Socialism's Eventual Result

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I SHOULD surrender part of my income in the future so that men and women like him, vulnerable as they are, can see to the health of their families.[/quote]

If you really want to help poor people you should serve them. Create a business and provide them jobs and goods and services to consume; give your money to charity or start your own non profit to help them. Because one feels morally obligated to help the poor does not mean they can use coercion (government) to force me to help them.

And besides, the poor cannot be helped by destroying the incentive to work and save.

A system of “social justice” which relies on theft of productive individuals destroys the incentive to work and save which breeds dependence on government which breeds helplessness and eventually breeds poverty.

To serve poor people does not mean to make them dependent on productive people but rather to help them become producers themselves. Maybe this means just to not interfere with people that are in the best position to do this.

102

There are very few places where pure socialism or capitalism exist or have existed. Most of what you see is varying degrees of public programs and government involvement in markets throughout most of the developed world.

re distributional taxation is one of the altruistic means of garnering votes. This has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with economics when implemented. If you feel bad for your neighbor, show him charity. Donate to educational foundations. Everything we as humans do is INCENTIVE based.

Give someone an incentive not to work by creating a wage gap that creates a lack of productivity and they will choose the easy way out. Its not that they are “lazy” as people perhaps, but it makes the most economic sense and use of their time to maximize their utility with regards to labor and leisure.

Give someone foodstamps, subsidized housing, free cell phones, and other assistance that will be taken away once they reach X wage, their standard of living decreases with increased output. Whats the rational choice? With those items also provided by means of forced redistribution, funds are available for other goods lower down on the consumer value chain. Why do you think there are so many liquor stores in impoverished areas?

Or how about another example of government interference in the market for the sake of altruistic vote getting. Public Housing projects. Create a ghetto with risk free rental incomes and tax breaks for the investors. Now show me businesses that will move to impoverished areas that are completely concentrated.

For one, they have a consumer base with very little disposable income, this is less profits. Then they have the increased risk of violence and chicanery, at the very least, requiring higher business insurance. Thus the cycle of poverty repeats in this maligned experiment.

Or perhaps theirs the fair share argument when it comes to social utility in the community such as public transportation, healthcare, etc. Fair share would imply equal useage to the common goods. If one has more disposable income, they will most likely deem many of these as inferior goods and have definite alternatives.

Many charter schools and other private institutions have drastically improved educational outcomes among lower income communities. While many of these receive funding from the state, it is a more “free market” and better performing alternative than the failing public school institutions.

Subsidies and favorable tax breaks are shown to be “big business” and are very prevalent in the USA. It is more corporatist than anything and distorts the market just as any redistribution or tariff of the sort. It distributes it upward however, where most people thus find the problem. The root cause isnt economics, but politics. Market solutions with energy utilities in much of the southwest of the US is causing greater consumer satisfaction and lower prices.

If the common people want a certain level of government services in different areas of the market, thats fine, but they should pay a transperent price to reflect the true cost, most of the time far higher than the private sector.
I figure I have wrote about enough for now.

103

[quote]666Rich wrote:
There are very few places where pure socialism or capitalism exist or have existed. Most of what you see is varying degrees of public programs and government involvement in markets throughout most of the developed world.

re distributional taxation is one of the altruistic means of garnering votes. This has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with economics when implemented. If you feel bad for your neighbor, show him charity. Donate to educational foundations. Everything we as humans do is INCENTIVE based.

Give someone an incentive not to work by creating a wage gap that creates a lack of productivity and they will choose the easy way out. Its not that they are “lazy” as people perhaps, but it makes the most economic sense and use of their time to maximize their utility with regards to labor and leisure.

Give someone foodstamps, subsidized housing, free cell phones, and other assistance that will be taken away once they reach X wage, their standard of living decreases with increased output. Whats the rational choice? With those items also provided by means of forced redistribution, funds are available for other goods lower down on the consumer value chain. Why do you think there are so many liquor stores in impoverished areas?

Or how about another example of government interference in the market for the sake of altruistic vote getting. Public Housing projects. Create a ghetto with risk free rental incomes and tax breaks for the investors. Now show me businesses that will move to impoverished areas that are completely concentrated.

For one, they have a consumer base with very little disposable income, this is less profits. Then they have the increased risk of violence and chicanery, at the very least, requiring higher business insurance. Thus the cycle of poverty repeats in this maligned experiment.

Or perhaps theirs the fair share argument when it comes to social utility in the community such as public transportation, healthcare, etc. Fair share would imply equal useage to the common goods. If one has more disposable income, they will most likely deem many of these as inferior goods and have definite alternatives.

Many charter schools and other private institutions have drastically improved educational outcomes among lower income communities. While many of these receive funding from the state, it is a more “free market” and better performing alternative than the failing public school institutions.

Subsidies and favorable tax breaks are shown to be “big business” and are very prevalent in the USA. It is more corporatist than anything and distorts the market just as any redistribution or tariff of the sort. It distributes it upward however, where most people thus find the problem. The root cause isnt economics, but politics. Market solutions with energy utilities in much of the southwest of the US is causing greater consumer satisfaction and lower prices.

If the common people want a certain level of government services in different areas of the market, thats fine, but they should pay a transperent price to reflect the true cost, most of the time far higher than the private sector.
I figure I have wrote about enough for now.[/quote]
Very well said.

104

smh23s story showed that the "all poor people are lazy" is a myth( for clarifications some are maybe, but not all ). And it shows that a safety net that make people get back on theire feet like hes friend is a good thing. In this specific case I think it is more about free higher education( skilled labour is good for bussines btw ) and having entitys
helping children who find themself in a situation where they are taking care of those of are suppose to taking care of them. cars, free housing and food aint relevant to cases like this. Lifticus point about helping people helping themself is more relevant in this scenario. That would meen from my perspective a system that help people getting jobs and relevant education.

I fail to see why agreement from a canadian and a norweigian = his argument was poor. ( eye roll ).

105

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Because one feels morally obligated to help the poor does not mean they can use coercion (government) to force me to help them.
[/quote]

Obviously, they can. Because they do. And for all of the whining going on in here, everyone contributing to this forum that is a US citizen and not in federal prison has contributed to the welfare state. If you don’t like it, go live in tent in Patagonia.

106

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Because one feels morally obligated to help the poor does not mean they can use coercion (government) to force me to help them.
[/quote]

Obviously, they can. Because they do. And for all of the whining going on in here, everyone contributing to this forum that is a US citizen and not in federal prison has contributed to the welfare state. If you don’t like it, go live in tent in Patagonia.[/quote]

What is is no justification for what ought to be.

Runnig away is for pussies.

107

Florelius,

I do not think anyone, liberal or conservative would disparage the fact that skilled labor and a highly educated workforce is GOOD for business. I will address this in two separate points.

European primary education, generally subsidized by the state has implemented better educational outcomes than its American counterpart. University education could be looked at a different way. You DO have “free” higher education. No doubt, access to an AFFORDABLE quality higher level education is paramount to a great deal of success, social and economic well being…though there are other methods to acheive this.

I doubt that the superiority of the United states system of higher education in terms of merit and academic quality would also be disputed. Otherwise why would so many foreigners from Europe, asia, etc come here to OUR business schools and our engineering programs to get advanced degrees.

What WE as a country have are problems with secondary education that are both a cultural issue of not valuing education as much as other nations, and the governmental/legal intrusion into the secondary and higher educational systems.

In the secondary system you have stringent regulations that do not have a direct relationship between the consumer of educational services in the public school system and the provider. It is indirectly addressed through the government, and thus there is little to no accountability in educational outcomes.

In the higher educational system, there is more consumer choice but costs are exploding due to government backed loans that send people to places they generally would not or should not go to. This money is then funneled (pre recession) into luxury items like better dorms, stadiums and other passive revenue generation implements for the university. There are however, especially now in the recession, smaller, vocation oriented schools that focus on directly providing skills relevant to the market place. Online institutions are now gaining credibility in this rather than the previous “Joke” they were made out to be. A good example is nursing programs, plumbing, etc that provide good paying jobs with much less capital investment. Perhaps most public universities are wising up to the renewed interest in vocational usefulness, but that does not address the malaise that is overspending on higher education in the first place.

Once again, the government is responsible for malinvestment, creating higher prices and generally inefficient outcomes.

108

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
garcia1970 wrote:
Oh, I got my economic education at the Smeal School at Penn State, where I got my PhD.
Where did you get your’s?

You might want to ask for a refund…
[/quote]

LOL

109

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Garcia is actually what’s wrong with this country. He and the others who feel empowered to spew this nonsesnse help graduate hundreds of thousands of kids each year from University’s with the wrong attitude. The come out feeling that the government owes them something. This character has helped create the enititlement mentality that questioinable politicians like Obama feed on to get elected.

Give this some thought, if you and your kind were to live without the support of people like me how long do you think it would take your ivory tower to crumble?[/quote]
Garcia has a legit job. Actually, if the corporations didn’t vampire money out of the electorate in 09 then the American Financial Sector wouldn’t even exist anymore. The Bankers and other Jewbags would have had to get real jobs.

Screwing people out of their value, taking it for yourself, getting taken from taxes and redistributed again is a catch 22 dumb system…but don’t for a second tell me that the majority of the plutocracy in this country are innovative movers and shakers who made the cents they have. Truth is many if not most of the richies in this country are getting in their positions via networks of nepotism and getting cash from inheritance. They keep themselves in fortunate positions by having their money managed by banksters who invest every manner of usury you can think of that keeps many hardworking common men in perpetual wage slavery.

I’d say in the upper middle class and lowest bracket of the upper class, you’ll find the people who actually made their cash.[/quote]

80% of millionaires in the US are first generation affluent (they did NOT inherit their wealth) A little research goes a long way Rohnyn. You’re a perfect case of class envy.[/quote]

You’ve hit the nail on the head my friend.[/quote]

What you said about millionaires does not negate my statement at all. “I’d say in the upper middle class and lowest bracket of the upper class, you’ll find the people who actually made their cash.” If the upper middle class and lower upper class is 100k to 300k a year, and your millionaires are (I’m guessing mostly older and retired people) then that would be consistent with my statement. As the upper middle class and lower upper class do become millionaires within their lifetime should they save.

Also, simply earning several million within your lifetime does not mean were not the product of privilege. I wonder how many of these people got into more fortunate positions of privilege by way of nepotism?

Anyways, to go back to what I said about social justice. I should coin the term, ‘social integrity’ alongside it. I don’t believe the cure for the poor man, are the alms of the rich man, nor do I believe however, that man is allowed to be wolf to man.

Social justice is the idea that every man by his will, merit, work ethic and intelligence should be able to achieve in his lifetime what is his due share.

Social integrity is the idea that no man will profit from any other man’s misery, and all men will be judged by their merit and not favored by their privilege.

Yes, the two above are ‘ideals’ not found in practice universally nowadays, but so were many things that have now become a part of Western culture.

In the current system, if a rich man does any foolish or weak thing, he can be most entirely excused medically; a poor man is responsibile for his actions.

I am for the repeal of financial usury, and the opening of the free market.
The government is not the answer, but it is undeniable that the plutocracy is in control of this country. What is needed is a cultural revolution to instate social justice and integrity so America can be strong again.

I could go on, but I come to listen in this instance, as this isn’t an ego trip for me. I only come to PWI to listen, and learn. Find the truth through dialectic discussion.
[/quote]

If a wealthy person passes away and leaves every dime he earned to his lazy half wit son it’s none of your fookin business. That’s what freedom is all about. The government doesn’t OWN anyone’s wealth. The wealthy are free to pass it along to anyone they like. You can be in love with the idea or you can look on enviously as you are now. It just doesn’t matter.

Now run along I heard they were looking for 24 year old geniuses to flip hamburgers at McDonalds.

110

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And here is where your lack of experience comes in. When I ran my companies HR dept we’d have people refuse a lower paid entry level job because it was not enough over what they’d make on unemployment.

What do you say about that?

This may sound crazy but I think there is hope for you.
[/quote]

In the course of your life you have come into contact with people who refused a job that they thought was too low-paying. What does this prove? What generalization are you (fallaciously) trying to make?

Since anecdotal evidence seems to be acceptable in this discussion: my childhood friend’s parents became addicted to painkillers while we were in high school. He worked his ass off through and after school, trying to support them, never having time or money for a college degree. Now he is 24, uneducated, and barely scraping by.

I, on the other hand, am the son of a professor. I had been to every continent save for Antarctica by the time I was 12. I lived half of my childhood in New York and half in Europe, where I became fluent in multiple languages. I am about to attend one of the best schools in the country…and I had connections there and at most of the others.

His lot in life was not his own doing, and neither has mine been. I SHOULD surrender part of my income in the future so that men and women like him, vulnerable as they are, can see to the health of their families. Because every kid on this planet deserves to be healthy. Or do you disagree? Be careful, Jesus is listening.[/quote]

One of the best posts I have read in this forum, Kudos smh23.
[/quote]

Many thanks, good sir. It’s good to have an ally on here every once in a while.[/quote]

Yhea it helps to get some support some times. I think we who are to the left of the GOP paradigm suck at backing eachother up LOL, I know I am guilty of sometimes observing others getting ripped a new by the rightwing hordes.[/quote]

ha ha this is the greatest thread ever. Is that what if feels like when the truth hits you smack in the face? Ouch… :frowning:

111

[quote]smh23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
TheTick42 wrote:
SMH23 -

Nice.

Hey there smh you’ve got a fan club of one here. A CANADIAN no less. They’re already under the tyranny of socialism and want the US to follow.

N I C E ---- OOOOOOO Ahhhhhh

Ha ha

He is Canadian, therefore he is wrong.

Flawless logic.[/quote]

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that they already live in a socialist economy? Yeah…you missed it that’s why you posted the nonsense above. That’s okay some of us just comprehend faster and better than others.

No hard feelings on my part this won’t change our relationship one iota kid.

112

[quote]theBird wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my suggestions to make the
world a fairer and better place to be in;[/quote]

There is no “fairness” you create your own world and you live in it. You don’t know this do you? Furthermore, you cannot create fairness for those who refuse to help themselves. Sorry for the harsh dose of reality. Are you going to be okay?

[quote]-try and avoid cooperations. Try not to work for them and dont do business with them. I know
this will be difficult, but try and do what you can.[/quote]

One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on T Nation. Do you realize that millions of people are employed by corporations? Those people are dependent on their corporation to profit so that they can put food on the table for their families. Why do you want to hurt working class and middle class people? Also by trying to cripple corporations this will only harm the economy. The millions of people employed by corporations spend a great deal of money in the economy if that money is no longer there many, many others will become unemployed. Why do you want to see people without jobs? I guess you didn’t think this one through either huh?

[quote]-try to avoid purchasing mass produced goods. Even if you have to spend an extra dollar, purchase
something that has been made locally by locals.[/quote]

Another dumb idea for obviuous reasons.

Why would anyone try to use less oil? Don’t tell me, you’re an Al Gore global warming “the world is coming to an end” freak. There is ample oil in the world to last many more thousands of years. So that’s not the reason.

113

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I SHOULD surrender part of my income in the future so that men and women like him, vulnerable as they are, can see to the health of their families.[/quote]

If you really want to help poor people you should serve them. Create a business and provide them jobs and goods and services to consume; give your money to charity or start your own non profit to help them. Because one feels morally obligated to help the poor does not mean they can use coercion (government) to force me to help them.

And besides, the poor cannot be helped by destroying the incentive to work and save.

A system of “social justice” which relies on theft of productive individuals destroys the incentive to work and save which breeds dependence on government which breeds helplessness and eventually breeds poverty.

To serve poor people does not mean to make them dependent on productive people but rather to help them become producers themselves. Maybe this means just to not interfere with people that are in the best position to do this.[/quote]

Lift I could not have said any of this better. Excellent post.

114

[quote]florelius wrote:
…cars, free housing and food aint relevant to cases like this.[/quote]

Pay close attention florelius and focus. I will repeat it for you one more time. The question was (for anyone who wanted to respond) why should the government not also give those who are disadvantaged a free car, housing and food. Tell me what is the difference between something the left says is basic like halth insurance and those other things that also seem to be even more basic.

Now I gave you a compliment in another thread as being one of the brighter young posters on T Nation. Answer my question as best you can without straying from the point. Don’t let me down.

115

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Because one feels morally obligated to help the poor does not mean they can use coercion (government) to force me to help them.
[/quote]

Obviously, they can. Because they do. And for all of the whining going on in here, everyone contributing to this forum that is a US citizen and not in federal prison has contributed to the welfare state. If you don’t like it, go live in tent in Patagonia.[/quote]

What is is no justification for what ought to be.
.[/quote]

That’s called liberal logic. “Duh…since we ben doin it we shuda keep on a doin it aaaaa yep.”

Educated and ignorant all at the same time.

:slight_smile:

116

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
What you said about millionaires does not negate my statement at all. “I’d say in the upper middle class and lowest bracket of the upper class, you’ll find the people who actually made their cash.” If the upper middle class and lower upper class is 100k to 300k a year, and your millionaires are (I’m guessing mostly older and retired people) then that would be consistent with my statement. As the upper middle class and lower upper class do become millionaires within their lifetime should they save.

Also, simply earning several million within your lifetime does not mean were not the product of privilege. I wonder how many of these people got into more fortunate positions of privilege by way of nepotism?

Anyways, to go back to what I said about social justice. I should coin the term, ‘social integrity’ alongside it. I don’t believe the cure for the poor man, are the alms of the rich man, nor do I believe however, that man is allowed to be wolf to man.

Social justice is the idea that every man by his will, merit, work ethic and intelligence should be able to achieve in his lifetime what is his due share.[/quote]

Social Justice typically means “an equitable distribution of both benifits and hardships”. Usually with no consideration given to what is earned. The Center for Social Justice has in their definition : “a bid to narrow the gap in income, wealth and power”. The term usually includes an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. That’s one of the problems with the term is that it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and then used as a club against whatever group they are against.

You might want to understand what a phrase means before you use it.

117

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
What you said about millionaires does not negate my statement at all. “I’d say in the upper middle class and lowest bracket of the upper class, you’ll find the people who actually made their cash.” If the upper middle class and lower upper class is 100k to 300k a year, and your millionaires are (I’m guessing mostly older and retired people) then that would be consistent with my statement. As the upper middle class and lower upper class do become millionaires within their lifetime should they save.

Also, simply earning several million within your lifetime does not mean were not the product of privilege. I wonder how many of these people got into more fortunate positions of privilege by way of nepotism?

Anyways, to go back to what I said about social justice. I should coin the term, ‘social integrity’ alongside it. I don’t believe the cure for the poor man, are the alms of the rich man, nor do I believe however, that man is allowed to be wolf to man.

Social justice is the idea that every man by his will, merit, work ethic and intelligence should be able to achieve in his lifetime what is his due share.[/quote]

Social Justice typically means “an equitable distribution of both benifits and hardships”. Usually with no consideration given to what is earned. The Center for Social Justice has in their definition : “a bid to narrow the gap in income, wealth and power”. The term usually includes an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. That’s one of the problems with the term is that it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and then used as a club against whatever group they are against.

You might want to understand what a phrase means before you use it.[/quote]

You just said; the term has a loose meaning.
And; where in he CSJ definition does it refute my definition or imply obtaining Justice by abusive, unfair or exploitive methods? Implementation of social integrity and social justice per my method would result in said objective. You seem to read between the lines and create an invisible elephant of 'poor people robbing the rich through taxes.

You might want to reexamine your logic before posting patronizing statements like a condescending dick.

118

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
What you said about millionaires does not negate my statement at all. “I’d say in the upper middle class and lowest bracket of the upper class, you’ll find the people who actually made their cash.” If the upper middle class and lower upper class is 100k to 300k a year, and your millionaires are (I’m guessing mostly older and retired people) then that would be consistent with my statement. As the upper middle class and lower upper class do become millionaires within their lifetime should they save.

Also, simply earning several million within your lifetime does not mean were not the product of privilege. I wonder how many of these people got into more fortunate positions of privilege by way of nepotism?

Well said

Anyways, to go back to what I said about social justice. I should coin the term, ‘social integrity’ alongside it. I don’t believe the cure for the poor man, are the alms of the rich man, nor do I believe however, that man is allowed to be wolf to man.

Social justice is the idea that every man by his will, merit, work ethic and intelligence should be able to achieve in his lifetime what is his due share.[/quote]

Social Justice typically means “an equitable distribution of both benifits and hardships”. Usually with no consideration given to what is earned. The Center for Social Justice has in their definition : “a bid to narrow the gap in income, wealth and power”. The term usually includes an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. That’s one of the problems with the term is that it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and then used as a club against whatever group they are against.

You might want to understand what a phrase means before you use it.[/quote]

You just said; the term has a loose meaning.
And; where in he CSJ definition does it refute my definition or imply obtaining Justice by abusive, unfair or exploitive methods? Implementation of social integrity and social justice per my method would result in said objective. You seem to read between the lines and create an invisible elephant of 'poor people robbing the rich through taxes.

You might want to reexamine your logic before posting patronizing statements like a condescending dick.
[/quote]

Well said

119

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]theBird wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my suggestions to make the
world a fairer and better place to be in;[/quote]

There is no “fairness” you create your own world and you live in it. You don’t know this do you? Furthermore, you cannot create fairness for those who refuse to help themselves. Sorry for the harsh dose of reality. Are you going to be okay?

[quote]-try and avoid cooperations. Try not to work for them and dont do business with them. I know
this will be difficult, but try and do what you can.[/quote]

One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on T Nation. Do you realize that millions of people are employed by corporations? Those people are dependent on their corporation to profit so that they can put food on the table for their families. Why do you want to hurt working class and middle class people? Also by trying to cripple corporations this will only harm the economy. The millions of people employed by corporations spend a great deal of money in the economy if that money is no longer there many, many others will become unemployed. Why do you want to see people without jobs? I guess you didn’t think this one through either huh?

[quote]-try to avoid purchasing mass produced goods. Even if you have to spend an extra dollar, purchase
something that has been made locally by locals.[/quote]

Another dumb idea for obviuous reasons.

Why would anyone try to use less oil? Don’t tell me, you’re an Al Gore global warming “the world is coming to an end” freak. There is ample oil in the world to last many more thousands of years. So that’s not the reason.
[/quote]

You missed the point of my post, zebMan.
F*ck the cooperations. Take off your serial number and burn it.
Im no fool.
No offense, I dont care what effect that has on you.

tweet tweet

120

[quote]theBird wrote:
tweet tweet[/quote]

You must be from Queensland.