Socialism and Me!

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I disagree with that quite a lot. A lot of third and first world countries can have individual ownership. But what happens is that the food is concentrated, the US is overwhelming with food, but in E. Europe&Russia, there's food shortages all the time, and they're considered 1st world too. And do you think third world countries are better off? And anyways even in the US, people die of starvation, though not a lot, but poverty is still a huge concern, especially that about 35mil.-40mil. are below the poverty line is. And the poverty line is what you pretty much need to survive. We should do it how W. Europe is, poverty line is parallel to the median income, so median income rises, poverty line rises, and I think even with that, they still have a lower percentage of poverty than the US.

Oh, you mean in the formerly socialist and still mostly screwed up Eastern Europe and Mother Russia? They've been "capitalist" (sort of, not really) for what, 14 years?

Yeah, poverty is a terrible thing in the United States. Did you know that some people still don't own 56 inch plasma TVs?

Basically in the United States, poverty is a matter of personal choice. BUT, if you really really wanted to eliminate poverty in this country, you'd eliminate all the hammocks, punish employers for hiring illegal aliens, and get dose lazy and stupid people out in dem field's pickin' cotton and strawberries, and keep them away from parasites like Oprah and O'Reilly.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Its fairly reasonable to say that being paid a doller a day isnt a fair wage, wouldnt you agree.

No, I would not agree. All depends on how you define "fairness". Are the employees forced to work at gunpoint, or are they free to look for alternative employment at higher wages, or are they free to not work at all and starve, if that's what they like to do? You have weird non-objective and western parochial views of the meaning of the word "fair".

Im not saying that multinationals should be made to pay workers in the third world an american minimum wage, just more than they are on now. Like i said the only choice many in the third world would have is between a badly paid job and starvation, doesnt sound much like freedom to me.

Okay, so you admit the workers are being provided a better alternative than starvation. What's your problem? Why don't you start up a textile company in Bangladesh and pay the employees what you think is "fair"? That's sounds much "fairer" than you and people like you trying to control other people's companies. You could advertise your products as "socially senstive" and come up with some bleeding heart scam that will market shirts to the soft-headed college kids at $5 more than your competition and you might make an astounding profit.

That's how the free market works, give it a try.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

I'm totally reading that book right now too




Anyway.




I find it odd that in countrys where they were once dirt poor with no wealth (China), their living standards have raised siginifanctly over the last years (1978 onward, to set up a dateline)



I also find it funny that the number 1 capitalist state in the world, Hong Kong, has the best booming economy around and has almost no natural resources.

Actualy if you look at the stats I think it's something like 60% of the Chinese population makes less then a dollar a day. China is doing very well when you're looking at it from the perspective of the poeple living in the blooming urban areas. However the majority of China is rural communities and it is in these comunities that you find the poor people and the food shortages. Even though China has a huge work force they have a reletively small number of specialists compared to other nations.

Check out the Economist Intellegence Unit on China.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Oh, you mean in the formerly socialist and still mostly screwed up Eastern Europe and Mother Russia? They've been "capitalist" (sort of, not really) for what, 14 years?

Yeah, poverty is a terrible thing in the United States. Did you know that some people still don't own 56 inch plasma TVs?

Basically in the United States, poverty is a matter of personal choice. BUT, if you really really wanted to eliminate poverty in this country, you'd eliminate all the hammocks, punish employers for hiring illegal aliens, and get dose lazy and stupid people out in dem field's pickin' cotton and strawberries, and keep them away from parasites like Oprah and O'Reilly.

How are Russia&E. Europe not capitalist?

Your comment about plasma TVs was really stupid. And if so many people in poverty wanted to be there, then why do so many want to get out, many also have gotten jobs to help them, but they are still considered impovershed. Some people do want to be in poverty, but that number is very few.

 

[128shot]

Actualy if you look at the stats I think it's something like 60% of the Chinese population makes less then a dollar a day. China is doing very well when you're looking at it from the perspective of the poeple living in the blooming urban areas. However the majority of China is rural communities and it is in these comunities that you find the poor people and the food shortages. Even though China has a huge work force they have a reletively small number of specialists compared to other nations.

Check out the Economist Intellegence Unit on China.

Thats mostly because those in the rural areas are still uneducated in many respects.


Urban areas have a larger amount of ex-socialist China industry and college grads.

 

[Red_Dave]

Thats mostly because those in the rural areas are still uneducated in many respects.


Urban areas have a larger amount of ex-socialist China industry and college grads.

the burgeosie in china may be pretty rich but those actually produceing the products are not. Thats why so many western clothes e.t.c are manufactured over there. Theres been lots of kids getting killed down mines e.t.c as well, sounds like something from the 19th century.

 

[128shot]

the burgeosie in china may be pretty rich but those actually produceing the products are not. Thats why so many western clothes e.t.c are manufactured over there. Theres been lots of kids getting killed down mines e.t.c as well, sounds like something from the 19th century.

those mines happen to be state owned...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

How are Russia&E. Europe not capitalist?

Your comment about plasma TVs was really stupid. And if so many people in poverty wanted to be there, then why do so many want to get out, many also have gotten jobs to help them, but they are still considered impovershed. Some people do want to be in poverty, but that number is very few.

Last time I checked, once the criminals under Gorbachev were kicked out, the so-called "Russian Mafia" took a much broader interest in their government. Needless to say, not only is the former slave states of Eastern Europe and Russia not very capitalist, if if they were, they haven't had much time to grow the capital they need to become as wealthy as the US. Growth takes time, as any eigth grade math student with a compound interest problem could tell you. Duh.

And if you're not a capable of understanding the intent of my comment on plasma TV's then I pity you. But that doesn't mean I'm going to explain it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

As for China...is it any big surprise that industrialization happens most commonly where there are large masses of people for labor, and where transportation and service facilities such as water and power already exist?

Is it any surprise that regions of wealth creation and thus higher standards of living expand from regions of industrialization?

Why is anyone surprised that rural China is not yet enjoying siginificant benefits from China's new industrialization?

Its the way things work. Just wait, soon enough the benefits of industrialization will hit rural China, and the Chinese "Family Farmer" will be hiring Willy Nelson to sing for their aid benefit concerts.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Last time I checked, once the criminals under Gorbachev were kicked out, the so-called "Russian Mafia" took a much broader interest in their government. Needless to say, not only is the former slave states of Eastern Europe and Russia not very capitalist, if if they were, they haven't had much time to grow the capital they need to become as wealthy as the US. Growth takes time, as any eigth grade math student with a compound interest problem could tell you. Duh.

And if you're not a capable of understanding the intent of my comment on plasma TV's then I pity you. But that doesn't mean I'm going to explain it.

Well the problem is that during the period it takes to develope people are starving if you have free market way to prosperity. Also if you look at those countries are really capitalistic. But one other problem with free market is that it can work against free market and capitalistism ideals. Becuse really liberal markets with little goverment interference lead for example to that there are few anti trust legislation leading to the creation of monopolies and olygopols.

Also I'm also "stupid" so I will questin your plasma tv statement. Because if people have to work two jobs to support themself, don't have health insurance, little chance to get in to college, is it then really as you try to apply that USA have only a "luxury poverty" or maybee more correct a "pretty ok poverty".

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well the problem is that during the period it takes to develope people are starving if you have free market way to prosperity. Also if you look at those countries are really capitalistic. But one other problem with free market is that it can work against free market and capitalistism ideals. Becuse really liberal markets with little goverment interference lead for example to that there are few anti trust legislation leading to the creation of monopolies and olygopols.

Also I'm also "stupid" so I will questin your plasma tv statement. Because if people have to work two jobs to support themself, don't have health insurance, little chance to get in to college, is it then really as you try to apply that USA have only a "luxury poverty" or maybee more correct a "pretty ok poverty".

You mean as opposed to when everyone was starving under the socialist rule, right?

Socialism steals the incentive for people to better themselves, to work.

In true free market economies there's no need for anti-trust legislation, because trusts are either a product of government protection or a development of niche markets that don't survive if the market expands to cover larger segments of the economy.

The word is "oligarchy", and it means rule by the few, which is EXACTLY what the elitism inherent in any socialist concept demands, so why are you against oligarchy?

As for poverty, by definition there will always be those poorer than others. Usually as a result of their own personal choices. It's just that socialism is far more efficient at creating poor people, so wealth becomes more noticeable by comparison.

 

[Kelzie]

You mean as opposed to when everyone was starving under the socialist rule, right?

Socialism steals the incentive for people to better themselves, to work.

In true free market economies there's no need for anti-trust legislation, because trusts are either a product of government protection or a development of niche markets that don't survive if the market expands to cover larger segments of the economy.

The word is "oligarchy", and it means rule by the few, which is EXACTLY what the elitism inherent in any socialist concept demands, so why are you against oligarchy?

As for poverty, by definition there will always be those poorer than others. Usually as a result of their own personal choices. It's just that socialism is far more efficient at creating poor people, so wealth becomes more noticeable by comparison.

Now wait. Let's calm down here. I am in complete agreeance that pure socialism/communism is just dumb.

But European countries are doing just fine. The come out with a lot of good technology. Nobody's starving.

And socialism isn't supposed to be run by the few. It's supposed to be a straight democracy. Just doesn't always play out that way.

By the way. In true free markets, there is no government protection as far as anti-trust legislation goes.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Now wait. Let's calm down here. I am in complete agreeance that pure socialism/communism is just dumb.

But European countries are doing just fine. The come out with a lot of good technology. Nobody's starving.

And socialism isn't supposed to be run by the few. It's supposed to be a straight democracy. Just doesn't always play out that way.

By the way. In true free markets, there is no government protection as far as anti-trust legislation goes.

A permanent minimum 10% unemployment rate is "just fine"?

And it doesn't matter how socialism is supposed to be, it's how it's got to be. And every bus has a driver. Any system the pretends it doesn't need one is flawed.

The only way to make socialism work is to eliminate scarcity. When everything is finally made by robots and no one has to clean toilets for a living, then and only then will any form of socialist idealism be possible.

That'll happen when crows give milk, both half-and-half and chocolate.

 

[Kelzie]

A permanent minimum 10% unemployment rate is "just fine"?

And it doesn't matter how socialism is supposed to be, it's how it's got to be. And every bus has a driver. Any system the pretends it doesn't need one is flawed.

The only way to make socialism work is to eliminate scarcity. When everything is finally made by robots and no one has to clean toilets for a living, then and only then will any form of socialist idealism be possible.

That'll happen when crows give milk, both half-and-half and chocolate.

That's only some countries. I thought we've already discussed this?

And I'm a vegan. I don't drink milk. :mrgreen:

 

[Rhadamanthus]

A permanent minimum 10% unemployment rate is "just fine"?

QUOTE]

Good thing then that we have 5% unemployment rate, because that is "just fine."

Just because we have a democracy here dosn't mean we don't also have an oligarchy. The majority of our nations power and wealth is held in the hands of a few very rich.

 

[128shot]

A permanent minimum 10% unemployment rate is "just fine"?

QUOTE]

Good thing then that we have 5% unemployment rate, because that is "just fine."

Just because we have a democracy here dosn't mean we don't also have an oligarchy. The majority of our nations power and wealth is held in the hands of a few very rich.

and just because they're wealthy doesn't mean it goes unchallenged.


Ever think they are that way because they...omg work for it?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

A permanent minimum 10% unemployment rate is "just fine"?

QUOTE]

Good thing then that we have 5% unemployment rate, because that is "just fine."

Just because we have a democracy here dosn't mean we don't also have an oligarchy. The majority of our nations power and wealth is held in the hands of a few very rich.

Just fine with me. I'm one of the nintey-five percenters.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Ever think they are that way because they...omg work for it?

I have noticed only a few worked very hard to get wealthy, many are born into wealth, some just get lucky. While some who work harder than most people would do, they are many times poor. A perfect example are migrant workers. A majority of them are poor, and most work in terrible conditions and get paid a little, and they can rarely quit their jobs, because if they do, they'll probably lose most of their income.

 

[128shot]

I have noticed only a few worked very hard to get wealthy, many are born into wealth, some just get lucky. While some who work harder than most people would do, they are many times poor. A perfect example are migrant workers. A majority of them are poor, and most work in terrible conditions and get paid a little, and they can rarely quit their jobs, because if they do, they'll probably lose most of their income.

They also illegally entered the country, otherwise I garuntee you the situation wouldn't be this bad



Why do Japanese immigrants (legal) and Chinese immigrants (legal) do so damn well in this country then?

 

[Red_Dave]

and just because they're wealthy doesn't mean it goes unchallenged.


Ever think they are that way because they...omg work for it?

The amount of money you get rarely depends on how much you work. If you look at a mulinational like Nike the c.e.o is nice comfortable offices doing not very strenous strenuous work will be rolling in money. Meanwhile those actually makeing the product in sweetsops with crap working conditions earn a pittance.


who do you think worked hardest?

who do you think earned the most money?

thats right, the third world workers worked the hardest. This means that the claim that capatalism rewards the hardest working is bull,

 

[128shot]

Blaming the oppression of a government on its adopted economic philosphy isn't going to win this particular arguement.




Why does Hong Kong have the highest living standards in the world then?



Its citzens live very comfortable.




Its the "mark of freedom of oppressive China"



I think Galen has said it before but I think a requirement on entering WTO should be that you can't control your labor force like that, and thats what happening in China right now. Corporations are just doing what they do, make money. Infact, many a corporation doesn't know this happens, Nokia for example, didn't know, because their contractors (mind you, thats how much business is set up in China is via a contractor) didn't give back a report on working conditions so they brought in a specialist to examine it herself.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You mean as opposed to when everyone was starving under the socialist rule, right?

Socialism steals the incentive for people to better themselves, to work.

In true free market economies there's no need for anti-trust legislation, because trusts are either a product of government protection or a development of niche markets that don't survive if the market expands to cover larger segments of the economy.

The word is "oligarchy", and it means rule by the few, which is EXACTLY what the elitism inherent in any socialist concept demands, so why are you against oligarchy?

As for poverty, by definition there will always be those poorer than others. Usually as a result of their own personal choices. It's just that socialism is far more efficient at creating poor people, so wealth becomes more noticeable by comparison.

Sorry try to wing the swedish world oligopol into english there you have a market dominated by few companies. Because that and createn of monopolys is that you get without trust legislation and other regulation, that you can see from both theory and history.

Also is very said to see people ecpecially American that automaticly think that socialist means dictaturship. Because how many stable democratic countries have turned into dictaturship after apply socialism? Because the countries that have done that have stayed democratic and used a mix of capatilism and socialism and turn out pretty good like my country Sweden. While it is the unstable countries with a history of dictaturship that from the start decided to use elitistic approach that just stayed dictaturship, like the late Soviet union and Cuba.

That you need understand is it very hard to reach the goals with socialism. With democratic means you have not been able to do that, but you have been able to create a much better society with a mix of socialism and capitalism. The tries with a elitisc approach have maybee in some ways gotten closes to true socialism but at the same time failed miserably in most things like for example giving power to the people.

Finally it is said that you think that poverty is mainly a thing you choose. But yes today we have people deprived in all society, but there are diffrent methods to help them. Like for example in USA it is very hard to get a scholarship and get into university if you want to do something about you poverty. In sweden the university is free and also you get grant and loans for living.

 

[Comrade Brian]

They also illegally entered the country, otherwise I garuntee you the situation wouldn't be this bad



Why do Japanese immigrants (legal) and Chinese immigrants (legal) do so damn well in this country then?

Not all migrant workers are illegal immigrants, most are probably legal.

The reason why Chinese and Japanese immigrants are thought to do well is because they are sometimes given better jobs, because of very high competition of workers in their countries, and their education sysytems have been doing better than the US, except sometimes rural areas.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sorry try to wing the swedish world oligopol into english there you have a market dominated by few companies. Because that and createn of monopolys is that you get without trust legislation and other regulation, that you can see from both theory and history.

[

What theory and history show is that monopolies and cornered markets require the collusion of government to shut out competition.

Also is very said to see people ecpecially American that automaticly think that socialist means dictaturship. Because how many stable democratic countries have turned into dictaturship after apply socialism? Because the countries that have done that have stayed democratic and used a mix of capatilism and socialism and turn out pretty good like my country Sweden.

The mechanisms are in place in any socialist country for totalitarian takeover. Just because someone's leg hasn't been broken doesn't mean it can't be broken. And socialism wasn't working out too well for Sweden until the government eased up and reduced the top marginal rates from 87% in 1979 to something like 65% in 1990. Seems like even Sweden figured out that too much socialism is a bad thing.

While it is the unstable countries with a history of dictaturship that from the start decided to use elitistic approach that just stayed dictaturship, like the late Soviet union and Cuba.

Certainly cultural history has to be factored in. Needless to say, the last time the Norsemen went on a war of agression was when the vikings invaded England.

That you need understand is it very hard to reach the goals with socialism. With democratic means you have not been able to do that, but you have been able to create a much better society with a mix of socialism and capitalism. The tries with a elitisc approach have maybee in some ways gotten closes to true socialism but at the same time failed miserably in most things like for example giving power to the people.

Oh, well I don't agree with the goals of socialism, which include an enforced economic equality on all, and hence an enforced limit on human opportunity.

Capitalism is the only economic philiosophy that gives the individual the freedom to rise to the top on his own merits.

Finally it is said that you think that poverty is mainly a thing you choose. But yes today we have people deprived in all society, but there are diffrent methods to help them. Like for example in USA it is very hard to get a scholarship and get into university if you want to do something about you poverty. In sweden the university is free and also you get grant and loans for living.

Well, gotta clear up a misconception of yours here. Any person truly seeking a college education in the United States can find a way to get one. He may not get into Harvard or MIT, but there's enough programs and loans and scholarships and schools to get a degree.

I myself spent six years in the Navy as a reactor operator before I went to college to get an engineering degree.

And one last thought, and don't take it as a slight on Sweden, but is it coincidence that the heavily socialist countries don't have the same rate of innovation as more capitalist countries like the US? I know there's lots of other factors, population and market potential, and possibly cultural diversity, too, but when was the last time a socialist country produced a Bill Gates?

 

[realist]

Not all migrant workers are illegal immigrants, most are probably legal.

The reason why Chinese and Japanese immigrants are thought to do well is because they are sometimes given better jobs, because of very high competition of workers in their countries, and their education sysytems have been doing better than the US, except sometimes rural areas.

What about Vietnamese and the millions of uneducated Irish immigrants way back who were and are successful? I mean whatever happened to get off your arse and work to improve. Sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves set aside that Marxist B.S. and work for the man. It's the American way man, kick some arse, then you can go to the campus cafe and whine how expoited you felt, or maybe you might say hey this ain't so bad, working for the man be cool comrade!