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

[Neomalthusian]

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.

The reason it is a philosophy of failure has nothing to do with mechanisms by which various countries fund medical care. It is a philosophy of failure because, as a general rule, being the neediest and crying the loudest gets you the most attention, being the worst off entitles you to the most, being the least healthy gets you the most care, and so forth.

In systems you appear to espouse, you get the greatest social return by failing the hardest. You get the worst social return (taxed the most) by succeeding.

 

[Slyfox696]

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.

I understand what you're saying, and perhaps I should have worded it better. For example, if there is $100 between us and you have $51 and I have $49, are you wealthy? Not really. But if you have $90 and I have $10, are you wealthy? Absolutely.

You're right, I was using the same word in two different situations. The better way to have said it would have been, "You can only be rich if someone else is poor.". Would you agree with that statement?

I think we agree on the basic premise though, which is that wealth can only be perceived in relation to others.

 

[head of joaquin]

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

Is this not right?

Oh God, quoting that idiot Thatcher. I guess it's the best conservatives can do since they can't make arguments on the merit.

 

[head of joaquin]

No it isn't, it is absolutely correct.

So when socialists took Russia from being a feudal backwater with 90 illiteracy to a modern economy and superpower within 3 decades, whose money did they run out of.

When Cuba went from a gangland style hole to one of the most prosperous countries in S. America in 2 decedes, whose money ran out.

And whose money has run out in Sweden and Norway, two of the most prosperous countries in the world.

Jesus, conservative are dishonest little putzes. They just can't argue anything on the merits.

 

[head of joaquin]

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.

May be I can set you straight.

Socialism in advanced countries have been very successful and creating and spreading general prosperity. Sweden, Norway and France come to mind. Socialism (or a mode of it) has result in enormous general properity.

Socialism in undeveloped economies have been incredibly successful (and I mean incredible) in modernizing economies and producing wealth. Russia, China and Cuba come to mind. When the Bolsheviks took over Russia it was a feudal backwater with almost no industrial capacity and a population that was about 80% illiterate. Same with Mao. In a few decades, Russia was a modern economy and a military superpower. Same with China. Cuba was a third world nation run by US gangsters. After Castro it became a modern economy.

All these countries are also evolving into democracies (as socialism always does in undeveloped nations). Doesn't mean they weren't nasty authoritarian states (more or less). But nobody's money ran out. They went from poverty to wealth.

So whose money ran out in Russia, China and Cuba? Come on, let's hear you run with Thatcher's dopey quote.

 

[head of joaquin]

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 whose money is running out in Norway. Go into detail.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The reason it is a philosophy of failure has nothing to do with mechanisms by which various countries fund medical care. It is a philosophy of failure because, as a general rule, being the neediest and crying the loudest gets you the most attention, being the worst off entitles you to the most, being the least healthy gets you the most care, and so forth.

In systems you appear to espouse, you get the greatest social return by failing the hardest. You get the worst social return (taxed the most) by succeeding.

Really? Let's look again at your last sentence: "In systems you appear to espouse, you get the greatest social return by failing the hardest. You get the worst social return (taxed the most) by succeeding"

Wow. We get the 'the greatest social return by failing the hardest, and the worst social return by succeeding' - what a TERRIBLE system! That's tyrannical, despotic, all the bad words I can think of! Any nation that follow such a path is sure to swiftly fall to economic and social poverty!

Except...

Almost all the first-world nations - the most successful nations in the world - follow that exact same terrible, tyrannical, despotic (et al) governmental system. And NO nations that have weak governments, low effective taxes, and little regulation are successful in the modern sense of the word.

Why is that? I mean, your rhetoric is so clear, so surely you should be able to explain the disparity, right? Right?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Really? Let's look again at your last sentence: "In systems you appear to espouse, you get the greatest social return by failing the hardest. You get the worst social return (taxed the most) by succeeding"

Wow. We get the 'the greatest social return by failing the hardest, and the worst social return by succeeding' - what a TERRIBLE system! That's tyrannical, despotic, all the bad words I can think of! Any nation that follow such a path is sure to swiftly fall to economic and social poverty!

Except...

Almost all the first-world nations - the most successful nations in the world - follow that exact same terrible, tyrannical, despotic (et al) governmental system. And NO nations that have weak governments, low effective taxes, and little regulation are successful in the modern sense of the word.

Why is that? I mean, your rhetoric is so clear, so surely you should be able to explain the disparity, right? Right?

I explained why Churchill might have described socialism as a "philosophy of failure," so your rebuttals that "everyone's doin' it!" are weightless. Whatever number of nations out there in the rest of the world you think subscribe to a certain system does not necessarily say anything the philosophical underpinnings of various political ideologies.

 

[Cecil900]

Jesus, must there be a weekly circlejerk thread where all the conservatives who can't even accurately make the distinction between communism and socialism come to just spew nonsense about an ideology they do not understand?

 

[upsideguy]

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.

I do hope you see the logic fallacy in this and you are not patting yourself on the back for having a prima facie argument, as you do not.

An analogy would be that if you, for example, favored military action against another country. The person you argue this with says "if its that important, take a gun over there and start shooting"... of course, you proceed to look dumb founded at him for having such a dumb argument, but he is busy doing a victory dance thinking he just zinged you. Of course, you are really wondering why he thinks this non-sense argument (just like yours) makes sense....

A single individual can get consumed trying to single-handed fix a problem; where collectively the problem may be fixable. A single person can not effectively wage war against another country (he would just get himself killed); but a single person could work to pressure their congressman to vote for war and the army could be sent; A single person can not make a dent in the budget deficit or to reverse poverty (he would just go broke trying); but a single person can vote to raise taxes and direct a society to contribute pro-ratably to eliminate the deficit or reduce poverty.

 

[upsideguy]

"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

I explained why Churchill might have described socialism as a "philosophy of failure," so your rebuttals that "everyone's doin' it!" are weightless. Whatever number of nations out there in the rest of the world you think subscribe to a certain system does not necessarily say anything the philosophical underpinnings of various political ideologies.

Always great to hear Churchill's opinion, but he was a journalist, who had the distinction of winning a Nobel prize in Literature. He was not an economist. He is hardly an expert on all things. Thinking because Churchill said it (and I am not certain as to the context, but lets run with it) that it must be truth or that if Churchill is against it, it must be bad... is a bit of a fallacy.

Moreover, the inherent flaw in discussing socialism is one really must define one's terms, as there is quite a broad spectrum of socialism..... European style socialism, as it exists today, is far more capitalistic than existed during Churchill's day.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

No, we're just unwilling to shoulder all the burdens and let selfish people continue to hoard everything.

In answer to the OP, that's stupid thing to say. The inherent assumption behind socialism is that everyone wants to contribute. That is, of course, the inherent assumption behind capitalism, as well. Everyone wants to better their station in life. But capitalism is rooted in doing it at the expense of others, while socialism is rooted in doing it together. It is capitalism that only works until you run out of other people's money to take. Socialism works best without money at all. The phrase was just a flawed assumption by capitalist rulers who think that they are essential for society to function.

In systems you appear to espouse, you get the greatest social return by failing the hardest. You get the worst social return (taxed the most) by succeeding.

Like this. That's not social return. That's just trying to figure out how best to steal from other people. How best to exploit the hard work of others while you don't do any in return, and then resenting that you have to share if things go your way. It's a petulant, childish viewpoint. And it misses the central ideas of socialism. Everyone benefits from everyone's success, and everyone suffers from everyone's failure. All risk and reward are dispersed so that they are not disproportionately handed out to anyone. I'm not surprised that some people only look at things in terms of their own personal gain, though. Contrary to what you might think, there is more to life than just gobbling up everything you can for yourself, and there is a reason why such people are universally described as evil in stories and in history. The philosophy of selfishness and greed is one of the greatest of human evils. It's sad that this country has tried so hard to turn avarice into a virtue.

 

[Neomalthusian]

How best to exploit the hard work of others while you don't do any in return, and then resenting that you have to share if things go your way. It's a petulant, childish viewpoint.

What are you talking about here?

And it misses the central ideas of socialism. Everyone benefits from everyone's success, and everyone suffers from everyone's failure. All risk and reward are dispersed so that they are not disproportionately handed out to anyone.

What in the **** are you talking about? Risk and reward are not "handed out" at all, in any manner, in any system that recognizes people's freedom to trade with one another. And the "everyone benefits from everyone and everyone fails because of everyone" is one of the most ridiculous sentences I've ever read.

Contrary to what you might think, there is more to life than just gobbling up everything you can for yourself, and there is a reason why such people are universally described as evil in stories and in history. The philosophy of selfishness and greed is one of the greatest of human evils. It's sad that this country has tried so hard to turn avarice into a virtue.

"What's yours is mine and what's mine is ours." Oh that's not a philosophy of selfishness at all. :roll:

 

[instagramsci]

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.

You aren't talking about socialists.

 

[tererun]

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

Is this not right?

I would say this statement works in our present world. The reason why would be due to the necessity for foreign trade. On a global scale socialism, not communism, is possible. Foreign trade becomes a problem with socialist countries because socialism mainly works for the needs of the people, and not for the needs of foreign people. In that area you still have mainly capitalism. Since most countries have to traxde there becomes a deficit which is normally based on the lack of planning or support for trade valuables. However, socialism might have some possibility of working in a larger country that could provide most resources for itself. Many countries are the size of US states, and therefor their resources are limited which creates a need to trade for them. The US, for example, would have a better ability to go socialist mainly because it does have large amounts of land with natural resources to supply it's people. However, even there it would still be difficult.

A global government capable of diverting resources and providing manufacturing and goods with a global plan would eliminate the trade deficits between countries and allow for all people to share resources and planning on those resources. Of course, that is given the government operates on a theoretical standard which does not often occur. Most economic systems fall apart once you factor greed into their theories and practices.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You aren't talking about socialists.

Sure I am. Socialists are all about redistributing the wealth, why don't you show a single ounce of conviction and start redistributing YOUR wealth. Lead by example, bud.

No, we're just unwilling to shoulder all the burdens and let selfish people continue to hoard everything.

In answer to the OP, that's stupid thing to say. The inherent assumption behind socialism is that everyone wants to contribute. That is, of course, the inherent assumption behind capitalism, as well. Everyone wants to better their station in life. But capitalism is rooted in doing it at the expense of others, while socialism is rooted in doing it together. It is capitalism that only works until you run out of other people's money to take. Socialism works best without money at all. The phrase was just a flawed assumption by capitalist rulers who think that they are essential for society to function.

You can set an example for the rest of us by giving away all of your property and money. If we see how happy you are with it we might want to join in as well.

I do hope you see the logic fallacy in this and you are not patting yourself on the back for having a prima facie argument, as you do not.

An analogy would be that if you, for example, favored military action against another country. The person you argue this with says "if its that important, take a gun over there and start shooting"... of course, you proceed to look dumb founded at him for having such a dumb argument, but he is busy doing a victory dance thinking he just zinged you. Of course, you are really wondering why he thinks this non-sense argument (just like yours) makes sense....

A single individual can get consumed trying to single-handed fix a problem; where collectively the problem may be fixable. A single person can not effectively wage war against another country (he would just get himself killed); but a single person could work to pressure their congressman to vote for war and the army could be sent; A single person can not make a dent in the budget deficit or to reverse poverty (he would just go broke trying); but a single person can vote to raise taxes and direct a society to contribute pro-ratably to eliminate the deficit or reduce poverty.

I actually think that's a great analogy. In both mine and your scenarios, the individual in question wants some force used against his fellow man. With socialism he's taking the money of others, with war-mongering he's forcing his countrymen to do horrible things they may not want to do.

It's a great idea; maybe the bloodthirsty neo-cons who are always beating the war drum should all team up and just do it themselves. I don't see why the rest of us need to be involved.

At the heart of it is always coercion.

 

[winston53660]

Isn't capitalism all about using other peoples money?

 

[Henrin]

Isn't capitalism all about using other peoples money?

No...

 

[Mr X]

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 is about the ownership of the means of production. It's not about high taxes.

 

[winston53660]

No...

Then what is the stock market about other than using other peoples money?

 

[Spriggs05]

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.

I Think the phrase is meant to mean that once you tax people down to the same level (other peoples money) you suddenly cannot get in as much revenue since you are making your taxpayers poorer. Therefore you can run out of other peoples money, but not the government.

 

[instagramsci]

Sure I am. Socialists are all about redistributing the wealth, why don't you show a single ounce of conviction and start redistributing YOUR wealth. Lead by example, bud.

And libertarians are all about legalizing pot and supporting republicans.

Okay now that we're done repeating stupid lines that don't really mean anything how about we be serious.

 

[yobarnacle]

You never run out of money as long as the printing presses work.

If you think "printing money" doesn't rob YOU, then you fail to understand, the newly printed money acquired IT'S value by diluting the value of currency previously in circulation. It's called INFLATION.
The dollar in 2013 is worth 79 cents of a 2003 dollar.
and worth only 5 cents of a 1950 dollar.
free money?
They are robbing YOU and ME!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

And libertarians are all about legalizing pot and supporting republicans.

Okay now that we're done repeating stupid lines that don't really mean anything how about we be serious.

So you're saying you don't believe in redistributing wealth? Everyone should keep the fruits of their labor?

You're an odd socialist indeed.

 

[instagramsci]

So you're saying you don't believe in redistributing wealth? Everyone should keep the fruits of their labor?

You're an odd socialist indeed.

I do believe in redistributing wealth. But not a la social democracy.