Is socialism an inevitable future?

[Katzndogz]

Historically socialism has been both inevitable and a failure. It has been that way since Athens.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism, Communism and European Socialism have failed. Why would you want to implement them?
They would only fail again.

Indeed. I reckon if you guys had re-instated your policy of isolationism immediately after WWII you wouldn't be in the mess you are now. The large majority of liberal ideology imported from Europe into America is about as sound as a chocolate teapot. It normally collapses under the weight of reality.

Immediately after the war the U.S. imported a lot of left-wing professors from Europe to provide education for all the returning G.I.s. Many of them came direct from the former Nazi Germany. The same people who destroyed Europe were now educating America's future leaders.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism is an inevitable failure. It comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail rate. It's so bad that almost without exception, the countries who adopt it have to build walls topped with barbed wire and armed guards to keep creative and talented people from fleeing.

India, Korea, and Sri Lanka are all self-declared socialist states (though they do not follow Marxist communism).

India and Korea are currently kicking our asses economically in many regards.

Could you quote the documents where these nations "declare" themselves to be socialist? Also, can you show the principle that constrains government to conform to some document a gang of lying politicians wrote?

 

[Katzndogz]

India used to be socialist but saved itself with capitalism and is no longer socialist.

The Rise and Fall of Indian Socialism - Reason.com

South Korea is not socialist. North Korea is.

How is that working out for them by the way?

 

[Some Guy]

I'd prefer not to tax ANYONE excessively....but if those at the top would rather outsource, hide assets, and not properly compensate employees to the point where subsidization is necessary to keep people trim suffering and to maintain (somewhat) the consumer driven economy we have created....what choice is there?

Don't forget....these big multinational corporations are not only taking jobs away from Americans, they are also creating new markets for their goods....making the American people less necessary for their success. It's a huge double whammy that is really hurting this country. I find it dishonorable....and that's putting ut as civilly as I possibly can.

I share a lot of your views on the subject. Unfettered capitalism isn't any better than unfettered socilaism: both end up with very few having almost total control over the many. The end-state of capitalism is monopoly: companies being able to charge you $50 a gallon for gas, $30 for a gallon of milk, etc, because the barriers to entry for a possible competitor are just too much. It also puts them in position to pay their employees peanuts.

Two things would help. For one, eliminating crony capitalism and keep the playing field leveled as much as possible. What drives prices down and drives innovation is competition in the market place. The more, the better, aside from government favoritism as much possible. Would have to find an effective way to limit campaign contributions first or completely reform the way campaigns are run.

Second: become more isolationist. Tax breaks or laws against sending work overseas is about the only thing that can be done though to keep all companies within a certain space from off-shoring. Look at what we did with japanese car companies: we basically forced them to build their cars in America due to tariffs. I would think something like that could be done for other things but i could be wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Take Communism, as an example.....if you want it to work, you have to have a perfectly selfless society who doesn't care about having more than someone else.

No it takes the point of a gun pointed at the populace.

no it doesn't. It may end up that way....but it starts out as a noble idea...a society where everyone works together and shares the spoils equally. It doesn't work....neither does Reaganomics....neither does pure Capitalism, Socialism, or any other kind of "ism". To be married to one ideology exclusively, without flexibility is a recipe for disaster.

Wrong. There's nothing noble about communism. The idea that people aren't entitled to keep the fruits of their labor is utterly pernicious. Also, there's no such thing as Reaganomics, and pure capitalism does work. The only problem with it is that when smarter and harder working people end up with more stuff, the lazy and the incompetent become envious and do everything in their power to destroy their betters. That's what "progressivism" and "communism" are all about.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'd prefer not to tax ANYONE excessively....but if those at the top would rather outsource, hide assets, and not properly compensate employees to the point where subsidization is necessary to keep people trim suffering and to maintain (somewhat) the consumer driven economy we have created....what choice is there?

Don't forget....these big multinational corporations are not only taking jobs away from Americans, they are also creating new markets for their goods....making the American people less necessary for their success. It's a huge double whammy that is really hurting this country. I find it dishonorable....and that's putting ut as civilly as I possibly can.

I share a lot of your views on the subject. Unfettered capitalism isn't any better than unfettered socilaism: both end up with very few having almost total control over the many. The end-state of capitalism is monopoly: companies being able to charge you $50 a gallon for gas, $30 for a gallon of milk, etc, because the barriers to entry for a possible competitor are just too much. It also puts them in position to pay their employees peanuts.

Two things would help. For one, eliminating crony capitalism and keep the playing field leveled as much as possible. What drives prices down and drives innovation is competition in the market place. The more, the better, aside from government favoritism as much possible. Would have to find an effective way to limit campaign contributions first or completely reform the way campaigns are run.

Second: become more isolationist. Tax breaks or laws against sending work overseas is about the only thing that can be done though to keep all companies within a certain space from off-shoring. Look at what we did with japanese car companies: we basically forced them to build their cars in America due to tariffs. I would think something like that could be done for other things but i could be wrong.

I liked your first idea about limiting or eliminating crony capitalism and increasing competition. Hard to do though, most of those in DC, both parties, are in bed with their rich constituents. Don't know that you can do much in the way of campaign financing to change that. Even if you did, a politician who votes a certain way that costs his state or district jobs will find it hard to get re-elected.

Cannot agree with your secind contention about isolationism. Trade wars don't help anybody, if it's too costly or unprofitable to operate a company here then what's the difference if the company goes offshore or out of business? Tariffs and quotas end up costly the American consumer more, everything gets more expensive. That's cuz every other country will raise their tariffs and quotas and so the costs of bringing in resources and materials we need gets more expensive. Smoot Hawley back in the early 30s did not cause the depression, but it didn't do us any favors.

That's not to say we shouldn't vigilantly look out for other countries screwing us over, by lowering their exchange rate or employing subsidies or whatever. We're still the big dog, I wouldn't start a trade war but I wouldn't turn the other cheek either.

 

[Some Guy]

Cannot agree with your secind contention about isolationism. Trade wars don't help anybody, if it's too costly or unprofitable to operate a company here then what's the difference if the company goes offshore or out of business? Tariffs and quotas end up costly the American consumer more, everything gets more expensive. That's cuz every other country will raise their tariffs and quotas and so the costs of bringing in resources and materials we need gets more expensive. Smoot Hawley back in the early 30s did not cause the depression, but it didn't do us any favors.

That's not to say we shouldn't vigilantly look out for other countries screwing us over, by lowering their exchange rate or employing subsidies or whatever. We're still the big dog, I wouldn't start a trade war but I wouldn't turn the other cheek either.

How do you suggest trying to get more of those menial jobs back here then? Businesses offshore their manufacturing jobs (and other, like customer support, etc) because the labor cost is drastically lower than here. They won't stop until that gap is closed enough to where the quality of the product justifies the extra cost. Those dollars being paid to offshore businesses go into China's economy, or India's economy, and we don't get them back until they spend money on an American product or service.

Of course, one big, big step we could make is energy independence. We need to start tapping into the resources we have domestically instead of continuing to send billions to countries that hate us for oil.

 

[Vidi]

Take Communism, as an example.....if you want it to work, you have to have a perfectly selfless society who doesn't care about having more than someone else.

No it takes the point of a gun pointed at the populace.

no it doesn't. It may end up that way....but it starts out as a noble idea...a society where everyone works together and shares the spoils equally. It doesn't work....neither does Reaganomics....neither does pure Capitalism, Socialism, or any other kind of "ism". To be married to one ideology exclusively, without flexibility is a recipe for disaster.

Wrong. There's nothing noble about communism. The idea that people aren't entitled to keep the fruits of their labor is utterly pernicious. Also, there's no such thing as Reaganomics, and pure capitalism does work. The only problem with it is that when smarter and harder working people end up with more stuff, the lazy and the incompetent become envious and do everything in their power to destroy their betters. That's what "progressivism" and "communism" are all about.

Bri,

The very idea behind Communism is that THE PEOPLE keep the fruits of their labor. Communism will never work, but based on your post, I dont think you truly understand why Communism came to be, nor the actual very real downfalls of pure capitalism.

Your post also makes the claim thats theres no such thing as Reaganomics, which is blatantly untrue. Reagaomics is simply a slang term for supply side economics. Its like when people refer to the Affordable care Act as Obamacare.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

Not only can you have this but you MUST have a combined economy. Pure capitalism is without protections from things like monopolies or any form or real regulation. I have a problem with overregulation but the fact is that some regulation is needed and some socialistic elements are required. The real question is how much. Just because you have some socialistic safety nets does not mean that the government owns anything or that is picks winners and losers. It means that there are at least some basic protections for consumers built into the system.

Of course, there is the argument of where these programs should exist, state or federal level.

I think a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism is the best way to go.

If you go to a purely Capitalistic society, it is quite similar to what you would see in an aristocracy or Central American Banana Republics. A small group of people kicking ass economically, running the government behind the scenes to keep the money rolling in, and making policies that hurt any potential competition.

Socialism, if left unchecked.....inevitably degrades into tyranny and oppression by th government. and as has been said, makes it real easy to not work hard....because why should one work hard? you don't do any better than if you work at half speed.

But, the combination of the two ideologies? That provides a real efficient method of having checks and balances to prevent either one of those extremes from happening.

I happen to think that from Reagan up to the present, the Capitalists have been given too much control over our country and it's time to balance things out a little. Unfortunately, Obama hasn't been able to do that...partially because if Republican obstructionism, partially because he's not NEARLY the Socialist that the right makes him out to be.

I can agree with much of this but the last statement. I see things in the EXACT opposite matter. Perhaps you can show where you think ‘capitalists’ have been given to much control. As I see it, socialists have been given that control, not capitalists. Government has exploded, regulation has exploded, tens of thousands of new laws and regulations go into effect every year. There are extremely few examples of any of this scaling back. Entitlement programs have increased or stayed the same when they needed to be adjusted for new records in longevity/health. Where has the capitalists been in control? Tax structure? That has nothing to do with capitalism. That has to do with government funding and the tax structure has been tending ever increasingly to government control through loopholes and kickbacks. That is an extremely anti-capitalist concept but (at least the way I see it) is right down socialist agenda.

I would reiterate: WHERE have capitalists been given too much control?\

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

By that definition, we have a living wage. Sorry but the bullshit claim that people cannot get by on one paycheck is exactly that bull shit. I have made it through my entire life so far on a single income, purchased a home and am on track with all that you are outing fourth as a ‘living wage.’ Granted, minimum wage is not on that level nor should it be. Minimum wage is not a carrer choice, it is a start.

The problem is not the wage in 90 percent of cases. It is the people and the need to consume what you cannot afford. I have more cash than any of my peers because I don’t spend what I don’t have. Bought my first new car at age 30, AFTER my home. Most purchase a new car every couple of years. Open my wallet and the one thing that you will not find there; credit cards. What is the purpose? I don’t need one nor do the vast majority of people. How many people have half a dozen though? Most do. Single income families are so few because people that must have that new couch fully furnished home, brand new car, 5 televisions, and a host of other crap that no one needs are so common. Try and blame others all you want. If you (you as in generally, not you specifically) need a second income it is because YOU CHOSE A LIFESTYLE THAT REQUIRES IT.

 

[Vidi]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

Not only can you have this but you MUST have a combined economy. Pure capitalism is without protections from things like monopolies or any form or real regulation. I have a problem with overregulation but the fact is that some regulation is needed and some socialistic elements are required. The real question is how much. Just because you have some socialistic safety nets does not mean that the government owns anything or that is picks winners and losers. It means that there are at least some basic protections for consumers built into the system.

Of course, there is the argument of where these programs should exist, state or federal level.

I think a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism is the best way to go.

If you go to a purely Capitalistic society, it is quite similar to what you would see in an aristocracy or Central American Banana Republics. A small group of people kicking ass economically, running the government behind the scenes to keep the money rolling in, and making policies that hurt any potential competition.

Socialism, if left unchecked.....inevitably degrades into tyranny and oppression by th government. and as has been said, makes it real easy to not work hard....because why should one work hard? you don't do any better than if you work at half speed.

But, the combination of the two ideologies? That provides a real efficient method of having checks and balances to prevent either one of those extremes from happening.

I happen to think that from Reagan up to the present, the Capitalists have been given too much control over our country and it's time to balance things out a little. Unfortunately, Obama hasn't been able to do that...partially because if Republican obstructionism, partially because he's not NEARLY the Socialist that the right makes him out to be.

I can agree with much of this but the last statement. I see things in the EXACT opposite matter. Perhaps you can show where you think ‘capitalists’ have been given to much control. As I see it, socialists have been given that control, not capitalists. Government has exploded, regulation has exploded, tens of thousands of new laws and regulations go into effect every year. There are extremely few examples of any of this scaling back. Entitlement programs have increased or stayed the same when they needed to be adjusted for new records in longevity/health. Where has the capitalists been in control? Tax structure? That has nothing to do with capitalism. That has to do with government funding and the tax structure has been tending ever increasingly to government control through loopholes and kickbacks. That is an extremely anti-capitalist concept but (at least the way I see it) is right down socialist agenda.

I would reiterate: WHERE have capitalists been given too much control?\

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

By that definition, we have a living wage. Sorry but the bullshit claim that people cannot get by on one paycheck is exactly that bull shit. I have made it through my entire life so far on a single income, purchased a home and am on track with all that you are outing fourth as a ‘living wage.’ Granted, minimum wage is not on that level nor should it be. Minimum wage is not a carrer choice, it is a start.

The problem is not the wage in 90 percent of cases. It is the people and the need to consume what you cannot afford. I have more cash than any of my peers because I don’t spend what I don’t have. Bought my first new car at age 30, AFTER my home. Most purchase a new car every couple of years. Open my wallet and the one thing that you will not find there; credit cards. What is the purpose? I don’t need one nor do the vast majority of people. How many people have half a dozen though? Most do. Single income families are so few because people that must have that new couch fully furnished home, brand new car, 5 televisions, and a host of other crap that no one needs are so common. Try and blame others all you want. If you (you as in generally, not you specifically) need a second income it is because YOU CHOSE A LIFESTYLE THAT REQUIRES IT.

Whats your wage and how does it compare to other people?

Isnt THAT the question really?


yes, some people are just grossly mismanaging thier money. But others are simply not making a whole lot of money in the first place. Ive heard people on the radio complaining about how hard it is to make ends meet with only $250,000 a year and I want to find them and punch them square in the mouth. Then I remember when I was supporting a family of four on less than $30,000 a year and made it work.

But my brother hurt his back in his twenties and couldnt work for nearly two years. His wife did her best supporting the family, but they ended up in a small trailer in a trailer park and I used to bring them groceries every week to help them get by. He evetually got better and theyre MUCH better off now, but people fall on hard times. And with the Great Recession, ALOT of people have fallen on hard times.

I dont believe that your assessment of 90% is accurate.

The rest of your post I mostly agree with though.

 

[candycorn]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

What I envision is an eventual move away from the society of monetary rewards for labor expended.

 

[Vidi]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

What I envision is an eventual move away from the society of monetary rewards for labor expended.

To what exactly?

 

[Steelplate]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

Not only can you have this but you MUST have a combined economy. Pure capitalism is without protections from things like monopolies or any form or real regulation. I have a problem with overregulation but the fact is that some regulation is needed and some socialistic elements are required. The real question is how much. Just because you have some socialistic safety nets does not mean that the government owns anything or that is picks winners and losers. It means that there are at least some basic protections for consumers built into the system.

Of course, there is the argument of where these programs should exist, state or federal level.

I think a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism is the best way to go.

If you go to a purely Capitalistic society, it is quite similar to what you would see in an aristocracy or Central American Banana Republics. A small group of people kicking ass economically, running the government behind the scenes to keep the money rolling in, and making policies that hurt any potential competition.

Socialism, if left unchecked.....inevitably degrades into tyranny and oppression by th government. and as has been said, makes it real easy to not work hard....because why should one work hard? you don't do any better than if you work at half speed.

But, the combination of the two ideologies? That provides a real efficient method of having checks and balances to prevent either one of those extremes from happening.

I happen to think that from Reagan up to the present, the Capitalists have been given too much control over our country and it's time to balance things out a little. Unfortunately, Obama hasn't been able to do that...partially because if Republican obstructionism, partially because he's not NEARLY the Socialist that the right makes him out to be.

I can agree with much of this but the last statement. I see things in the EXACT opposite matter. Perhaps you can show where you think ‘capitalists’ have been given to much control. As I see it, socialists have been given that control, not capitalists. Government has exploded, regulation has exploded, tens of thousands of new laws and regulations go into effect every year. There are extremely few examples of any of this scaling back. Entitlement programs have increased or stayed the same when they needed to be adjusted for new records in longevity/health. Where has the capitalists been in control? Tax structure? That has nothing to do with capitalism. That has to do with government funding and the tax structure has been tending ever increasingly to government control through loopholes and kickbacks. That is an extremely anti-capitalist concept but (at least the way I see it) is right down socialist agenda.

I would reiterate: WHERE have capitalists been given too much control?\

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

By that definition, we have a living wage. Sorry but the bullshit claim that people cannot get by on one paycheck is exactly that bull shit. I have made it through my entire life so far on a single income, purchased a home and am on track with all that you are outing fourth as a ‘living wage.’ Granted, minimum wage is not on that level nor should it be. Minimum wage is not a carrer choice, it is a start.

The problem is not the wage in 90 percent of cases. It is the people and the need to consume what you cannot afford. I have more cash than any of my peers because I don’t spend what I don’t have. Bought my first new car at age 30, AFTER my home. Most purchase a new car every couple of years. Open my wallet and the one thing that you will not find there; credit cards. What is the purpose? I don’t need one nor do the vast majority of people. How many people have half a dozen though? Most do. Single income families are so few because people that must have that new couch fully furnished home, brand new car, 5 televisions, and a host of other crap that no one needs are so common. Try and blame others all you want. If you (you as in generally, not you specifically) need a second income it is because YOU CHOSE A LIFESTYLE THAT REQUIRES IT.

ok....who do you think lobbied for all those free trade agreements that shipped good paying jobs overseas? Who do you think got private sector unions crushed(whether you like them or not), who do you think lobbied for the ability to gamble in the derivatives market? Who do you think lobbied for the bailouts that didn't hold them accountable, or make them change their ways? Who do you think wants to keep the status quot of huge campaign dollars(anonymously, of course) to keep politicians firmly at their heels?

C'mon man.....

to the second part....yes, there are people who live beyond their means. Never said there wasn't.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

Not only can you have this but you MUST have a combined economy. Pure capitalism is without protections from things like monopolies or any form or real regulation. I have a problem with overregulation but the fact is that some regulation is needed and some socialistic elements are required. The real question is how much. Just because you have some socialistic safety nets does not mean that the government owns anything or that is picks winners and losers. It means that there are at least some basic protections for consumers built into the system.

Of course, there is the argument of where these programs should exist, state or federal level.



I can agree with much of this but the last statement. I see things in the EXACT opposite matter. Perhaps you can show where you think ‘capitalists’ have been given to much control. As I see it, socialists have been given that control, not capitalists. Government has exploded, regulation has exploded, tens of thousands of new laws and regulations go into effect every year. There are extremely few examples of any of this scaling back. Entitlement programs have increased or stayed the same when they needed to be adjusted for new records in longevity/health. Where has the capitalists been in control? Tax structure? That has nothing to do with capitalism. That has to do with government funding and the tax structure has been tending ever increasingly to government control through loopholes and kickbacks. That is an extremely anti-capitalist concept but (at least the way I see it) is right down socialist agenda.

I would reiterate: WHERE have capitalists been given too much control?\

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

By that definition, we have a living wage. Sorry but the bullshit claim that people cannot get by on one paycheck is exactly that bull shit. I have made it through my entire life so far on a single income, purchased a home and am on track with all that you are outing fourth as a ‘living wage.’ Granted, minimum wage is not on that level nor should it be. Minimum wage is not a carrer choice, it is a start.

The problem is not the wage in 90 percent of cases. It is the people and the need to consume what you cannot afford. I have more cash than any of my peers because I don’t spend what I don’t have. Bought my first new car at age 30, AFTER my home. Most purchase a new car every couple of years. Open my wallet and the one thing that you will not find there; credit cards. What is the purpose? I don’t need one nor do the vast majority of people. How many people have half a dozen though? Most do. Single income families are so few because people that must have that new couch fully furnished home, brand new car, 5 televisions, and a host of other crap that no one needs are so common. Try and blame others all you want. If you (you as in generally, not you specifically) need a second income it is because YOU CHOSE A LIFESTYLE THAT REQUIRES IT.

Whats your wage and how does it compare to other people?

Isnt THAT the question really?

It has ranged greatly from four hundred a month to something much more reasonable now. For the most part, how much I have made has mattered little, more of how I spent it. I have lived on as little as 100 bucks a week but I did not have children at the time.

yes, some people are just grossly mismanaging thier money. But others are simply not making a whole lot of money in the first place. Ive heard people on the radio complaining about how hard it is to make ends meet with only $250,000 a year and I want to find them and punch them square in the mouth. Then I remember when I was supporting a family of four on less than $30,000 a year and made it work.

But my brother hurt his back in his twenties and couldnt work for nearly two years. His wife did her best supporting the family, but they ended up in a small trailer in a trailer park and I used to bring them groceries every week to help them get by. He evetually got better and theyre MUCH better off now, but people fall on hard times. And with the Great Recession, ALOT of people have fallen on hard times.

But that IS the point. You fall on hard times, get some help from friends/family and get back up. Sometimes those hard times can be rough on the savings, other time you can make it but in the end, if you are willing to make the sacrifice and do the work then you are going to do just fine.

I dont believe that your assessment of 90% is accurate.

The rest of your post I mostly agree with though.

Fair enough. The 90% was bullshit figure I just came up with but it is my belief because of the people I see around me on a daily basis. I am not sure I can think of anyone that had money issues that were not self-inflicted. I know a ton that do have money issues though. Most of them out earn me. That is the sad part.

 

[FA_Q2]

ok....who do you think lobbied for all those free trade agreements that shipped good paying jobs overseas? Who do you think got private sector unions crushed(whether you like them or not), who do you think lobbied for the ability to gamble in the derivatives market? Who do you think lobbied for the bailouts that didn't hold them accountable, or make them change their ways? Who do you think wants to keep the status quot of huge campaign dollars(anonymously, of course) to keep politicians firmly at their heels?

C'mon man.....

to the second part....yes, there are people who live beyond their means. Never said there wasn't.

Mostly major corporations and large businesses. The funny part is that they were NOT ‘capitalists’ or, more importantly they were not lobbying for a capitalistic society. They are lobbying FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Generally speaking, large businesses actually do not like the capitalist system. It requires competition. They are much more in favor of what I would consider a more socialistic approach. One where the government controls the markets. Why? Because then they do not have to actually work. All they need to do is ensure that the government backs them and then they can quietly take their cut. That is what is occurring now and it has absolutely zero to do with capitalism. It is, however, intrinsic to what happens when the government gets too involved in the system.

 

[Steelplate]

ok....who do you think lobbied for all those free trade agreements that shipped good paying jobs overseas? Who do you think got private sector unions crushed(whether you like them or not), who do you think lobbied for the ability to gamble in the derivatives market? Who do you think lobbied for the bailouts that didn't hold them accountable, or make them change their ways? Who do you think wants to keep the status quot of huge campaign dollars(anonymously, of course) to keep politicians firmly at their heels?

C'mon man.....

to the second part....yes, there are people who live beyond their means. Never said there wasn't.

Mostly major corporations and large businesses. The funny part is that they were NOT ‘capitalists’ or, more importantly they were not lobbying for a capitalistic society. They are lobbying FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Generally speaking, large businesses actually do not like the capitalist system. It requires competition. They are much more in favor of what I would consider a more socialistic approach. One where the government controls the markets. Why? Because then they do not have to actually work. All they need to do is ensure that the government backs them and then they can quietly take their cut. That is what is occurring now and it has absolutely zero to do with capitalism. It is, however, intrinsic to what happens when the government gets too involved in the system.

Oh...I agree. That's why I was outraged at the Citizen's United ruling. That's why I want publicly funded elections. Get corporate, union and special interest dollars out of our elections. I would also like to see the Electoral College done away with. Government is involved too much because when our elected officials have no other choice but to take huge donations from huge corporations, it compromises their integrity. Get all of that "legal" money out of politics, and it will be a heck of a lot easier to watchdog against corruption.

I'm grow weary of people complaining about government, but don't seem to ever want to change the rules that are the basis for the problems within government.

EDIT: Not saying you specifically...just speaking in general

 

[candycorn]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

What I envision is an eventual move away from the society of monetary rewards for labor expended.

To what exactly?

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

 

[Vidi]

What I envision is an eventual move away from the society of monetary rewards for labor expended.

To what exactly?

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

Essentially Star Trek was Communism.

Sure there were elections for head of the Federation, but Earth was give what you can, take what you need.

And it will NEVER work. Human nature wont allow it. Even with Replicator technology.

 

[Vidi]

What I envision is an eventual move away from the society of monetary rewards for labor expended.

To what exactly?

First realize I'm talking several generations into the future. Basically, a civilization that places no or little value on money and more value on what is contributed to the whole. Basically Star Trek if you want a short answer.

Eventually we will knock our heads together enough to know that we're running out of resources and what little remain on earth have to be rationed or alternate resources need to be developed. Rationing isn't going to work. We don't trust 1/2 of the people in this country--whoever "we" are so screw that. No way we're trusting anyone outside of the borders to take only their fair share.

Development is costly so mankind will have to remove the cost factor. Instead of paying the workers with greenbacks, why not pay them a small stipend and the promise that they will not have to pay for the electricity (or alternate fuel or life-saving drug ) they help develop?

Once those technologies are developed; make them available in return for services to be rendered.

Pipe dream I know but the alternative is to continue down this self-defeating road we are on.

Sorry guess Im not done with this post.

Money is simply the means by which we trade our labor. You can call it dollars or stipends or lollipops, it doesnt change the fact that one must produce goods or services in order to trade for other goods or services. And as long as that is a reality, any system, be it economic or political, must account for human greed.