|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Dec 30, 2018 20:52:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 14, 2019 16:13:44 GMT -8
Link: Libs Aborting the Golden GooseBefore it even hatched, the New York liberals killed off a golden goose and were more against a rich guy getting richer than securing new jobs and sorely needed new tax revenues for their state. I see that the SJWs will cut off their nose to spite their face. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Feb 14, 2019 21:16:17 GMT -8
These two psots back to back made me laugh
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 14, 2019 21:45:57 GMT -8
Well, I knew being an adult and dealing with economic reality was going to be a hard lesson for leftists to swallow and was proven correct. Their hatred of Capitalism, while unfounded, seems almost to be imbred.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 25, 2019 10:39:16 GMT -8
Capitalism puts capital first, over the interests of the people and the state.
Communism puts the party/state first, over the interests of the people (and capital is state owned)
Fascism puts the party/state first, over the interests of the people (capital still exists)
Of these three economic systems, capitalism has been shown to help people the most. But it still puts capital first, over everything else - It's in the name of the system for Christ's sake.
This is mostly a good thing. But not entirely. There are a lot of market failures where markets does not produce the optimal quantity of a good. Public social goods are a good example. Police, Fire, Military are all public social goods that the government provides for the people. If the government did not provide this good for us, as individuals we would not purchase enough fire, police and military protection because of the freeloader effect. Ex. If I purchase firefighter protection for my community on the free market, everyone else in my community benefits. So these types of good are better produced by the government. They are social goods because they are socially shared among the population.
Public education is another social good. Undoubtedly public education has been beneficial to improving our country's prosperity as the greatest nation in the world in much the same way that our military has. Public education was argued against in the 1850's by wealthy elites, believe it or not. They didn't want to foot the bill for it - but look at where it has lead us to, becoming the most powerful country in the world. Public hospitals are another example of a public good.
Those advocating for public education to be paid for through college instead of through high school are advocating for an Expansion of Social programs. Advocating for healthcare to be paid for by the state is advocating for an Expansion of Social programs.
These programs are all Socialist in nature. Not socialist as in total ownership of production by the government, but socialism in that social programs are provided by the government. Medicaid, Social Security - These are all social programs. What a lot of Democrats want is an expansion of these social programs. But to say that Democrats are communists (and Republicans are capitalist) is just inaccurate. Republicans, who tend to be older, often benefit the most from social programs such as Medicaid. The push for Universal Healthcare is a push to expand Medicaid (which covers a large base of the Republican party) to all citizens of the United States. Doing so will improve the health of millions of Americans. Medicaid is a system that is proven to work, it is much more efficient in administering healthcare then the private markets are. The private markets do a horrible job of administering insurance type products because of conflicts of interest between insurance companies, patients and the providers of healthcare.
Think about this. If I am sick, I go to the doctor. My doctor prescribes me a drug - its a new drug and it costs $10 per pill. I am prescribed 30 pills for a total cost of $300.
Except I don't pay $300. I pay my $20 prescription co-pay. I don't really give a $#!+ what it costs my insurance company because I don't foot the bill. Meanwhile, there is another generic drug that has the same effect as my $10/pill drug that only costs $1 per pill. Either way I'm paying only $20 for my bill so i don't care. The drug company is giving spliffs to the doctor for prescribing the new drug (free golf vacations, swag, kickbacks) so he is better off. The drug company that created the new drug is milking the healthcare system for profits. Our current healthcare system is an example of a market Failure. The markets have failed to efficiently allocate resources. The decision makers actions have no monetary consequences to them directly, but create negative externalities for other parties. Similarly, when an insurance company denies your insurance claim for a year and you have to sue them to get them to pay for it, again the incentives don't line up right. They are incentivized to not pay you.
Capitalism works beautifully when the incentives line up properly. In the case of healthcare, the incentives do not line up properly. That is why our healthcare costs are the highest in the world (on a per capita basis), yet we have the 33'rd best healthcare system in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Mar 25, 2019 12:38:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 25, 2019 18:10:43 GMT -8
Haha. it's a black versus white world. Truth versus lies. You right wingers just cannot deal with nuance and gray areas. I went to State and paid $90 a semester. I bet a bunch of you guys did as well. You guys pull Social Security and Medicare and make things out to be Socialism versus capitalism. Haha...its actually pretty funny. More catheter adds on FOX...😎
|
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 25, 2019 18:16:13 GMT -8
Haha. it's a black versus white world. Truth versus lies. You right wingers just cannot deal with nuance and gray areas. I went to State and paid $90 a semester. I bet a bunch of you guys did as well. You guys pull Social Security and Medicare and make things out to be Socialism versus capitalism. Haha...its actually pretty funny. More catheter adds on FOX...😎 Bernie is one of the leading democratic candidates. Doesn't he say he's socialist? |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 25, 2019 18:34:21 GMT -8
Haha. it's a black versus white world. Truth versus lies. You right wingers just cannot deal with nuance and gray areas. I went to State and paid $90 a semester. I bet a bunch of you guys did as well. You guys pull Social Security and Medicare and make things out to be Socialism versus capitalism. Haha...its actually pretty funny. More catheter adds on FOX...😎 Bernie is one of the leading democratic candidates. Doesn't he say he's socialist? I guess. how bout a moderate, normal, person like Kasich? I think this country is ungovernable from the far right or left. The only answer there is population reduction in a not so nice way. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Mar 25, 2019 18:47:21 GMT -8
Haha. it's a black versus white world. Truth versus lies. You right wingers just cannot deal with nuance and gray areas. I went to State and paid $90 a semester. I bet a bunch of you guys did as well. You guys pull Social Security and Medicare and make things out to be Socialism versus capitalism. Haha...its actually pretty funny. More catheter adds on FOX...😎 Bernie is one of the leading democratic candidates. Doesn't he say he's socialist? No. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 25, 2019 18:51:58 GMT -8
Bernie is one of the leading democratic candidates. Doesn't he say he's socialist? No. He doesn't call himself a "democratic socialist"? |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 25, 2019 19:02:37 GMT -8
Bernie is one of the leading democratic candidates. Doesn't he say he's socialist? I guess. how bout a moderate, normal, person like Kasich? I think this country is ungovernable from the far right or left. The only answer there is population reduction in a not so nice way. Yeah I'd be all for that. I'm not painting all democrats with the same brush and saying they're all for socialism, but the ones who are make me sick (and I believe its a decent percentage, since Bernie almost won the primary in the last election). I try to be in the middle on most issues, but even considering a candidate who claims he's a version of socialist absolutely infuriates me |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 25, 2019 19:45:23 GMT -8
I hear you, but I still want to know if going to SDSU for $90 a semester in the mid 70's was socialism?..how bout social security and Medicare? zoning regs.? highways & freeways..certainly national parks?
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Mar 26, 2019 4:46:20 GMT -8
He doesn't call himself a "democratic socialist"? Your answer is in your question |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Mar 26, 2019 5:11:34 GMT -8
I hear you, but I still want to know if going to SDSU for $90 a semester in the mid 70's was socialism?..how bout social security and Medicare? zoning regs.? highways & freeways..certainly national parks? I think it was more a function of supply & demand. The prices were just lower back then and the prices have skyrocketed. From my knowledge it's not because the government used to cover a bigger percentage of it (although I'm not completely sure on that). These days literally anyone can qualify for school loans so everyone can afford and wants to go to college, since society tells them it's what you must do. Therefore the colleges can name their price and people will pay it since they're getting the loan. It's an in depth topic that I could go on and on about but that's the surface of my thoughts on it
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 26, 2019 8:52:44 GMT -8
I hear you, but I still want to know if going to SDSU for $90 a semester in the mid 70's was socialism?..how bout social security and Medicare? zoning regs.? highways & freeways..certainly national parks? I think it was more a function of supply & demand. The prices were just lower back then and the prices have skyrocketed. From my knowledge it's not because the government used to cover a bigger percentage of it (although I'm not completely sure on that). These days literally anyone can qualify for school loans so everyone can afford and wants to go to college, since society tells them it's what you must do. Therefore the colleges can name their price and people will pay it since they're getting the loan. It's an in depth topic that I could go on and on about but that's the surface of my thoughts on it
The state government paid a higher percentage of the cost back then. That being said, costs have skyrocked since then, making it harder for states to cover the same percentage of the cost. Definitely agree that colleges have the upper hand in setting prices since students are using loans to pay for them. Also, while there are other options then college (blue collar type jobs), college graduates still get paid way more then non-college graduates. Despite the high costs it is still a good investment today - which is why colleges can charge higher and higher tuition rates. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 26, 2019 9:38:28 GMT -8
Likecoachfishsay, what do you define to be Socialism - and why does it infuriate you?
Socialism is defined in several ways:
1. The nationalization of private industry. We have this to some degree in the US, just like other countries do. Some countries have more nationalization of industry then others (Ex. Venezuela, Russia).
Examples: Airbus (is 28% government owned, split between Germany, France and Spain)
Amtrak (US owned rail service)
EDF - French electric utility company, 84.5% state owned
Fannie Mae (as well as several other Financial Institutions in the US following the financial crisis of 2007)
PDVSA (Venezuelan owned oil company)
Renault (15% French owned automobile maker)
Renfe Operadora (100% Spanish owned rail company)
64% of Russian Banks and 47% of Russian oil are controlled by Russia
Vietnam Airlines (owned by Vietnam)
United States Postal Service
2. The creation of social programs and/or services.
Public goods that are jointly shared (ex. fire, military, police). Nobody debates the necessity of such services, though it is arguable what the optimal level is of these services (I'm looking at our military spending level and the complete and utter dominance of our military on a global scale and do question why we don't say, take some of that spending and put it into more scientific research, say).
Goods that provide services that help people
For Example: Education, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, WIC... go into Europe and you find more expansive versions of this with free public college education, gov't paid daycare, longer maternity/paternity paid leave paid for by the government). These programs are often re distributive by nature. Counter point to this is that these programs often produce positive externalities that help everyone (for example, having a healthier workforce is beneficial to our economy, having a more educated workforce benefits our economy, having programs that provide welfare to the poorest people benefits our economy long-term (because children that are not well fed or taken care of tend to not do as well later in life, placing a burden on other institutions (very expensive long term).
Also, and this is not really a part of Socialism by definition, but I do feel like it is a big part of Europe's issues (and Europe is often associated with Socialism): The creation of laws that provide greater benefits for workers at the expense of employers. In Europe, you can't fire anyone without a lengthy process. This is a big part of the reason why Europe's economy is generally crappier then ours and has higher unemployment rates, because employers can efficiently hire/fire workers.
With all of that being said, what exactly do you like or dislike? What is/isn't Socialism to you?
|
|
