The benefits of socialism

[Mountainmanbob]

https://www.real.video/5834961975001

I thought she believed in spreading her money around? Could have given a lot of meals to the poor.

My wife is a very classy dresser and finds outfits at the Dress Barn that look as nice as that one and she only spends a couple hundred dollars (at the most) on them.

Seems many politicians end up spending more than they make. Could be one of the many roads to corruption?
M-Bob

 

[Maria Sweet]

https://www.real.video/5834961975001

The benefits of socialism:

1. Reduced standard of living
2. Poverty
3. Joblessness
4. Disincentives for entrepreneurship

Do I need to go on? Socialism is generally a bad thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The benefits of socialism:

1. Reduced standard of living
2. Poverty
3. Joblessness
4. Disincentives for entrepreneurship

Do I need to go on? Socialism is generally a bad thing.

If one believes that past performance is a good indicator of future success, I think one must agree with that conclusion.

 

[Chris V++]

Don't believe all the propaganda you hear on the news about socialism. Not all socialist countries perform the same. You can't compare Greece for example to Holland, just like you can't compare New York City to, say, Detroit Michigan. The United States is more socialist than most will admit what with our public schools, subsidized universities, social security, medicaid and medicare. So will eliminating public schools, social security, medicare etc improve our standard of living?

 

[Willie T]

You would think they could understand simple math. When you take away what others have earned, and spend it all.... there will be NOTHING left. And violence will erupt when everyone kills their neighbor to get the scrap of bread they think they have.

 

[thecolorsblend]

When the American left thinks of socialism, they tend to think of the Nordic model.

When the American right thinks of socialism, they tend to think of Venezuela.

Disclaimer- Whether or not it's accurate to call any of those countries socialist is beside the point for both sides.

 

[mama2one]

My wife is a very classy dresser and finds outfits at the Dress Barn that look as nice as that one and she only spends a couple hundred dollars (at the most)

having never spent that much on a dress or any outfit, I think a couple hundred dollars is a lot and would not spend a couple hundred dollars on one clothes outfit

but then I'm not much of a shopper and only own one dress and one skirt, lol

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't believe all the propaganda you hear on the news about socialism. Not all socialist countries perform the same. You can't compare Greece for example to Holland, just like you can't compare New York City to, say, Detroit Michigan. The United States is more socialist than most will admit what with our public schools, subsidized universities, social security, medicaid and medicare. So will eliminating public schools, social security, medicare etc improve our standard of living?

Tax funded social programs do not constitute socialism.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

ost

 

[Greg J.]

Interview with Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Britain (one might gather from her response that she was conservative). Britain's "Labour Party" roughly corresponds to the U.S. Democratic Party. (Pro socialist constructs, Pro union, et al.)

Q: There are those nasty critics, of course, who suggest that you don’t really want to bring [the Labour Party] down at the moment. Life is a bit too difficult in the country, and that … leave them to sort the mess out and then come in with the attack later … say next year.


A: I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/other-peoples-money/

I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. (Psalms 37:25, 1984 NIV)

Consider things like (American) Social Security running out of money, cities going bankrupt, increasing national debt, National health care (which is a sneaky way to have the public pay for it without overtly increasing taxes; if it were a tax, then there would be more transparency and control over from whom the money is gotten), etc. (America does not work like the countries where socialism seems to be working; check their tax rates, btw.)

I have an issue with the idea that governments are supposed to feed us and solve our problems (which are the result of failing to entrust oneself entirely to Jesus). Federal dollars spent for anything (e.g., the military) means more money than is necessary is needed than in smaller organizations, and oversight and leadership is many layers of bureaucracy away from what's happening on the ground.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The health, physical and financial, of the country is in the hands of her people. Government responds to problems caused by the people, not by the government. Government is reactive, not proactive. The people of America are responsible for the problems of America, not the government of America. It is not the duty of government to manage the lives of citizens. That is the citizens responsibility.

Dealing with problems that arise from certain groups or individuals is one thing, but to try and deal with nearly an entire recalcitrant population is quite another.

 

[Chris V++]

Tax funded social programs do not constitute socialism

so·cial·ism
ˈ noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If the 'product' of a public school is educated students, and that means of production is owned / regulated by the community, how is a public school not socialist?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

so·cial·ism
ˈ noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If the 'product' of a public school is educated students, and that means of production is owned / regulated by the community, how is a public school not socialist?

Does the knowledge conveyed by the public schools reflect this? And isn't higher education supported financially in large part by private foundations and business as well as taxes?

From a taxation point of view it would take more than 20 percent to fund socialism; more like 50 percent or more. America can fund its social programs, but not socialism. Therefore the economic power, 80 percent, is still in private hands, not the government.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The benefits of socialism:

1. Reduced standard of living
2. Poverty
3. Joblessness
4. Disincentives for entrepreneurship

Do I need to go on? Socialism is generally a bad thing.

Some countries will benefit from socialism, others won't. Socialism is best fitted to countries with limited resources and opportunities. America has both in abundance, so no need to divvy up what little there is as do socialist countries.

 

[Chris V++]

America can fund its social programs, but not socialism.

Besides national health care and cheaper higher education for the consumer, what other programs do democratic socialist countries enjoy that we don't already implement to some extent? My only point is that the earlier claim that socialist countries automatically suffer a reduced standard of living, poverty, joblessness, and disincentives for entrepreneurship are popular but misinformed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Besides national health care and cheaper higher education for the consumer, what other programs do democratic socialist countries enjoy that we don't already implement to some extent? My only point is that the earlier claim that socialist countries automatically suffer a reduced standard of living, poverty, joblessness, and disincentives for entrepreneurship are popular but misinformed.

The socialist countries of northern Europe are held as examples of the success of socialism. However most enjoy the benefits of huge trade surpluses that bolster their economies, largely from trading with the U.S. Without these surpluses their economies would look much different.

 

[expos4ever]

The benefits of socialism:

1. Reduced standard of living
2. Poverty
3. Joblessness
4. Disincentives for entrepreneurship

Do I need to go on? Socialism is generally a bad thing.

I you need to explain what you mean by socialism. I am not sure I understand the term myself, but people certainly characterize places like Norway and Sweden as socialist. And I am quite sure these socialist states rank above the USA in terms of standard of living and poverty.

 

[expos4ever]

so·cial·ism
ˈ noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If the 'product' of a public school is educated students, and that means of production is owned / regulated by the community, how is a public school not socialist?

Could you unpack this definition a little? When we talk about "means of production" being regulated by the community, what would be the impact on what we would generally call a "private business"?

 

[Chris V++]

The socialist countries of northern Europe are held as examples of the success of socialism. However most enjoy the benefits of huge trade surpluses that bolster their economies, largely from trading with the U.S. Without these surpluses their economies would look much different.

We have a positive trade surplus with the Netherlands, at least in 2014 if you can believe wikipedia, and their standard of living isn't hardly suffering under democratic socialism. Of our 6 largest trade partners Germany is the only European country on the list.

A flow map of the largest trade partners of the USUnited States imported $2.13 trillion from other countries in 2014

United States exported $1.44 trillion to other countries in 2014
Rank Country/District Exports Imports Total Trade Trade Balance

China 129,894 505,470 635,364 -375,576
2

Canada 282,265 299,319 581,584 -17,054
3

Mexico 243,314 314,267 557,581 -70,953
4

Japan 67,605 136,481 204,086 -68,876
5

Germany 53,897 117,575 171,472 -63,678
6

South Korea 48,326 71,444 119,770 -23,118

13

Netherlands 41,510 17,785 59,295 +23,725

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

 

[Chris V++]

Could you unpack this definition a little? When we talk about "means of production" being regulated by the community, what would be the impact on what we would generally call a "private business"?

I would say the impact on private business would be paying taxes and passing regulations to protect workers and consumers. Right or wrong, we already do this just like they do in democratic socialist countries. Some of the regulations can and do go over the top, here and abroad, but that's a different issue.