herd mentality" where the weak are "culled" from the herd. In England, for instance, once you reach life expectancy, certain life saving procedures tend to be with held. No hip replacements after that age......they just make you "comfortable" as you await death.

 

American Indians had no concept of the wheel. They also had no concept of land ownership. Where were you educated? You don't steal land from nomads who's only concept of land ownership was who could be the most deadliest. Now the indigenous ancestors peacefully own land privately, or they indulge the option to live on the "socialist reservation". The tomahawk no longer rules.

 

YOU asked about FINANCIAL DEREGULATION and I provided you with FINANCIAL DEREGULATION!

Thanks for tacitly admitting that you don't understand anything at all about financial deregulation.

Yes, other industries have also been deregulated!

Read all about it HERE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation#United_States

 

Why can't Americans achieve what the Germans have managed? Are Americans incapable of doing what other nations can when it comes to actually providing for the Welfare of the People?

 

So you have no ability to REFUTE the SOCIALISM of the Founding Fathers.

Got it!

Have a nice day!

 

Rant.

 

No America does not provide for it's people. They provide for themselves. I think Germany is a great option for you.

 

Still no ability to REFUTE the SOCIALISM of the Founding Fathers from you.

 

Can you quote major liberal politicians who has stated that people shouldn't have the freedom to choose how any of their money is spent? Like Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden or Barack Obama?

 

And not every socialist is poor, or lazy, wants other people's money personally.

 

The typical right-wing rant that really isn't applicable to the United States were 75% of welfare benefits are going to working households and not to people that are failures, sloths, or that don't work.

The problem we have in the United States is that there are tens of millions of hard working Americans where their wages will not fund their basic (mandatory) household expenditures because of under-compensation for employment.

There's a fundamental tenet of Capitalism.

The price of a product and/or service cannot be below the cost to provide the product and/or service. ​

An enterprise cannot sell a product or service at below costs and the costs include all of the direct and indirect (overhead) costs of the enterprise related to the product/service it provides. If it does then the enterprise will go bankrupt and cease to exist. When enterprise ceases to exist then capitalism ceases to exist.

A person cannot sell their labor, a service, below cost and the costs include all of the direct and indirect (overhead) costs of the person related to the labor they provide as a service. The overhead costs of the worker includes the minimum-mandatory expenditures to support their household. If the worker's income from employment is less than the cost to support their household then they will go bankrupt but unlike an enterprise they can't simply cease to exist.

The only way that an enterprise or individual can continue to exist when the "price" is below the "cost" is with an external subsidy under capitalism. There are enterprises that receive these subsidies such as the farm subsidies provided for by the federal government. The subsidies can also be provided in the form of certain tax breaks that reduce the costs to the enterprise.

For individuals, that can't simply be expected to commit suicide and cease to exist, we have welfare programs to subsidize capitalism. If it wasn't for welfare assistance in the United States then capitalism would fail because the price for labor is below the cost of labor in tens of millions of cases.

The alternative to providing the government subsidy is to simply require employers to provide a "living wage" so that the government subsidy isn't required. The "living wage" is really nothing more than a statutory requirement to meet the basic tenet of Capitalism that "The price of a product and/or service cannot be below the cost to provide the product and/or service."

So when addressing welfare in the United States it's really not about socialism at all because it's overwhelmingly addressing hard working Americans. Government welfare assistance for hard working Americans is about subsidizing capitalism to prevent it from failing.

 

The finanancial industry is, and has always been, regulated.

Would you like to try to give us another example of unregulated capitalism?

 

Well, the ones at the TOP of the food chain aren't anyways. Socialism means you can never be wealthy unless you are "in" with the government.

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...g-venezuela-and-americans-dont-seem-to-notice

I've had a front-row seat to the consequences of socialism, watching the hardships of my friends and family in Venezuela.


I read the messages telling me they had to go to five different markets that day to find bread. Even basic staples like Harina-Pan are missing from the shelves or skyrocketing in price.

I've heard them break down crying because they lack basic needs like toilet paper. And I hear the fear of not knowing what's next or when these struggles will end.


In the midst of this chaos, I see people in the United States – most of whom have never known a life outside of the abundance available to them as a result of our market economy – gravitating toward socialism like it's some natural force for good. As reported in these pages, a recent survey shows that nearly 60 percent of 18 to 26 year-olds believe socialism is the "most compassionate system."

But socialism is not compassionate. Whether a socialist government owns the means of production via nationalized industries, or enforces central planning via price controls and stringent regulatory structures, socialism operates under the assumption that an insulated leader and his legion of bureaucrats are the best judges of what people are worth.

 

Since you refuse to educate yourself on the topic of financial deregulation you have automatically disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation with me on this topic.

Have a nice day!

 

Nonsense!

Plenty of wealthy Germans doing well for themselves under a Social Democracy. Same applies to the UK and other EU nations.

 

I'm not sure that's accurate because Socialism doesn't result in the people become wealthy or gaining power. Yes, under communism those at the top of the political structure do have power and wealth but the actually had to "earn" that power and wealth by employing expert political skills.

But think about capitalism for a moment. The highest income earners in the United States are investors and not workers. Their income is classified as "unearned income" because they don't do anything to earn the income. Their wealth and power comes from "doing nothing" except cashing the checks that come rolling in.

The worst of all of these are those that inherited their wealth. When it comes actually earning a living they're a failure, they're the sloth who doesn't work, and they're angry that those who do work that aren't giving them enough of their labor (money) because they're greedy.

The most glaring example of inherited wealth in America are the six members of Walton family that inherited Wal-Mart from their father. It's estimated that their wealth is equal to the combined wealth of the bottom 41.5 percent of American families. Between 2010 and 2013 the combined family wealth of the Walton's increased by $55.2 billion so they basically had unearned income of $18.4 billion in "unearned income" per year. During those same three years Wal-Mart employees received about $6 billion per year in federal welfare benefits that was predominately paid for with "earned income taxes" from working Americans. The Walton family can't even spend the wealth they already have and could easily afford to pay the Wal-Mart workers an additional $6 billion annually so that the workers don't need federal welfare just to pay their bills.

I don't envy the wealth of the Walton's but the fact that they're receiving billions of dollars a year in money they don't earn and that they don't need while tens of thousands of their hard working employees can't afford to feed their families isn't right by any standard.

Under capitalism it's the hard working person earning a living that doesn't have either wealth or power.

 

You have quite an imagination! What national healthcare program were all the doctors on back 200 years ago? Do tell.

Having some Native American blood in me, spare me the Leftist slant on history.

Amerindian tribes had been doing the very same thing that Western settlers had for eons. Taking and holding territory for their own people. Are you so ignorant to believe that when the 1st Amerindian Paleo tribes came over thousands of years ago, they all just settled the land and kept the same tribal boundaries from 12,000 BC to 1492 AD???? You must think the tribes never fought each other. You must think tribes like the Comanche never came from the Colorado Rockies, domesticated horses and took land in Texas from the Kiowa and other tribes.

Educate yourself, then try holding all people to the same standards throughout time. Thank you.

 

Those are capitalistic economies and not socialistic economies. The only "socialistic" programs that exist are to mitigate fundamental problems with capitalism where the capitalist is unconcerned with those that they employ,

Remember that Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, established in The Wealth of Nations that the capitalist (owner of enterprise) "intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
The actions of the capitalist, directed by the "invisible hand" may result in a benefit to society but that's always by accident and not by the intent of the capitalist that's solely motivated by personal greed.

 

Ironic coming from someone who admits to knowing nothing whatsoever about the Founding Fathers and their single payer healthcare system paid for by taxes.

 

Yes, Social Democracies do have well regulated capitalist economies.

 

I'm in the medical field and deal with insurance plans all day long.
So, what healthcare plan was going on 200 years ago in America.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798

 

To be fair, the internet is a creation of both - much of it comes from the projects at institutions that were partially government funded along with government funded military projects. Capitalists used that knowledge to expand into the present day internet.

I'm still convinced that hybrids of socialism and capitalism are the best forms of government - one where capitalists excess and socialist excess can cancel each other out. Now, finding that balance is the tricky part.