What is so wrong with socialism?

Loudmouth said:

Capitalism has the very same problem. The difference is that the capitalist driven US healthcare system is costing the American twice as much money as the socialist healthcare systems in comparable countries.

Click to expand...

While this is very important and I wish more Americans who deride socialism knew this, I don't have much confidence that the US would be any better at running an entirely socialist healthcare system than we are at supporting our current system.

DogmaHunter said:

It's 45% over here.
And I don't mind it at all.

Few years ago, I required surgery.
First house doc visit on thursday. Went into surgery 6 days later on wednesday. Followed by 30-ish sessions of fysiotherapy for revalidation.
6 weeks paid sick leave (first 10 sick days of the year are paid for by the employer, all subsequent sick days for that year are paid by the government social security services).

Total cost: 216 bucks. And that was because I did an additional 10 sessions of fysiotherapy which I didn't really require, I just needed to speed up the recovery because I couldn't play the drums anymore for 100% and that was killing me.

If I wouldn't have done that, the total cost for me would have been 40-ish bucks.

You don't hear horror stories over here of people who went bankrupt because they broke their leg at the wrong time.

In the US, I would have ended up in a quagmire of insurances, would have to wait for weeks on my surgery and would have cost me thousands of dollars - all the while paying for private insurance every month (which are private companies out to make a profit... meaning that they earn money by NOT PAYING THE BILL).

2 years ago, my other half had a nasty illness. She was unable to work for 5 months.
During those 5 months, we received 80% of her net pay check from social security.

I went to university for 4 years.
Total cost of those 4 years: 800 euro - and that was primarily for books.
I didn't require to get monster loans, nore did I require to get several jobs to pay for school. Nore did my parents require to scratch pennies together to pay for school.

Life is good.

To each his own I guess.

I just can't stand it when people start to yap about how these systems are "terrible" and how they "don't work". Clearly, they do work. Very well. So good, in fact, that 7 of the top 10 best nations in the world to live in are social secular democracies in Europe.

Click to expand...

That was 13% just for Security, not total and definitely not related to medical payments.

I just curious about something - as far as healthcare in Europe. When you doctor does you harm due to their mistake....how many millions of dollars are you handed over due to that mistake? Does the government handle their malpractice insurance?

ebia said:

When someone is being conned, I feel duty bound to try to alert them to it.

And also to point out those who it fails, who aren't happy with it, who don't get the healthcare they need.

Click to expand...

It's also worth pointing out that many of us Americans who _have_ insurance are unhappy with it. We're in the unenviable position of being afraid of losing terrible service. It's kind of like our internet service providers, except life and physical well-being are on the line.

Some of us hear stories like that of DogmaHunter and wonder why we can't have nice things, too? I appreciate that a lot of people, here, want to ensure that any way they help the poor doesn't involve the government, but here's a self-interested argument for being a developed country (I won't call it "socialist" since that's apparently incorrect).

DogmaHunter said:

You are confusing socialism with communism.
They are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

I understand that, however...an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level is a common trait shared by both.

Socialism = social ownership of the means of production
Communism = owned by the state

So, there is a difference...

However, both equate to me not being able to own them privately.

LionL said:

And lots of other people work the same number of hours on minimum wage just to get by and have done for 40 years or so. Are you suggesting that they deserve to be poor because they don't work as hard as you boss did once, long ago?

Click to expand...

Working Hard is only one aspect...working smart is the other aspect.

2 people could work with the same level of steadfastness and intensity for 10 years...and the end of the 10 years, one guy made a pile of lamp posts...the other made a car that runs on water that revolutionizes the industry...they both worked equally hard (in terms of the 'sweat of the brow' metric), however, the latter of the two is definitely going to end up with far more money, and it probably going to be in a position where he can make money without having to work very hard anymore in the very near future... and rightfully so.

...or another way of wording it, rarity.

In the 'sweat of the brow' sense, a McDonald's employee works harder than I do in an average day. They're on their feet, making food over a hot fryer for 8 hours. I sit at a desk, writing .net code for 8 hours in a comfortable chair in my office...yet, I make far more than a McDonald's employee, and here's why: 99% of the population could do that job. If you look at the demographics of software engineers (wiki has a good link that goes into the numbers), only 1 out of every 200 workers has the qualifications to do my job. That makes us more rare, and thus, allows us to demand a higher level of compensation from our employers.

If what I do, or what a CEO does is so easy, then why don't the McDonald's employees scrap their current jobs and start their own companies and start earning the big bucks?

Larnievc said:

As a Brit living in (what America would call a socialist country) the UK I'm very happy with this style of government.

Where's the beef, here?

Click to expand...

Socialism has various shades of meaning. We more have issues with socialism as a close similarity to communism. I have never heard anyone have an issue with the UK form

miniverchivi said:

Working Hard is only one aspect...working smart is the other aspect.

2 people could work with the same level of steadfastness and intensity for 10 years...and the end of the 10 years, one guy made a pile of lamp posts...the other made a car that runs on water that revolutionizes the industry...they both worked equally hard (in terms of the 'sweat of the brow' metric), however, the latter of the two is definitely going to end up with far more money, and it probably going to be in a position where he can make money without having to work very hard anymore in the very near future... and rightfully so.

...or another way of wording it, rarity.

In the 'sweat of the brow' sense, a McDonald's employee works harder than I do in an average day. They're on their feet, making food over a hot fryer for 8 hours. I sit at a desk, writing .net code for 8 hours in a comfortable chair in my office...yet, I make far more than a McDonald's employee, and here's why: 99% of the population could do that job. If you look at the demographics of software engineers (wiki has a good link that goes into the numbers), only 1 out of every 200 workers has the qualifications to do my job. That makes us more rare, and thus, allows us to demand a higher level of compensation from our employers.

If what I do, or what a CEO does is so easy, then why don't the McDonald's employees scrap their current jobs and start their own companies and start earning the big bucks?

Click to expand...

I don't think most of us have a problem with CEOs making lots of money (maybe not 1000x the average employee, but that's probably another topic, and maybe we don't disagree there). But recognize that a lot of developed countries have higher rates of entrepreneurship than we do. Typically they attribute it to the fact that their citizens graduate from university without debt, aren't worried about losing their healthcare when they choose to leave a job (like McDonald's, in your example), and possibly even get government assistance to do it.

Surprisingly, people here are actually willing to work soul-sucking jobs for less than a living wage if they're sufficiently afraid of not having a job at all. You and I may have "good" jobs (I had a high-paying soul-sucking job until I came back to school), but a lot of people who work long days don't even make a living wage -- and they're afraid of losing those jobs. What are they going to do? Is the father going to go back to school for an associate's degree with little Suzie about to get braces? What about the people who take the risk, and for whom it doesn't pay off? You can say that's their problem/fault, but I think you can see why developed countries attribute the fact that more people take the risk there than here. Rolling the dice, here, is just riskier.

But all of this gets away from the issue of the people who live in poverty. For them, working hard doesn't lift them out of poverty. For them, the education to work smart is unattainable. Yes, there are uneducated people who do brilliant things... there is a much higher rate of educated people who do brilliant things. And, frankly, a person who is concerned about where his next meal is coming from, or what to do about the chronic pain in his back from a pinched nerve, or whether he will still have an apartment when he gets out of the ER... this person is not thinking about entrepreneurship, and it makes no sense to tell him that he should do so.

Willtor said:

It's also worth pointing out that many of us Americans who _have_ insurance are unhappy with it. We're in the unenviable position of being afraid of losing terrible service. It's kind of like our internet service providers, except life and physical well-being are on the line.

Some of us hear stories like that of DogmaHunter and wonder why we can't have nice things, too? I appreciate that a lot of people, here, want to ensure that any way they help the poor doesn't involve the government, but here's a self-interested argument for being a developed country (I won't call it "socialist" since that's apparently incorrect).

Click to expand...

It seems an incomprehensible case of ideology trumping sense.

miniverchivi said:

I understand that, however...an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level is a common trait shared by both.

Socialism = social ownership of the means of production
Communism = owned by the state

So, there is a difference...

However, both equate to me not being able to own them privately.

Click to expand...

Soooo... who are all these countries in Europe where one isn't able to own them privately?

Armoured said:

Soooo... who are all these countries in Europe where one isn't able to own them privately?

Click to expand...

We've been told they're all mistaken about being socialist. Apparently, they aren't socialist. We should use a different word to describe them. I've adopted "developed" since they have more robust, more accessible infrastructures.

dogs4thewin said:

yes, however it should be the case that people give freely. Otherwise, in the law it is out and out ROBBERY. By law, in most cases that is the FORCEFUL taking of something as opposed to simple theft. Either by means of violentence or threats of voleience. That and would you rather someone help because they HAD to or because they WANTED to which means more? For that matter, which would GOD want?

Click to expand...

I don't think the hungry child would care. The problem is that most people do not give freely. We are too selfish or too greedy. Taxes (not violence?!?) are necessary to provide a safety net which anyone at any time could end up needing. Maybe you have never had any hardship in your life where you needed help and were not able to find it. That kind of experience may change your perspective. I don't think God would approve of our unwillingness to share some of what we have with those in need.

Loudmouth said:

What type of solution do you prefer?

Click to expand...

I prefer a solution where men and women have incentive to save and invest real, honest money (not fiat bills and notes).

A system of real, honest money along with minimal government interference, with peace officers instead of policy enforcement officers, and the ability to create unique self-identifying communities ... promotes virtuous behavior (self-reliance, self-development, sociableness, voluntary co-operation with others, thoughtful behavior, healthy lifestyles, etc., all based on the personal knowledge that 1. no government will come save them from self-harming behavior, 2. their savings from personal hard-work will not be stolen from them either literally or through inflation, and 3. that the community will help you in times of trouble if you are an upstanding member, etc.).

All systems otherwise in existence today are instead designed to destroy all of that in one way or another.

LionL said:

I disagree.
I find it much more repugnant for the rich to groe richer from the exploitation of the poor.

Click to expand...

Oh, right. Money is a negative sum game, and if some people are richer than others, they didn't get it legitimately, but stole it from the poor. How can you even believe such folly?

Willtor said:

I think God wants me to help the poor. A big help would be the establishment of social safety nets that reduce or eliminate homelessness and make normal medical care accessible to them. I'll use my vote to that end.

When I meet God on the last day, if He faults me for abusing the wealthy, then I will throw myself on His mercy. But in the Bible, God never destroyed a society because its wealthiest members were oppressed. The poor, on the other hand...

Click to expand...

I would much rather face God after opposing policies that devastated and destroyed families and harmed the poor spiritually by making them envious, entitled and ungrateful. Good intentions don't count. You are the ones harming the poor.

brewmama said:

I would much rather face God after opposing policies that devastated and destroyed families and harmed the poor spiritually by making them envious, entitled and ungrateful. Good intentions don't count. You are the ones harming the poor.

Click to expand...

Because of course, Brits, Europeans, Australians, are obviously massively more covetous and ungrateful than Americans.

Veritas said:

But helped save the world. You should be proud!

Click to expand...

Not proud, ashamed. She caused huge unemployment and a larger gap between the rich and the poor. I remember the riots, the poverty and my school being closed down.

miniverchivi said:

Working Hard is only one aspect...working smart is the other aspect.

Click to expand...

So you want to punish people for a lack of intelligence?

This is an insult. There are many poor who are much more intelligent than their 'superiors' but are denied opportunity and education because of their 'class' and lack of money.