• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.[W:954] (1 Viewer)

Gomorra

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

No it isn't, it is absolutely correct.
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
 
When I hear people talking about how taxes should be so much higher to make it all more "fair", I tell them they should lead the charge by giving up the lion's share of their paycheck to their fellow man.

They then precede to backpedal and redirect. It's hard to find a socialist with real conviction.
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

You might see folks split hairs over what "socialism" really means. Sometimes I will use it to describe the "socialization" (i.e. spreading out) of costs of individuals' needs. Social programs, in other words.

I think communism's fundamental principle is that resources are to be distributed to people according to their needs, and furnished by people according to their ability to access and provide them. It is this that really does result in a "running out of other people's money" scenario, so to speak, which is to say that one is most rewarded for being needy, or most taxed by being competent and useful. Over time everyone learns to be needy and the system runs out of people who demonstrate any ability to provide.
 
You never run out of money as long as the printing presses work.

you have no clue do you? it causes inflation which is the same as taking money away because it makes it worth less. i will make it simpler for you to understand the 100 dollars you have in your pocket today will be worth 80 next year it would be the same if i took 20 from you
 
No it isn't, it is absolutely correct.

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

you have no clue do you? it causes inflation which is the same as taking money away because it makes it worth less. i will make it simpler for you to understand the 100 dollars you have in your pocket today will be worth 80 next year it would be the same if i took 20 from you




You are the one who doesn't have a clue.

If you print more money you have more money, it might be worth less, but the fact is that there is more of it.

If you can't buy anything with it you can always use it to wipe your butt, which I actually did in Vietnam.




Inflation is and has been a common problem in dictatorships all over this planet.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not right.

Great, I was hoping that someone would disagree. Now can you please explain why it is not true because otherwise your post is kind of pointless. If you do however give a good explanation of why it is not true then you will have done me a great service.
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?
Who's the "other people" and where did they get their money?
 
Who's the "other people" and where did they get their money?

The people paying more into taxes than they get back in programs would probably make up the other people.

They will generally have gotten their money through the creation of companies or by performing a high-skill and highly paid job.
 
The people paying more into taxes than they get back in programs would probably make up the other people.

They will generally have gotten their money through the creation of companies or by performing a high-skill and highly paid job.
So...this money just materializes out of nothing? I create a company and suddenly my bank adds a few zeroes to my account? Where did the money come from originally?
 
So...this money just materializes out of nothing? I create a company and suddenly my bank adds a few zeroes to my account? Where did the money come from originally?

The money came from people paying that company for whatever service/good/etc. it provided. Now what?
 
The money came from people paying that company for whatever service/good/etc. it provided. Now what?
And where did THAT money come from? Where's the source?
 
And where did THAT money come from? Where's the source?

Money first comes from banks, historically as banknotes which are basically a written proof that you have a certain amount of money stored with the bank and that they owe you this. That was practical because it allowed for easy money transferring and storage and so on.

What is your point?
 
So...this money just materializes out of nothing? I create a company and suddenly my bank adds a few zeroes to my account? Where did the money come from originally?
money is the representation of wealth and wealth is created it is not finite like you liberals believe there for it is not one pie that needs to be distributed evenly. you go out and create your own pie
 
Money first comes from banks, historically as banknotes which are basically a written proof that you have a certain amount of money stored with the bank and that they owe you this. That was practical because it allowed for easy money transferring and storage and so on.

What is your point?
Money does not come from banks. Money, ultimately, comes from the government, because without government backing, money is worthless. Currency has no true intrinsic value, it's only value is what is granted to it by those who use it, or in our case, the government which backs it. All of this is to say money ultimately comes from the same source and wealth is simply the uneven distribution of money. Whether the money is unevenly distributed through fair or unfair means is irrelevant at the moment, only the fact wealth is created by uneven distribution.

At the end of the day, you cannot "run out of other people's money", because "other people's" money is not really their money. Most of the people who have money don't even have money anymore, they have digital numbers expressing a recognized purchasing power.


I'm not commenting on socialism as an economic theory, except to say this. Unfiltered socialism is no different than most theoretically sound economic theories. All economic theories suffer from the same problem, which is the human element. Obviously the long standing criticism of socialism is the loss of incentive to contribute to society. It's a valid criticism, no doubt about it. But all economic theories have valid criticisms due to the human element.

money is the representation of wealth and wealth is created
No, it's really not. Wealth is recognized, not created. A person who sells a training program to a company has created nothing, but still gets paid (very well, in some cases). Wealth is something we recognize as a society, it's not something with any true intrinsic value.

it is not finite like you liberals
I'm not liberal. How many times do I have to tell you that?

believe there for it is not one pie that needs to be distributed evenly.
But there is just one pie, actually. The very arguments against socialism PROVE there is only one pie to be distributed. Wealth is a relative term, not an absolute. A person can only be wealthy if another is poor. For example, if I have $1, you have $10,000 and a car costs $5,000, who is wealthy? You are. But if I have $10,000, you have $10,000 and the car costs $10,000, who is wealthy now? No one, right? Because the cost of the car increased to accommodate my additional purchasing power. You did not lose a single penny, but you did lose your status of being wealthy because I have the same amount of money as you and the money you have is no longer as valuable as it was when I only had $1.

Wealth is relative.
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

Yep, there's only so much corporate welfare that oil/mining cos. can get before my money runs out.
 
Money does not come from banks. Money, ultimately, comes from the government, because without government backing, money is worthless. Currency has no true intrinsic value, it's only value is what is granted to it by those who use it, or in our case, the government which backs it. All of this is to say money ultimately comes from the same source and wealth is simply the uneven distribution of money. Whether the money is unevenly distributed through fair or unfair means is irrelevant at the moment, only the fact wealth is created by uneven distribution.

At the end of the day, you cannot "run out of other people's money", because "other people's" money is not really their money. Most of the people who have money don't even have money anymore, they have digital numbers expressing a recognized purchasing power.


I'm not commenting on socialism as an economic theory, except to say this. Unfiltered socialism is no different than most theoretically sound economic theories. All economic theories suffer from the same problem, which is the human element. Obviously the long standing criticism of socialism is the loss of incentive to contribute to society. It's a valid criticism, no doubt about it. But all economic theories have valid criticisms due to the human element.

No, it's really not. Wealth is recognized, not created. A person who sells a training program to a company has created nothing, but still gets paid (very well, in some cases). Wealth is something we recognize as a society, it's not something with any true intrinsic value.

I'm not liberal. How many times do I have to tell you that?

But there is just one pie, actually. The very arguments against socialism PROVE there is only one pie to be distributed. Wealth is a relative term, not an absolute. A person can only be wealthy if another is poor. For example, if I have $1, you have $10,000 and a car costs $5,000, who is wealthy? You are. But if I have $10,000, you have $10,000 and the car costs $10,000, who is wealthy now? No one, right? Because the cost of the car increased to accommodate my additional purchasing power. You did not lose a single penny, but you did lose your status of being wealthy because I have the same amount of money as you and the money you have is no longer as valuable as it was when I only had $1.

Wealth is relative.



educate yourself and stop being an ignorant fool and if you don't want to be labeled as a liberal stop acting like one
you can start by reading this
Wealth is Unlimited!
 
educate yourself

you can start by reading this
Wealth is Unlimited!
:lol:

You link me to a brief introduction to a chapter in a book written by someone with no real authority on economics (not to mention an incredibly stupid premise) and tell me to educate myself. You crack me up.

Wealth is not unlimited. Wealth is relative to others around you. You can only be wealthy if someone else is poor. It's just simple common sense.

and stop being an ignorant fool and if you don't want to be labeled as a liberal stop acting like one
I'm sorry, is it your position that speaking logically and making sense makes one a liberal? Is that why you always accuse others of being liberal?
 
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill

Really? Right now, America's the only first-world socialized democracy that doesn't have taxpayer-funded universal health care - which is a VERY socialist thing, I think you'd agree. Thing is, America's in 30th-something place when it comes to the list of nations by life expectancy...and almost every one of the nations with longer life expectancies have that oh-so-socialist universal health care...and NONE of them spend much more than half in taxpayer dollars on their health care as we already do.

So if socialism is a philosophy of failure, explain why all but a few of the first-world nations are socialized democracies...and why NO nations with weak governments, low effective taxes, and little regulation are a part of the first-world community.
 
Wealth is not unlimited. Wealth is relative to others around you. You can only be wealthy if someone else is poor. It's just simple common sense.

If you want to talk about relativity, then the bold is not really stated fairly. It would be better to say that it is only possible to perceive wealth if a comparison has less. If hypothetically there was absolute wealth equality, then wealth wouldn't exist, conceptually, as there would be no way to perceive or measure it.

...Whereas the way you state it makes it seem like being wealthy requires oppressing someone else into poverty.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom