1. Post #201
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    No, I don't understand.

    I believe the government needs to be limited and that the people should have the power to what ever they want to do (no matter how stupid).
    Well good for you. It still doesn't really make a socialist country any more democratic or necessarily less free then a capitalist one.

    Edited:

    Should individuals be empowered to achieve greatness or be limited and deflated by a government that grants equal results?
    School empowers everyone and yet is government funded. Your question already assumes that anything the government does must hurt the individual.

  2. Post #202
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Impossible, true. Well, is it that the government should control the distribution of wealth? control wages? prices? Does government also control the value of currency, because it prints money? What if government sets minimum wage at $20 per hour and everyone is happy and the inflates the currency so that $20 equals $2?
    That's a gross oversimplification of economic policy if I've ever heard it.

  3. Post #203
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    I believe the government needs to be limited and that the people should have the power to what ever they want to do (no matter how stupid). I believe the free market should determine wages and prices.
    That's the exact thinking that got America into it's economic crisis. The whole 'people should be allowed to do what they want and government should have no say in the matter' is a stupid approach to the economy, and is extremely short sighted.

  4. Post #204
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    I believe the government needs to be limited and that the people should have the power to what ever they want to do (no matter how stupid). I believe the free market should determine wages and prices. I believe the government is very bad at doing pretty much everything it does. The private sector is simply better at ... whatever needs to be done (especially wealth distribution)
    Did you seriously just say "the private sector is good at everything, the public sector is bad at everything"? That is in fact quantifiably wrong.

  5. Post #205
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    I believe the government needs to be limited and that the people should have the power to what ever they want to do (no matter how stupid). I believe the free market should determine wages and prices. I believe the government is very bad at doing pretty much everything it does. The private sector is simply better at ... whatever needs to be done (especially wealth distribution)
    The only thing a free market and private sector does most efficiently is the attaining of capital. Even then it has a repeating cycle of booms and busts. Sometimes massive companies with wide reaching powers forms that actively try to improve peoples lives. (Andrew Carnegie for example) However the vast majority of them are only interested in attaining capital no matter what they do. (Sale of powdered milk that makes the human breasts unable to create milk for example, so that when they stop buying the milk they cannot produce it themselves for their babies.)

  6. Post #206
    ShadoWxAssassiN's Avatar
    August 2011
    278 Posts
    whats the point in having socialist country?
    it really limits your country's power..

    while capitalism has developed good economy, rich create job to others ,and socialism will kill the rich people right?
    that makes less jobs right?

    so what is the point? I can't see how socialism is the future.
    Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Look up your shit before saying it's bad. Don't let Glenn Beck or those other people lacking common sense and open minds at FOX News tell you what's right or wrong.

  7. Post #207
    Lyoko2's Avatar
    September 2007
    385 Posts
    Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Look up your shit before saying it's bad. Don't let Glenn Beck or those other people lacking common sense and open minds at FOX News tell you what's right or wrong.
    i was a socialist guy, but then i changed my mind since i started to seeing economies all over the world destabilize and having "Social-Justice" protests..

  8. Post #208
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    i was a socialist guy, but then i changed my mind since i started to seeing economies all over the world destabilize and having "Social-Justice" protests..
    The economy isn't crashing because of socialism. You really need to read up if you think it is.

  9. Post #209
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    i was a socialist guy, but then i changed my mind since i started to seeing economies all over the world destabilize and having "Social-Justice" protests..
    Social justice is important, why put it in quotes?

  10. Post #210
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    i was a socialist guy, but then i changed my mind since i started to seeing economies all over the world destabilize and having "Social-Justice" protests..
    I don't see why that would change your political view. If every democrat was a dick it wouldn't make there political view any better/worse.

  11. Post #211
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    Is that communism? Do you believe in the collective or in the individual? Should individuals be empowered to achieve greatness or be limited and deflated by a government that grants equal results?
    1. No. The 'Perfection' you're talking about has nothing to do with communism.

    2. I'm not sure what this means. A collective is a mere product of the cooperation of individuals, they are inseparable. It's like asking, do you believe in the corporation, or the stockholders?

    3. Empower individuals, obviously, as they are the constituents of society and thus socialism. This is why socialists support eliminating burdening, non-value producing but necessary costs like education, healthcare, housing, and so on through subsidies. This ensures equal opportunity for individuals to build their life.

  12. Post #212
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,042 Posts
    i was a socialist guy, but then i changed my mind since i started to seeing economies all over the world destabilize and having "Social-Justice" protests..
    are you really suggesting the destabilization is a result of socialism?

    Edited:

    is this real life

  13. Post #213
    Extroll's Avatar
    August 2010
    1,160 Posts
    Government should be responsible for protecting their citizens. Leave job creation to the private sector, but let the government help people find jobs. This could help struggling businesses get off the ground if the government would subsidize these businesses if they agree to hire a set amount of people. Obviously, the more people they agree to hire, the more funding they would get.

    In short: Mixed-economies work best.

  14. Post #214
    CabooseRvB's Avatar
    September 2009
    12,244 Posts
    i was a socialist guy, but then i changed my mind since i started to seeing economies all over the world destabilize and having "Social-Justice" protests..
    Yeah and what fucked it over? Many things that you would associate with capitalism.

  15. Post #215
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    but let the government help people find jobs. This could help struggling businesses get off the ground if the government would subsidize these businesses if they agree to hire a set amount of people. Obviously, the more people they agree to hire, the more funding they would get.
    So the government rewards inefficiency by encouraging hiring unneeded people. If you want the government to help the small businesses, throw the wage and labour regulation away, keep taxes low and reduce bureaucratic costs to a minimum.

    Edited:

    That's the exact thinking that got America into it's economic crisis. The whole 'people should be allowed to do what they want and government should have no say in the matter' is a stupid approach to the economy, and is extremely short sighted.
    So you think the government knows better than their own people how to spend their money.

    The 09' crisis was caused BY the government, they kept the interest rates ridiculously low for too much time encouraging investment institutions to find new and riskier ways of getting earnings.
    When common, standard risk credits aren't profitable, it's natural for banks and investment firms to branch out into new exotic markets trying to recover profit.

  16. Post #216
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    So you think the government knows better than their own people how to spend their money.
    I don't think you know how this works.

  17. Post #217
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    I don't think you know how this works.
    Enlighten me.

  18. Post #218
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    Enlighten me.
    It's not that people are spending their money in the wrong way, or that the Government is telling them how to spend it. A big issue is that the Rich are hoarding money and then just sitting on it, or giving it to other extremely rich people. That money isn't going anywhere besides the top 1%, because they have the whole mindset of 'I earned it so I get to keep it and do whatever I want with it."

    You can't have a functioning economy if people are seriously just hoarding money and then keeping it locked away. There's only so much money to go around, and it doesn't stimulate the economy if it's not getting spread around.

  19. Post #219

    November 2011
    15 Posts
    CAPITALISM IS TH

  20. Post #220
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    It's not that people are spending their money in the wrong way, or that the Government is telling them how to spend it. A big issue is that the Rich are hoarding money and then just sitting on it, or giving it to other extremely rich people. That money isn't going anywhere besides the top 1%, because they have the whole mindset of 'I earned it so I get to keep it and do whatever I want with it."

    You can't have a functioning economy if people are seriously just hoarding money and then keeping it locked away. There's only so much money to go around, and it doesn't stimulate the economy if it's not getting spread around.
    The problem then is investment. People lock their money away when there's nothing profitable enough that justifies the risk of entrepreneuring or give it as credit / capital.

    The government can't force people to spend their money, they can only indirectly move the incentives so they have a reason for doing so. I believe the problem is excess regulation and taxation, there's nothing worse for an investor than red-tape and the government putting their hand down your pocket and taking your money away when you use it. If you diminished the costs of entrepreneurship and using the market, investment would probably come back in no time.

  21. Post #221
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    The problem then is investment. People lock their money away when there's nothing profitable enough that justifies the risk of entrepreneuring or give it as credit / capital.

    The government can't force people to spend their money, they can only indirectly move the incentives so they have a reason for doing so. I believe the problem is excess regulation and taxation, there's nothing worse for an investor than red-tape and the government putting their hand down your pocket and taking your money away when you use it. If you diminished the costs of entrepreneurship and using the market, investment would probably come back in no time.
    No, probably not. Considering people like big business are refusing to stop outsourcing work due to the fact that they can do it much cheaper overseas than they can here, it really goes to show people will always want a better deal until things are free. If we cut the minimum wage down to lower than it is overseas, they'd probably move jobs here again for all of five minutes before they find an even cheaper way to do it. Trying to appease the greedy is a bad way to go, and it's what we were trying to do for awhile, and what landed us in this shitty economic situation. You don't just lay down and let big business and 'investors' stomp all over you and do what they want. You have to play hardball, and punish them for having shitty business ethics.

  22. Post #222
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,693 Posts
    So the government rewards inefficiency by encouraging hiring unneeded people. If you want the government to help the small businesses, throw the wage and labour regulation away, keep taxes low and reduce bureaucratic costs to a minimum.
    Woo I love the deterioration of workers rights, because you know, they weren't made because they were needed were they no siree

  23. Post #223
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    No, probably not. Considering people like big business are refusing to stop outsourcing work due to the fact that they can do it much cheaper overseas than they can here, it really goes to show people will always want a better deal until things are free. If we cut the minimum wage down to lower than it is overseas, they'd probably move jobs here again for all of five minutes before they find an even cheaper way to do it. Trying to appease the greedy is a bad way to go, and it's what we were trying to do for awhile, and what landed us in this shitty economic situation. You don't just lay down and let big business and 'investors' stomp all over you and do what they want. You have to play hardball, and punish them for having shitty business ethics.
    First of all, big businesses are only half of the whole American economy. Small firms (having fewer than 500 employees) are a much more important sector, they're the ones that mostly create jobs and wealth.
    You can read more about that here: http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24.
    Worker unions and employment laws aren't really a problem for big companies, it's the smaller ones that struggle with them. Unqualified people suffer too, since the law punishes not having a productivity level above certain threshold by not letting you get a job and earn experience that eventually raises your salary. Politicians respond to big pressure groups (read: companies) and protect their interests.

    Secondly, appeasing the greedy is a terrible way to go, and you can only blame the government. It was Washington that bailed out banks in the worst possible ways, letting executives get away with millions in "performance" bonuses. It is Washington the one that supports most monopolies and protects them by not letting them compete with the rest of the world.

    There's no reason to be purposely inefficient by forbidding job outsourcing. If you want to have more employment, you gotta be competitive and throw away regulation. No amount of taxation, subsidies or laws can remove the distortions from an excessively regulated market.

    Edited:

    Woo I love the deterioration of workers rights, because you know, they weren't made because they were needed were they no siree
    There's nothing more denigrating than not being able to find a job because you're not productive enough. Again, workers right punish the people that weren't lucky enough to have a good family and education.

  24. Post #224
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,693 Posts
    There's no reason to be purposely inefficient by forbidding job outsourcing. If you want to have more employment, you gotta be competitive and throw away regulation. No amount of taxation, subsidies or laws can remove the distortions from an excessively regulated market.
    Or, alternatively, you could provide stimulus in an economic and employment downturn. You create jobs and you also get some bitching new things.
    There's nothing more denigrating than not being able to find a job because you're not productive enough. Again, workers right punish the people that weren't lucky enough to have a good family and education.
    I have no idea what you are trying to imply here because the rights of workers apply for all levels of society and in every job (albeit in modified forms)

    Take your anarcho-capitalist musings to the anarcho-capitalism thread, we are discussing the pros and cons of socialism, not the pros and cons of alternatives

  25. Post #225
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    Take your anarcho-capitalist musings to the anarcho-capitalism thread, we are discussing the pros and cons of socialism, not the pros and cons of alternatives
    So i don't bother responding to you then.

  26. Post #226
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    Anarcho-capitalism is an absolute joke, and anyone who legitimately believes that it's the best economic system is going to be laughed out of any serious economic discussion.

  27. Post #227
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    Anarcho-capitalism is an absolute joke, and anyone who legitimately believes that it's the best economic system is going to be laughed out of any series economic discussion.
    Who says I'm an anarcho-capitalist?

  28. Post #228
    SomeRandomGuy16's Avatar
    August 2011
    939 Posts
    Anarcho-capitalism is an absolute joke, and anyone who legitimately believes that it's the best economic system is going to be laughed out of any series economic discussion.
    Just like you will be laughed out of any serious English discussion.

  29. Post #229
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    Who says I'm an anarcho-capitalist?
    Where in my post did I say you were anarcho-capitalist? I was speaking of the economic system and anyone who thinks it's a good system. I didn't mention you anywhere in there.

  30. Post #230
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    Where in my post did I say you were anarcho-capitalist? I was speaking of the economic system and anyone who thinks it's a good system. I didn't mention you anywhere in there.
    Oh alright, I'm sorry.

  31. Post #231
    Gold Member
    Eric95's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,945 Posts
    Socialism is okay for services like fire-fighting, police, et cetera... things we need to function as a society at its most basic level. But places like hospitals, where the people who work there are highly trained, they need to be privately owned. The thing with government owned facilities is that the pay is not competitive, in other words it's godawfully low . Most people won't work as a surgeon out of the goodness of their heart, a person's got to have some money to survive.
    I like the free hospital services here quite a lot, thank you. Here anyone can afford a surgery if they need it.

  32. Post #232
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,693 Posts
    So i don't bother responding to you then.
    Be my guest, although what were are talking about is a tangent of a tangent.

    Edited:

    I like the free hospital services here quite a lot, thank you. Here anyone can afford a surgery if they need it.
    No doubt surgeons get paid a pretty high amount in Sweden anyway

  33. Post #233
    SomeRandomGuy16's Avatar
    August 2011
    939 Posts
    I like the free hospital services here quite a lot, thank you. Here anyone can afford a surgery if they need it.
    For the last time, IT'S NOT FREE.

  34. Post #234
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    I like the free hospital services here quite a lot, thank you. Here anyone can afford a surgery if they need it.
    At the expense of giving more than half your wage to the government. No thanks, I'd rather worry about my health by myself.

  35. Post #235
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    At the expense of giving more than half your wage to the government. No thanks, I'd rather worry about my health by myself.
    Yea its not that high. You forget that unlike you a lot of people can't pay for there own health.    inb4 its there fault   

  36. Post #236
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,693 Posts
    Where, ever, does the government collect more than half your income in taxes?

  37. Post #237
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    Yea its not that high. You forget that unlike you a lot of people can't pay for there own health.    inb4 its there fault   
    That's why you subsidize people with lower incomes. You don't give money to the clinics, you transfer the cash directly to the people.

    Edited:

    Where, ever, does the government collect more than half your income in taxes?
    The highest income tax level in my (sort of small government) country is 45%, in Finland it's probably much worse.

  38. Post #238
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    That's why you subsidize people with lower incomes. You don't give money to the clinics, you transfer the cash directly to the people.
    Lowering there taxes wont insure the ability to pay health care. Believe me, I would know.

  39. Post #239
    Gold Member
    Black Milano's Avatar
    November 2005
    2,444 Posts
    Lowering there taxes wont insure the ability to pay health care. Believe me, I would know.
    You don't just lower their taxes, you give them actual money. If you don't like the idea of giving that much freedom, just give vouchers redeemable for private health, education, whatever.

  40. Post #240
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,693 Posts
    That's why you subsidize people with lower incomes. You don't give money to the clinics, you transfer the cash directly to the people.

    Edited:



    The highest income tax level in my (sort of small government) country is 45%, in Finland it's probably much worse.
    They still pay the same amount of tax as everyone else in the lower brackets, so essentially their effective taxation would be below 45%, unless of course Chile doesn't have a progressive taxation system.

    In any case, isn't subsidisation of lower income people with cash money wealth redistribution?