"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.
Is this not right?"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."
Is this not right?
You never run out of money as long as the printing presses work.
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
No, it's not right.
Who's the "other people" and where did they get their money?"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?
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 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.
Great quote."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
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?
And where did THAT money come from? Where's the source?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?
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 pieSo...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 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.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?
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.money is the representation of wealth and wealth is created
I'm not liberal. How many times do I have to tell you that?it is not finite like you liberals
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.believe there for it is not one pie that needs to be distributed evenly.
"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?
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.
:lol:
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?and stop being an ignorant fool and if you don't want to be labeled as a liberal stop acting like one
"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
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.