What is so wrong with socialism?

[Willtor]

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.

This is wishful thinking. The robot takes the place of 15 workers... who, in all likelihood, didn't retire. This is the problem our economy is facing. As you say, it's innovation, and it's going to happen. I'm pro-innovation. I'm just not pro-ignoring-the-consequences. This latest revolution in productivity has changed the nature of productivity, itself. Fewer people are needed to create more wealth. The consequence has been that the people who used to be employed/employable are no longer.

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

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.

To the first part, that's its own thing, and not really relevant to what we're talking about.

To the second, yes, I mean many of them are either homeless or living in places where multiple families share a room. You may call this a living wage, but if so, it is only because you have not tried it.

 

[KWCrazy]

This is wishful thinking. The robot takes the place of 15 workers... who, in all likelihood, didn't retire.

Here's the problem you have.
I don't lie.
I know this scenario to be 100% true because I know the principals involved. The part about cars and homes is speculation, but I know for a fact that the manufacturer re-located to the region so that's pretty much a given.

Fewer people are needed to create more wealth.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. The success of one does not result in the ruin of another. That's why re-distribution never works. Most millionaires have been bankrupt at least once because they take risks. What destroys wealth is socialism, because it destroys the incentive to create new wealth.

To the first part, that's its own thing, and not really relevant to what we're talking about.

Sure it is. There are 90 million Americans without jobs and 11 million illegal immigrants. Sending them home will free up jobs for Americans.

To the second, yes, I mean many of them are either homeless or living in places where multiple families share a room. You may call this a living wage, but if so, it is only because you have not tried it.

It's better than how they live at home, which is why they send so much money home rather than use it to improve their circumstance. Personally, I'm all for a guest worker program, but we need to control who comes to our country and who does not.

If you have a roofing company and you follow the rules, you could well be driven out of business by one that pays cash to illegals who work for a lower wage because they already have a free ride from the taxpayers. How is that fair to companies that follow the law? How is that fair to the laborer who can't get hired because $10 per hour for him costs his employer $15 per hour in taxes and benefits where the illegal worker gets a net $10 and not all jobs are even reported?

 

[Willtor]

Here's the problem you have.
I don't lie.
I know this scenario to be 100% true because I know the principals involved. The part about cars and homes is speculation, but I know for a fact that the manufacturer re-located to the region so that's pretty much a given.

I didn't say you lied. I said it's wishful thinking. Who cares if they are able to build more cars or homes if fewer people are able to buy them? The people who got laid off need work in order to buy the products and services that we're able to produce more of.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. The success of one does not result in the ruin of another. That's why re-distribution never works. Most millionaires have been bankrupt at least once because they take risks. What destroys wealth is socialism, because it destroys the incentive to create new wealth.

Whether it's a zero-sum game is not in question. Whether people are being replaced in the workforce by robots is. And they are. You want to school me on the principles of capitalism. That's just dandy. But it isn't the point.

Sure it is. There are 90 million Americans without jobs and 11 million illegal immigrants. Sending them home will free up jobs for Americans.

Do you see that this is different from what you said above? Not incompatible, mind you. Different. The other thing you said was irrelevant to this conversation.

It's better than how they live at home, which is why they send so much money home rather than use it to improve their circumstance. Personally, I'm all for a guest worker program, but we need to control who comes to our country and who does not.

If you have a roofing company and you follow the rules, you could well be driven out of business by one that pays cash to illegals who work for a lower wage because they already have a free ride from the taxpayers. How is that fair to companies that follow the law? How is that fair to the laborer who can't get hired because $10 per hour for him costs his employer $15 per hour in taxes and benefits where the illegal worker gets a net $10 and not all jobs are even reported?

It is, as you say, better than how they live at home in some cases, especially if they're escaping violence. That's not related to whether they are making a living wage.

And, as you say, it isn't fair to the American workers who would do these jobs for a not-living-wage. But the same thing is going to happen, and is happening, to these jobs as has happened to the manufacturing jobs. They're going to disappear. In my lab are technologies, in their infancy, that are going to replace those people.

You call it progress and innovation. I do too. But don't kid yourself that the people who lose their jobs to these machines are going to buy the houses that now get roof'd by machines, cheaper though those houses will be. This is the impetus for building a developed society.

 

[FredVB]

There isn't something wrong with socialism if it is among an assembly of willing Christian believers, this is in fact an ideal displayed under Christ's apostles in the church in Acts 2 and 4. It is not a stable arrangement generally otherwise, for a really long-term arrangement, with people generally having a selfish nature and resistant to it, and there will be tendency to overcome it, with what is contrary to wills being seen as repressive.

It certainly won't work in development where people who are working are going to be replaced with machinery that will do that work. But socialism shown as an ideal for a Christian community will work where the work believers are doing is secure for them, this being with the provision that there is Christian compassion and caring for one another among them.

 

[Albion]

There isn't something wrong with socialism if it is among an assembly of willing Christian believers

Then it isn't socialism.

If the wealth-sharing is voluntary and done for a religious reason, it is not socialism--by definition.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Then it isn't socialism.

If the wealth-sharing is voluntary and done for a religious reason, it is not socialism--by definition.

Even then it doesn't work as witnessed by the fact it was abandoned very early by the Christian communities of the first century and failed miserably( to the point of near extinction of the colony) in a latter attempt by the Pilgrims in colonial America. Christians are not special creatures with special powers of selflessness they are as human as everyone else with the same flaws and the same basic human nature. In a true socialist set up some will rebels against what they see as themselves being taken advantage of by those that are unwilling to contribute to the same degree as they are, some will see they can contribute less and reap the same reward as those contributing more and others will see they can use the inclinations of both of those groups to gain political power over them and thereby gain greater reward from the system than either of the others. Humans are creatures with a built in desire for inequality of status much like other pack animals they want to find their niche in the community and are most secure when they can be sure of exactly how highly regarded they are in comparison to others. Humans are natural competitors and do not fit well into a system that denies that such a trait exists.

 

[Black Dog]

This is a question for my American cousins: what is so wrong with socialism? Is it true that Americans hate socialism or is this just what gets shown in the media?

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?

Here is a quote from Lee Atwater, a famous Republican Campaign Consultant, and the inventor of the Southern Strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”

It worked out exactly as he envisioned it. The language used has evolved, but the effect remains the same. Socialism is economically helping the poor. And what group has one of the highest percentages of poverty?

So no surprise many Republicans hate socialism. Atwater called it.

 

[Albion]

It worked out exactly as he envisioned it. The language used has evolved, but the effect remains the same. Socialism is economically helping the poor. And what group has one of the highest percentages of poverty?

So no surprise many Republicans hate socialism. Atwater called it.

All you're saying there is that Socialism doesn't work.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Socialism is economically helping the poor.

Guess what group has the highest percentage living below the poverty line?

Do you mean true "socialism", or "social programs"?

"Socialism" is a system of economics in which there is socialized ownership of the means of production...which, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee fair or bad treatment of any particular racial or economic groups.

While people often cite countries like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc... as examples of "Socialism success stories", those countries aren't actually socialist, there what's known as "Nordic Capitalist" or "Social Democracy".

For every Iceland & Norway, there's also a Venezuela and China...now I'm not saying this to have a socialism vs. free market debate...just simply pointing out that socialism, alone, hasn't always proven to be a solution to poverty or racial inequality.

 

[Albion]

Do you mean true "socialism", or "social programs"?

"Socialism" is a system of economics in which there is socialized ownership of the means of production...which, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee fair or bad treatment of any particular racial or economic groups.

While people often cite countries like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc... as examples of "Socialism success stories", those countries aren't actually socialist, there what's known as "Nordic Capitalist" or "Social Democracy".

For every Iceland & Norway, there's also a Venezuela and China...now I'm not saying this to have a socialism vs. free market debate...just simply pointing out that socialism, alone, hasn't always proven to be a solution to poverty or racial inequality.

In fact, it hasn't ever accomplished that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In fact, it hasn't ever accomplished that.

I'm not a fan of socialism, however, one could make an argument in the case of Norway that they've made it work. They do have one of the lowest poverty rates in the world. According to The Economist, 37% of the companies in their country are state owned. (Most notably, in the largest industries in their country)

The reason why I'm not a fan of the idea is because socialism has a major risk...that risk being is that is only as effective, moral, and efficient as the people overseeing it. IMO, you're really rolling the dice when you give a monopoly of power to one entity like that since you're boxing yourself out of the ability to switch providers if you don't like how the current provider is handling things.

For example, if tomorrow, AT&T decides to start trying to swindle customers, I have the option of giving them the finger and going to Sprint or Verizon. If you're in a situation where there is only one company, and that company is owned by the state, no such option exists.

So while it has worked well for Norway up until this point since they've been fortunate enough to have genuine people running things, all it would take is for them to accidentally elect one or two people with secret, corrupt intentions and that could backfire on them really quickly.

 

[keith99]

Do you mean true "socialism", or "social programs"?

"Socialism" is a system of economics in which there is socialized ownership of the means of production...which, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee fair or bad treatment of any particular racial or economic groups.

While people often cite countries like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc... as examples of "Socialism success stories", those countries aren't actually socialist, there what's known as "Nordic Capitalist" or "Social Democracy".

For every Iceland & Norway, there's also a Venezuela and China...now I'm not saying this to have a socialism vs. free market debate...just simply pointing out that socialism, alone, hasn't always proven to be a solution to poverty or racial inequality.

I'm pretty sure it is not the entire means of production, but just 'heavy industry'. Which modernized a bit is just those industries requires so much capital that there are a very limited number of players. So butchers, bakers and candlestick makers are still very capitalistic in a true socialist economy.

It would be interesting to know how a socialist economy would deal with Walmart (after all mom and pop stores still exist).

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Do you mean true "socialism", or "social programs"?

"Socialism" is a system of economics in which there is socialized ownership of the means of production...which, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee fair or bad treatment of any particular racial or economic groups.

While people often cite countries like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc... as examples of "Socialism success stories", those countries aren't actually socialist, there what's known as "Nordic Capitalist" or "Social Democracy".

For every Iceland & Norway, there's also a Venezuela and China...now I'm not saying this to have a socialism vs. free market debate...just simply pointing out that socialism, alone, hasn't always proven to be a solution to poverty or racial inequality.

I would argue it probably depends on the culture of the country and how it adapts to such programs if socialism works or not. I guess I do not know about chinese culture, but I am shocked communism/socialism doesn't work for them, because from what I thought I knew of the culture would adapt easy to it...guess not. If the culture already has a "socialist" mentality built it it should be successful in theory.

 

[Gracchus]

The reason why I'm not a fan of the idea is because socialism has a major risk...that risk being is that is only as effective, moral, and efficient as the people overseeing it. IMO, you're really rolling the dice when you give a monopoly of power to one entity like that since you're boxing yourself out of the ability to switch providers if you don't like how the current provider is handling things.

“Put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket.” ― Mark Twain

An honest king is better than a corrupt plutocracy. And a dishonest king can be removed with only one bullet.

When Franklin was asked what sort of government the Constitutional Convention had devised he said: "A republic... if you can keep it." But while we were distracted by patriotism, endless war, religion, television and sports, the government was taken from our numb and unheeding fingers. And that is why the CEO earns thousands of times more than the coal miner, and the politician more than the teacher.

Consider that in a single-payer system of medical insurance it doesn't matter which doctor you go to. In the present system, you must choose from a list approved by the insurance company, and those must prescribe the approved drugs.

For example, if tomorrow, AT&T decides to start trying to swindle customers, I have the option of giving them the finger and going to Sprint or Verizon. If you're in a situation where there is only one company, and that company is owned by the state, no such option exists.

But if the same very few people own AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, your option is purely cosmetic. There is even some danger if they all belong to the same country club. If the one company is owned by an anonymous cartel, you have even less control. And that is what has happened, historically.

So while it has worked well for Norway up until this point since they've been fortunate enough to have genuine people running things, all it would take is for them to accidentally elect one or two people with secret, corrupt intentions and that could backfire on them really quickly.

When the American people, on the other hand, elect people with corrupt intentions, it is not an accident. If an honest, honorable politicians should get elected, they quickly learn the lesson: Compromise! You have to go along to get along. You must be practical. Most politicians spend most of their time raising money for their re-election campaigns. They don't even have time to read the legislation that the contributing lobbyists drop on their desks. So Capitalism progresses inevitably to its endgame, with all wealth and power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

"Oh say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land ruled by greed, and the home of the slave?"

 

[Black Dog]

All you're saying there is that Socialism doesn't work.

I didn't comment on socialism per se. As I stated, I'm referring to the Republican/FOX News concept of what socialism means, and how it neatly ties in with the Southern Strategy.

 

[Black Dog]

I didn't comment on socialism per se. I'm referring to the Republican/FOX News concept of what socialism means, and how it neatly ties in with the Southern Strategy.

Do you mean true "socialism", or "social programs"?

"Socialism" is a system of economics in which there is socialized ownership of the means of production...which, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee fair or bad treatment of any particular racial or economic groups.

While people often cite countries like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc... as examples of "Socialism success stories", those countries aren't actually socialist, there what's known as "Nordic Capitalist" or "Social Democracy".

For every Iceland & Norway, there's also a Venezuela and China...now I'm not saying this to have a socialism vs. free market debate...just simply pointing out that socialism, alone, hasn't always proven to be a solution to poverty or racial inequality.

I was referring to the Republican/FOX News concept of socialism, and how it ties in with the Southern Strategy as founded by Lee Atwater.

 

[Albion]

I didn't comment on socialism per se. As I stated, I'm referring to the Republican/FOX News concept of what socialism means, and how it neatly ties in with the Southern Strategy.

I'm fascinated at the idea that there IS some Southern Strategy or that there would be a need for such a thing. That expression was popular a half-century ago when the traditionally Democratic Deep South started voting Republican.

But today--in fact, ever since then--it's a foregone conclusion that the South will vote Republican, such that the idea of a "Southern Strategy" being worked would make no more sense than talking about the Democrat Party strategizing on some sly way to appeal to the voters of New England!

 

[grasping the after wind]

I was referring to the Republican/FOX News concept of socialism, and how it ties in with the Southern Strategy as founded by Lee Atwater.

Why? We were talking about socialism not Republicans and Fox News. The quote( which is unsourced so I have no way of knowing about its authenticity) has nothing to do with socialism. If it is actually is a quote from Atwater about a Southern Strategy it does not address anything about socialism but is about a strategy for winning elections.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm fascinated at the idea that there IS some Southern Strategy or that there would be a need for such a thing. That expression was popular a half-century ago when the traditionally Democratic Deep South started voting Republican.

Today, people attempt to imply that the southern strategy was somewhat of a complete "party switch" in which all the racists democrats of the day went over to the republican side (in attempts to label the republicans as 'the party of racism'). The reality was, while some democrats did switch allegiances as a result of the southern strategy, there were numerous democrats who stayed with the democratic party and continued to hold office on the (D) ticket clear thru the late 80's.

...and at this point in the conversation, it's where a few people from both sides begin being a bit dishonest about the situation.

Some republicans will cite Robert Byrd and use him to make it sound as if the southern strategy never happened...(which is false, it most certainly happened)
And, in rebuttal, some democrats will dismiss Robert Byrd as a fluke and try to pretend as if he was the only one who stayed in efforts to keep the illusion of a "full blown party switch"...(which is false, there were many other segregationists besides him who stayed with the democrats)

 

[Black Dog]

Why? We were talking about socialism not Republicans and Fox News. The quote( which is unsourced so I have no way of knowing about its authenticity) has nothing to do with socialism. If it is actually is a quote from Atwater about a Southern Strategy it does not address anything about socialism but is about a strategy for winning elections.

Because the term socialism, as used by almost 1/2 the USA, is used to describe essentially any government program which will benefit the poor (regardless of whether it helps the rich or middle class). It is used exactly the way Atwater said, as code to mean "They're stealing my money!"