Imudman said:Is that the best you can do? Doesn't matter anyhow, because I've answered the question posed by the thread - you're clueless because you don't know what freedom is. Or you've forgetten. At any rate, now that you know the answer perhaps you should do something about it, instead of wondering about what just happened...
galenrox said:The flaws don't lie in the ideals, just in the matter of execution. Socialism is fine if it's societal and volutary, but once it becomes institutionalized, that's where the problems arise. I have no problem with a group of people, no matter how large, who decide to form a commune and do what they do to help each other out, that's fantastic, but if someone is forced to help other people when they wouldn't on their own, economic problems arise, it's really just how it works. Economics isn't a person, and has no morals, it's a science, and it adheres to certain laws.
Urethra Franklin said:You can't simply write socialism off when we've seen so few examples of true socialism in action.
Didn't work before. I know, let's try it again. You are pure genius.
My argument is rational. You just don't understand how a simple American like me can be so doggone right. Besides, ganenrox is smarter than me...Urethra Franklin said:Compare your responeses to those of galenrox, who shares your point of view but is capable of putting forward a rational counter-argument, as opposed to your simplistic "it doesn't work" backed up with nothing but your imagination.
4/10. Stay after class. Must try harder.
teacher said:Didn't work before. I know, let's try it again. You are pure genius.
You mind is very simplistic. the real world isn't.
Works in Kerala.
Had a measure of success in East Germany, Hungary and Yugoslavia where standards of living were higher than in some western countries.
Capitalism's never worked but we keep trying it.
Imudman said:My argument is rational. You just don't understand how a simple American like me can be so doggone right. Besides, ganenrox is smarter than me...
I try to give credit where credit's due. That's why I'm so hard on socialists - they're so busy thinking they can improve the world they lose sight of the reality of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao...Urethra Franklin said:I do understand how a simple United Statesian like you can be so doggone misguided.
Apart from on the fact that galenrox is smarter than you. You got that one right.
Imudman said:Let's not forget socialism worked in Russia for quite a long time. Too bad all those people had to die defending it from another socialist regime in the 40's...
Imudman said:I try to give credit where credit's due. That's why I'm so hard on socialists - they're so busy thinking they can improve the world they lose sight of the reality of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao...
galenrox said:That's not neccisarily correct. It does not rely on an underclass as incentive to keep working, that's just how our situation is currently. Capitalism is really a very simple, and yet complex, system, that is just based on the ideas of supply and demand.
All of these other ideas, such as false shortages and keeping the underclass down are not capitalist in nature neccisarily, but instead products of greedy people. Typically those in the role of creating false shortages are actually anti-capitalist because to do that you typically would have to take some anti-competitive steps.
As far as one having to sell their labor, yes, most people have to do that. Economically speaking, when we come into this world, all that we have is our ability to work. Some people come into money, and some get educated, both of which fall under capital, and then we develop entepeneurship, or ability to take risk, by either having the money to be able to survive a risk not working out in our favor, or just having the balls to take that risk. Everyone who works for anything, no matter how noble the cause, is selling their labor, capital, and/or entrepeneurship to whoever they work for for however much their employer values their input considering the current market situation.
The problem with socialism is that, although it tries to function outside of the laws of economics, it doesn't, because the laws of economics trancend economics and can be applied to all human action, inaction, and interaction.
Like say you work, and you recieve what the government feels you need, that means the government values the combination of your work and the fact that your needs are met at the value of the cost of satisfying your needs, and if you don't work and your needs are satisfied, that means the government values satisfying your needs at the cost of satisfying your needs. So you can see that the laws of economics clearly still apply in a socialist society, and thus so do all of the other ones, including the ones that show that governmental intervention in commerce leads to inefficiency and deadweight loss, which will eventually bog down your economy and eventually run it into the ground.
Well, you've already proven to me that you're incapable of understanding what freedom is. That's why you can't comprehend that forced communal ownership of property is robbery. Go ahead, defend the indefensible. And yes, Hitler's Germany was socialist no matter how much you try to wriggle out of it...Urethra Franklin said:You demonstrate that you don't even know what socialism is. You see the name "National Socialist" and you take it at face value. You probably believe every outrageous claim that's made in advertising too.
That's weak. C'mon Urethra, you need to step it up. Putting these men on the same page as your comrades makes you look, well, pitiful...Urethra Franklin said:And you people lose sight of Pinochet, Amin, Bush etc.
galenrox said:Not a problemIf you're off to bed, sleep well!
And for you tomorrow:
I use the term inefficiency in the economic definition, which doesn't neccisarily just apply to money. It applies to another thing, called social surplus, which is the social benefit from making one more of any given product, and once the marginal social surplus (the surplus created in making one more of a given product) reaches 0, then the social surplus from that product at that particular point in time and market is maximized.
And what government intervention does is it causes deadweight loss in terms of money, but also in terms of social surplus, and that is where the flaws in institutionalized socialism lie.
galenrox said:lol, sorry about that! I'll try to reword it
Essentially the social surplus of a transaction is how much society benefits because of that transaction, so if McDonalds sells a hamburger, you compare all of the benefits of selling that one burger, like the jobs it provides, and the fact that someone ate that burger and is no longer hungry, and subtract from that the social loss, which is the loss of health in that person, and you have the social surplus.
Now in economics there's something called the law of diminishing return, which, in terms of that example, would be the social benefit of the first burger is going to be more than the second, and so on and so forth. So that's where we come to the marginal social surplus, which is the added social surplus of one additional burger, like how much more benefit is there if McDonalds makes 4 burgers instead of 3. When the marginal social surplus is 0, then McDonalds making more burgers will actually hurt society more than it helps, cause at 0 it has maximized it's potential social surplus, but that only purtains to at that current point in time, and situation in the market, and with a slight change in the market, or a change in McDonalds could change that, and them selling more burgers could help society more, like, if they donated a certain amount to charity every thousand burgers eaten, or something along those lines.
All transactions have an aspect of social surplus or social loss, and the vast majority have social surplus, but even in the case of social loss, the government intervention will almost always cause more harm than good, and more harm than that prevented transaction.
There are a few laws in terms of commerce that are neccisary, and those are the ones that keep the system stable, such as antitrust laws, because those have been repeatedly proven to cause more good than harm.
To really show how government hurts the economy I'd have to show you all sorts of graphs and ****, but the long and short of it is in markets, as in life, everything is determined by supply and demand, and where supply and demand meet is called equilibrium. Governmental intervention screws with the equilibrium, and causes the amount purchased to be not the amount desired, and not for the price desired, and in the end it just hurts everyone involved.
And with institutionalized socialism it sets up a system where everything has governmental intervention, which screws with every single equilibrium out there, and thus it cannot work.
Now it's completely different if it's a social socialism, with no laws dictating that it has to be a socialism, but the people just choose to live in a socialist society, because there is nothing to say that that can't work.
But once the government gets involved, that's where the problems arise.
josh said:The economy isn't everything. No matter how poor you are at least you can get free healthcare.
Calm2Chaos said:What use is free healthcareif your waiting 5 months to see a doctor and you die in the interim. It may cost more in the US but the healthcare quality is superior and considerably more timely. Socialized healthcare is great. But it only works if your country has no other major burdens throughout the international theater. Sorry but canada does not have the demand on resources that the US does.
galenrox said:lol, I took macro at a community college too
As far as the subsidies of farmers, that is actually one of the prime examples of economic inefficiency caused by governmental intervention. I remember that we actually went over that specifically in class. That is not a free market tactic, that is more along the lines of a socialist economic tactic, and look at all the problems it causes, it effects the prices of produce, and it makes it so not only we pay these guys when we buy corn, but also when we pay taxes, and the vast majority of those subsidies don't go to the family farm in Iowa, but the major farming corporations.
Capitalism is essentially a zero sum game, and it sucks, but it's really the only way things can work. European socialism would be fantastic, but it can't sustain itself, and it will collapse. Sustaining a socialist society is a very extravegant purchase, and just about no one can afford it. We definately can't.
Kelzie said:Than explain to me why the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any industialized county?
It's because poor women don't have access to pre-natal care.
It's embarrasing that we feel only people that can afford health care have a right to be healthy.
Calm2Chaos said:please point me to the source you used in determining the reason for the infant mortality rate. Yes I have no doubt that has something to do with it. Is it the one and only main cause? I don't know, but until I see something about the studies and the claims I can't be positive. By the way you think possibly the difference may be in the fact that there is 290,000,000 people in the US and 33,000,000 in canada. Lifestyle, environment, choices, these all play roles.
Naughty Nurse said:http://www.cdc.gov/omh/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm
Certainly unequal access to adequate maternity care is a factor - particularly if you are not white.
The leading causes of infant death include congenital abnormalities, pre-term/low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), problems related to complications of pregnancy, and respiratory distress syndrome.3 SIDS deaths among American Indian and Alaska Natives is 2.3 times the rate for non-Hispanic white mothers.4
Calm2Chaos said:Sorry but that page didn't support your argument unless i missed the sentence
A number of things are mentioned but health care was not one o fthem . they did however mention choices such as addiction and diet among others.
Promising
Strategies
Focus on modifying the behaviors, lifestyles, and conditions that affect birth outcomes, such as smoking, substance abuse, poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, medical problems, and chronic illness.
Calm2Chaos said:please point me to the source you used in determining the reason for the infant mortality rate. Yes I have no doubt that has something to do with it. Is it the one and only main cause? I don't know, but until I see something about the studies and the claims I can't be positive. By the way you think possibly the difference may be in the fact that there is 290,000,000 people in the US and 33,000,000 in canada. Lifestyle, environment, choices, these all play roles.
Naughty Nurse said:
This bit? Lack of prenatal care?
Calm2Chaos said:Thats parental care, not health care. I am not doubting that there is a corrolation between the two. It's just not the major cause I don't think. There are many many other causes that could be effecting this number. Not to mention as i said the staggering diffencr in population
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?