What is so wrong with socialism?

[Jan Volkes]

Top 75% of what?

If you're referring to top 75% as far as income percentiles, then I'll have to say you're wrong on that one.

The 75th percentile starts at around $85k/year.
http://www.whatsmypercent.com/

That's not an unattainable goal by any means.



I agree that trickle down doesn't work...

However, as to your other comment about where millionaires spend their money...

They might buy some things overseas...but that's not where the majority of their money gets spent.

I've seen articles that a large number of millionaires invest up to a third of their money overseas...however, I'm not finding anything to suggest that that's where buy most of their stuff from...not saying you're wrong, just saying I can't find any articles that support your assertion on that one. Do you have a link?



When you say millionaire...do you truly mean millionaire?...are you referring to multi-millionaire types when you say that?

As far as having a net worth of a million dollars, I don't think that's all that difficult in this day in age is it?

My grandfather was a truck driver for 42 years, and between his house (which is paid off) and his savings, he has a net worth of over a million. Granted, he was very frugal with his money during his time in the labor force...he saved about 20 cents of every dollar he made in that time window.

I replied to a republican, he will not answer me because he' knows he's wrong, since writing my reply I have completely lost interest but I thank you for replying.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I think that many equate socialism with Communism and haven't progressed past that.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I think that many equate socialism with Communism and haven't progressed past that.

That's right, they have been told that socialism is wrong but they have no idea why it's wrong and they are not prepared to find out.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that many equate socialism with Communism and haven't progressed past that.

I don't think that equating socialism with communism is the issue...

I think the issue that many have is equating Nordic Capitalism with Socialism.

Much of this is due to the fact that many people who advocate the the Nordic model falsely refer to themselves as socialists, and therefore, their political opponents take them at their word and assume they mean real socialism.

I don't think it's that conservatives don't know what socialism is, I think it's that many liberals confuse the concepts of Nordic capitalism and socialism.

The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[6]In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects. Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly" capitalism, with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states and reduced concentration of top incomes, and contrast it with the more "cut-throat" capitalism of the United States

Now, this post wasn't intended to advocate either model, I personally don't care for socialism or Nordic capitalism...just simply pointing out that there's a significant difference between the two.

For all of the young liberals who say "we should be socialist like Denmark!", they're actually doing more harm than good for their cause by incorrectly associating themselves with a word that has a negative connotation in the US.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I don't think that equating socialism with communism is the issue...


I don't think it's that conservatives don't know what socialism is, I think it's that many liberals confuse the concepts of Nordic capitalism and socialism.

Um, This was my point. The reason why people equate socialism with communism is that they haven't a clue what separates them. I would also point out the incredible amount of indoctrination within our educational system that allows ideals like socialism to pass without informed discussion.

What we have is intrenched idealism, on both sides whose adherents are equally convinced of the sanctity of their cause and the malevolence of the opposition that they refuse to think beyond that.

As far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter how intelligent, how stupid, how educated or how uneducated you are. If your an ideologue then you've abandoned all reason for emotionalism and you are as much danger the a free society as you are to free speech.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have news for you, you will never even reach the top 75%, it's a lie told to Americans to keep them quiet.

Sorry, this year I'm among the top 10%, though I've spent a lot of time in the bottom 50%.

You are obviously one of those people who think trickle down economics actually works, well it doesn't,

"Trickle Down" was a pejorative term used to attack Reagan. It's actually how economics works. It's how America became the most powerful nation in the world. I'm sorry liberal education has failed you. If your boss was poor you wouldn't have a job.
[/quote]today the American millionaires and billionaires shop all over the world because they can either get it cheaper or made better in countries other than the US, which means the money is spent elsewhere and other countries get the benefits.[/quote]
How many millionaires do you know? You certainly aren't describing any of the ones I know.
Billionaires rarely put their money in banks they invest it all over the world, if they do put it into a bank I doubt it would be an American bank it would be in offshore accounts like the Romney's use for tax reasons, they don't even pay tax in the US,
they take the money out of America and spend it in other countries, if there is trickle down it happens in other countries.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. You've demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you're talking about so we're done here.
In 2011, the year the LIAR Harry Reid said he didn't pay taxes, Romney paid 1.94 million in federal income taxes. You're repeating proven lies and making things up. Your arguments are false.

 

[Mediaeval]

Poorer families, in general, are not well educated themselves, and are therefore not in a position to educate their kids themselves.

One of the strengths of homeschooling these days is that the parents themselves do not necessarily have to be brainiacs. The parents may even enjoy learning along with the children.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

One of the strengths of homeschooling these days is that the parents themselves do not necessarily have to be brainiacs. The parents may even enjoy learning along with the children.

True. Education is never wasted. It's the opportunity of using it that does. Everybody needs to be prepared for when opportunity knocks.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Trickle Down" was a pejorative term used to attack Reagan. It's actually how economics works. It's how America became the most powerful nation in the world.

Well, in it's pure sense...yes, that's how economics works. People with money have things they desire (whether it be goods or services) which create opportunities to make money for people further down the ladder.

For example...I want a pizza. However, I don't feel like making one, I want someone to make it for me, and thus, Donatos employees now have an opportunity to earn some money. On that, we agree...

However, in terms of trickle-down in regards to government intervention and policy, that is what I believe the other poster is referring to...at which point, I went on record agreeing with them.

In terms of government policy and intervention, trickle down means:
The theory that economic benefits provided to upper income level earners will help society as a whole. In theory their extra wealth will be spent into the economy, providing wealth for lower income earners and creating jobs. This wealth in turn is spent back into the economy.

In the purest sense (in a market that hasn't been tampered with), wealth does trickle down, you're correct...however, the notion that giving even more money to people who are already wealthy in hopes that even more money will trickle down is an ill thought out notion and isn't grounded in reality (and I'm saying this as a free market capitalist and a libertarian).

Providing additional benefits to the rich is just as much crony capitalism as any other form. To think that it would work, is to be naive enough to think that they will take the benefit they just received, and race out to a mall in a middle class neighborhood and spend every cent of it. (which obviously won't happen) They're going to save a sizeable portion of that (typically around 40%)...and a good chunk of it will go toward luxury items (IE: Rich people buying things off of other rich people)

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years. By contrast, when the middle class earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

A simple way to illustrate the reason why this is:
Let's say we have $100,000 up for grabs to give out as a benefit...what's a better way to ensure that every cent of that gets into the economy via commerce? Giving it to one guy who's already rich (who will likely put nearly half of that in their savings)? Or giving a $20 bill to 5,000 middle class folks? (who will likely spend that $20 within a week)

So, again, I have no problem with the natural economic concept of trickle down...as you said, that is how commerce works. However, I do oppose the idea that going out of our way to give rich people even more money will somehow help everyone else out.

To be clear, I don't want the government tampering in the market at all in that form (giving unearned money to rich or middle class), I'd prefer to see nature take its course in the market...

Or, the short version: Natural trickle down > Poor attempt at government induced trickle down.

I don't want the government interfering at all...however, if they feel that they must get involved, worldwide track records would indicate that attempting to artificially induce middle-out seems to have a higher success rate than attempting to artificially induce trickle down.

 

[morningstar2651]

Your average American doesn't know the difference between capitalism, state capitalism, communism, or socialism. They just believe what they are told - Socialism is bad.

But then a thread comes along where someone re-brands National Socialism (Nazism) without antisemitism and the most vehemently anti-Socialist conservatives loved it. The 40 point platform of the party was a mashup of the Hitler's 25 point plan and the fascist manifesto of the American Blackshirts.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your average American doesn't know the difference between capitalism, state capitalism, communism, or socialism.

Agreed

They just believe what they are told - Socialism is bad.

I, personally, feel that pure socialism is bad...any many western European countries agree...which is why they've implemented the hybrid I mentioned in a couple earlier posts.

Even the nations with the most generous social programs have still realized that there are intrinsic benefits that go along with allowing private entities to own industries and a competitive environment. As I made reference to earlier, the model they've implemented is a hybrid of 70% capitalism/30% socialism (w/ 26-50% unionization in their private sector depending on the country). For us in the US, that split is 93% capitalism/7% socialism (w/ 11% unionization)

From a personal perspective, I'm not going to call what they do "evil", or "corrupt"...if it works for them, and the majority are happy with the results, then by all means, keep doing what's working for you.

However, I'd have serious reservations about trying to implement that model in the US due to differences in work culture and union culture between them and us. (IE: Works councils vs. Labor Unions). European countries have embraced works councils (essentially, unionization that's organized at the company level rather than at a industry or regional level) which allows for greater levels of competition within an industry. The US (thanks to FDR), on the other hand, have made work councils illegal...so we're in a situation where it's "Full-blown labor union or nothing"

 

[morningstar2651]

I, personally, feel that pure socialism is bad...any many western European countries agree...which is why they've implemented the hybrid I mentioned in a couple earlier posts.

Agreed. The Nordic model seems to be working out pretty well in the countries that have implemented it but it's not going to work well in every situation.

My reservations about the Nordic model working here are budgetary. If we don't balance our budget, raise our taxes, and cut our expenses then social security and medicare will start to fall apart in the 2030's - even faster if we try to transition to the Nordic model without any financial preparation. We need to make some pretty severe cuts to our military spending and these would have to be spread over time to keep from skyrocketing our unemployment. We need to raise taxes, close tax loopholes, and fight tax avoidance - these three are a difficult balancing act. The government also needs to account for a lack of income on student debt if we're going to transition to a free public higher education system.

There is a lot about the way our money is budgeted that would need to change for the Nordic model to be feasible in America. I think that these would be changes in the right direction for us to make, but they aren't likely to happen in 4-8 years.

 

[KWCrazy]

however, the notion that giving even more money to people who are already wealthy in hopes that even more money will trickle down is an ill thought out notion and isn't grounded in reality (and I'm saying this as a free market capitalist and a libertarian).

Nobody ever suggested giving the wealthy anything. However, offering tax incentives for re-investments that create new jobs has the net result in creating new taxpayers and taking people off the receiving end, so there is no downside. The net result of cutting taxes for re-investment has always been a net increase of revenue to the federal government. John Kennedy proved it before Reagan ever did. The fact is, giving a poor man a 50% tax break and a rich man a 2% tax break still benefits the poor man more regardless of the dollars involved. However, giving a rich man a tax credit on all re-investment capital eliminates more poor men and gives them a job with which they can support themselves.

 

[Willtor]

Nobody ever suggested giving the wealthy anything. However, offering tax incentives for re-investments that create new jobs has the net result in creating new taxpayers and taking people off the receiving end, so there is no downside. The net result of cutting taxes for re-investment has always been a net increase of revenue to the federal government. John Kennedy proved it before Reagan ever did. The fact is, giving a poor man a 50% tax break and a rich man a 2% tax break still benefits the poor man more regardless of the dollars involved. However, giving a rich man a tax credit on all re-investment capital eliminates more poor men and gives them a job with which they can support themselves.

For skilled labor, certainly. You can do little better than to encourage investment in entrepreneurship. Small business growth is how you build a sustainable economy.

But for unskilled, or for a lack of the right skills, or if a robot will do the work more cheaply, it doesn't matter how much money goes to investment. The unemployed remain unemployed. This is true of a lot of blue collar work, now, and the trend will expand in both directions -- retail and white collar -- along with technology.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nobody ever suggested giving the wealthy anything. However, offering tax incentives for re-investments that create new jobs has the net result in creating new taxpayers and taking people off the receiving end, so there is no downside. The net result of cutting taxes for re-investment has always been a net increase of revenue to the federal government. John Kennedy proved it before Reagan ever did. The fact is, giving a poor man a 50% tax break and a rich man a 2% tax break still benefits the poor man more regardless of the dollars involved. However, giving a rich man a tax credit on all re-investment capital eliminates more poor men and gives them a job with which they can support themselves.

The issue with that is this... Trickle down philosophies have already been tested and shown not to work...

Decades of attempting this haven't increased any upward mobility among the lower or middle classes. However, the rich have had large increases in their net worth.

Now don't get me wrong...I have no issues with large incomes, large profits, and someone getting ridiculously rich...I wish I was in that position myself...all I'm saying is once a person is a billionaire, there's nothing to suggest that the breaks they're given truly benefit anyone other than themselves...and historical data has shown that the money is certainly not being used to create new jobs by any measurable metric.

Reagan & Kennedy proved nothing. Both took office on the tail-end of a recession (or in the midst of a post recession upturn) so they got to ride the recovery period...literally anyone sitting in that chair would've had a lower unemployment rate at the end of their term vs. when they started.

 

[KWCrazy]

For skilled labor, certainly. You can do little better than to encourage investment in entrepreneurship. Small business growth is how you build a sustainable economy.

But for unskilled, or for a lack of the right skills, or if a robot will do the work more cheaply, it doesn't matter how much money goes to investment. The unemployed remain unemployed.

To some extent, yes, and to some extend no. Robots require building, programming and servicing. Even devices which eliminate labor generate some labor in the process. Most retirement plans are at least partially vested in the stock market, so increased profits benefit anyone with a 401K or similar plan. Let's face it. The days of selling manual, unskilled labor are slowly coming to an end. Even now unskilled workers feel the greatest competition from unskilled illegal aliens. That's one reason to protect our labor force. Sure there are jobs Americans won't do... because they have such a high standard of living by not working they aren't pressured to take other jobs. Why swing a hammer in the hot sun when you can play X-Box in air conditioned comfort?

The problem is, we're being crushed under the dead weight of our own population. We don't need any help from illegal Third World trespassers.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

To some extent, yes, and to some extend no. Robots require building, programming and servicing. Even devices which eliminate labor generate some labor in the process. Most retirement plans are at least partially vested in the stock market, so increased profits benefit anyone with a 401K or similar plan. Let's face it. The days of selling manual, unskilled labor are slowly coming to an end. Even now unskilled workers feel the greatest competition from unskilled illegal aliens. That's one reason to protect our labor force. Sure there are jobs Americans won't do... because they have such a high standard of living by not working they aren't pressured to take other jobs. Why swing a hammer in the hot sun when you can play X-Box in air conditioned comfort?

The problem is, we're being crushed under the dead weight of our own population. We don't need any help from illegal Third World trespassers.

The days of working at the steel mill straight out of high school is a story grandfathers tell their kids now. You can't be unskilled and work at a job where you are not receiving any sort of social program benefit. You need something. CDL, certificate of whatever, something. The question I want answered is, do we actually have the jobs available if everyone got of their rears to gain these skills for these jobs? If we do, then we need to push for that. If we don't, then we need to figure something out to balance out the fact that if you don't want people to receive social program benefits. you better pay them enough so they don't need them.

 

[KWCrazy]

The issue with that is this... Trickle down philosophies have already been tested and shown not to work..

That's why the American colonies failed after ten years and the socialist Indians still control this continent.
The problem is there is no such thing as "trickle down," only "economics.

Decades of attempting this haven't increased any upward mobility among the lower or middle classes.

True, which is why America is a failed welfare state and superpowers like Greece support and defend us.

Now don't get me wrong...I have no issues with large incomes, large profits, and someone getting ridiculously rich...I wish I was in that position myself...all I'm saying is once a person is a billionaire, there's nothing to suggest that the breaks they're given truly benefit anyone other than themselves...and historical data has shown that the money is certainly not being used to create new jobs by any measurable metric.

Perhaps you are getting your data from the Democratic Party. That would explain it all.

Reagan & Kennedy proved nothing. Both took office on the tail-end of a recession (or in the midst of a post recession upturn) so they got to ride the recovery period...literally anyone sitting in that chair would've had a lower unemployment rate at the end of their term vs. when they started.

How did that work for Hoover?
Why haven't things rebounded for the Moron-in-chief, Obama? The recession at the end of the Bush was just a minor turn down, completely mishandled. Had it happened a year earlier Obummer would have inherited a booming economy.
No oppressive regulation ever fed a starving child.
Remember when Obummer promises to bankrupt the coal industry? So far, over 43,300 jobs have been lost because one moron believes that destroying America's energy industry will save the planet.

 

[Willtor]

To some extent, yes, and to some extend no. Robots require building, programming and servicing. Even devices which eliminate labor generate some labor in the process. Most retirement plans are at least partially vested in the stock market, so increased profits benefit anyone with a 401K or similar plan. Let's face it. The days of selling manual, unskilled labor are slowly coming to an end. Even now unskilled workers feel the greatest competition from unskilled illegal aliens. That's one reason to protect our labor force. Sure there are jobs Americans won't do... because they have such a high standard of living by not working they aren't pressured to take other jobs. Why swing a hammer in the hot sun when you can play X-Box in air conditioned comfort?

The problem is, we're being crushed under the dead weight of our own population. We don't need any help from illegal Third World trespassers.

Building and programming a robot takes labor, but not very much. The amount of labor it takes to make the robot is tiny compared to what the person who buys it will get back from it. It's displaced human labor. That's the point of the robot. Beyond that, the little labor that is required to build and program the robot is highly skilled labor. This is why the money doesn't trickle down from investment. Those who are unskilled, or who don't have the right set of skills, see zero benefit from investment.

Illegal immigrants taking unskilled labor is a temporary problem. Illegal immigrants are only a problem because in a few places it is still possible to pay a human less than a robot for unskilled (or minimally skilled) work. The fact is that the illegal immigrants aren't being paid a living wage for their work, so it's a stretch to think they're competing with unskilled American labor. And even then, that work is disappearing. If China is replacing their workforce with robots, we're seeing the end of unskilled labor.

 

[KWCrazy]

Building and programming a robot takes labor, but not very much. The amount of labor it takes to make the robot is tiny compared to what the person who buys it will get back from it.

Yes, that's why they do it.
A large manufacturer just put in $400 million worth of robotics; two, to be exact. They take the place of 15 workers, work around the clock, work perfectly every time, and will save the company tens of millions of dollars per year.
The company that sold them got a $400 million contract.
The sales department got a bonus.
Car dealerships in the area sold new cars.
Realtors sold new homes.
Nobody lost their jobs. 15 fewer people were hired to replace retirees.
People purchasing the products made by the robots will have more up time.

Innovation is neither good nor bad. It just is. It's going to happen, like it or not. The most efficient companies thrive, the inefficient die off.

Illegal immigrants are only a problem because in a few places it is still possible to pay a human less than a robot for unskilled (or minimally skilled) work.

No, it's a problem because they are criminals illegally occupying our country in defiance of our laws.

The fact is that the illegal immigrants aren't being paid a living wage for their work, so it's a stretch to think they're competing with unskilled American labor.

You mean they aren't living? Why, then, is the leading source of income for Mexico money coming in from Mexican citizens living in the US? How could this be?
BTW. Businesses are moving out of China for Vietnam in search of lower cost labor. Nothing remains constant other than change.