We Are Witnessing the Failure of Socialism

[bripat9643]

Have you dupes heard of the SECOND Pub World Great Depression? Absolute idiocy...

Yeah. It's a work of fiction that can be found in the fantasy section of the bookstore.

 

[Charles_Main]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

"It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold." Op-Ed Columnist - Let’s Get Fiscal - NYTimes.com

If any of this were true then the socialist countries of Europe would be thriving. In reality unregulated deficit spending and debt is devastating the global market.

What is happening in Europe is a complete refutation of the left's steadfast faith that increased deficit spending during a time of glacial economic growth is what is needed to grow the economy.

Hell, what is happening today in America is a complete refutation of this administration's entire economic agenda.

I am Afraid were Witnessing the Failure of America. Of America Democracy, Of the Entire System. Were so Stupid we see Complete and Total Failure and still are closely divided on whether or not to Give the Man another 4 Years.

Sad truth is the Entire system has been to Corrupted to repair itself. I am afraid it's all down hill from Here.

 

[bripat9643]

Spain has liberal socialists and conservative socialists, since about 1985.......get a passport and change the channel, chumps.

The term "conservative socialist" is an oxymoron. So is "intelligent socialist."

 

[Charles_Main]

Have you dupes heard of the SECOND Pub World Great Depression? Absolute idiocy...

Yeah. It's a work of fiction that can be found in the fantasy section of the bookstore.

The Depression was a Real Possibility, The Fact that it was the Product of "Pubs" is Ludicrous. It was a Product of Irresponsible Liberal Spending Polices Across the Western World. Coupled with Very Poor management from both Parties in this Country.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism can only exist as long as the government's ability to afford it, which is directly limited to the amount of taxes--I'm sorry revenue-- that the government can forcibly take from the private sector.

(Emphasis added.) That one word makes the sentence false. If not for that, it would be true.

Wrong. Government is the monopoly on force. Everything it does is based on force. Socialism is a phenomenon of government. There's no such thing is non-coercive socialism

Mao Tze-Tung was wrong, and Thomas Jefferson was right. Power doesn't come from the barrel of a gun.

Horseshit. It most certainly does. Furthermore, Jefferson never said all government results from the consent of the governed. He said that just government rests on the consent of the governed. Leave it to a socialist to deliberately misconstrue what the Founding Fathers said. What else can they do? The Founders were die-hard supporters of the institution of private property. They even enshrined it in our Constitution.

It comes from the consent of the governed.

ROFL! Yeah, right. Mao, Stalin and Hitler had the consent of the governed.

Taxes, like everything else the government does, aren't forced.

You just tell one whopper after another!

True, there are penalties for those who deliberately evade paying taxes, but the system only works when most people pay their share voluntarily without trying to get out of it.

So If I shoot the first guy standing next to you after he doesn't hand over his money, when you hand yours over it's voluntary?

Threat of force is the same as force. If I tell you to hand over your money or I'll kill you, I have used force. However, that's your conception of "voluntary."

If everyone were to refuse to pay taxes, the government could not possibly enforce the tax laws.

So if the government only killed 5 or 10 million of us before it quit trying to collect taxes, that wouldn't be force?

However, correct for that mistake and you have it right: socialism depends on the government's ability to take revenues from the private sector, and for the people's willingness that it do so. Which in turn is directly (and geometrically) proportional to how wealthy a society becomes.

The word "take" denotes the use of force, so you just contradicted yourself.

Government services provide a positive good to society which the people are willing to pay for to the extent they can do so without suffering.

Many people would dispute the "good" that government services provide. Furthermore, you have to weigh them against all the bad that taking money from people by force involves.

Government services provide good roads, education, health care, support for scientific research, access to information, parks and recreational facilities, libraries, a social safety net, and other good things that private industry either can't or won't provide.

Why would they provide it when government has already taken the money to provide it? The fact is that all those things have been provided privately. Except for the so-called "social safety net," which is just a euphemism meaning "organized plunder."

These are worth paying for, or so it seems all societies believe.

If you think they are worth it, then you pay for them. No one asked me if I think they are worth it. "Societies" don't believe things. The word is abstraction, not a label for a thing with thoughts. Some people believe one thing, and others believe something else. "Society" doesn't have thoughts or beliefs.

And that's why the percentage of a nation's wealth that goes to public expenses increases as its wealth increases.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The percentage of the nation's wealth that goes to public expenses is purely the result of the increasing brazenness of demagogues in bribing the voters with their own money.

It's not that poor countries don't want all these good things, but simply that they can't afford them, while rich countries can -- and always do.

That's the only statement in your post that is actually correct.

 

[bripat9643]

We have socialism (social democracy) jusy a crappy kind that panders to the rich and screws the nonrich...

What we are witnessing is the failure of savage capitalism, AGAIN!!. The social democracies of the EU were doing just fine until the greedy deregulation morons/cronies started the SECOND Pub Great Depression. And thanks again for screwing with the world recovery just to to get Obama.

You just said that we have socialism here, and they have socialism in Europe, but it's a huge failure.

 

[Darkwind]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

"It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold." Op-Ed Columnist - Let’s Get Fiscal - NYTimes.com

If any of this were true then the socialist countries of Europe would be thriving. In reality unregulated deficit spending and debt is devastating the global market.

What is happening in Europe is a complete refutation of the left's steadfast faith that increased deficit spending during a time of glacial economic growth is what is needed to grow the economy.

Hell, what is happening today in America is a complete refutation of this administration's entire economic agenda.

Congratulations!

A. You don't know what you're talking about.
B. You're clueless about what you declare to be facts.
C. You wield your ignorance like a club.

The economic tactic that European nations embraced as aggregate spending was dropping due to a credit and spending shortfall was austerity. The effect of austerity is to FURTHER reduce aggregate spending within the entire economy by lowering spending in the public sector even as spending is decreasing in the private sector. In other words, while it's necessary to ultimately reduce debt, the absolute worst time to reduce spending in the public sector is when spending is also falling in the private sector because a reduction in spending (otherwise known as demand) is the very cause of the economic slump. It's a loss of demand which keeps unemployment high, investment low, and factories idle. Not only will austerity not fix the problem of reduced demand in the private sector, it actually increases the problem of an anemic economy because aggregate spending falls even further, thereby reducing spending even further in the private sector. It's like an economic death spiral.

You really have very little right to school anyone on not knowing what they are talking about.

First, point out to everyone what austerity measures you are talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

See my post above. The socialist countries of Europe ARE thriving.

As for Singapore and Hong Kong (Hong Kong, by the way, is now part of China and no longer an independent country), consider this:

As I noted above, Singapore has universal health care (socialized medicine).

S'pore govt to strengthen social safety net - Channel NewsAsia

Singapore has a social safety net that compares well with those in many European countries, along with its socialized medical care.

Once again, we see that most of the world's richest countries have a lot of socialist elements in their economies. Singapore is not an exception. The only exception other than a few oil-rich Middle East shiekdoms is in fact the United States -- and the U.S., which used to be no. 1 in per capita GDP, has dropped to no. 10 over the past 30 years, as we have abandoned many (but not all) of the socialist features that helped make us the richest country in the world, during the period from the end of World War II until the 1980s, when that was the case.

More of your typical bullshit - muddying the waters. The fact that Hong Kong is part of China is irrelevant. In fact, the economy of China is moving in the direction of Hong Kong's economy and not the other way around. Singapore's healthcare system is largely private. it's no more "socialized" than the American healthcare system. Hong Kong and China are perennially rated #1 and #2 on the Heritage index of economic freedom. They are not shining examples of socialism. They are rebukes of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

We have socialism (social democracy) jusy a crappy kind that panders to the rich and screws the nonrich...

What we are witnessing is the failure of savage capitalism, AGAIN!!. The social democracies of the EU were doing just fine until the greedy deregulation morons/cronies started the SECOND Pub Great Depression. And thanks again for screwing with the world recovery just to to get Obama.

So, if we have socialism, how is it that we are witnessing a failure of capitalism?

Hmmmmm?

A failure of SAVAGE capitalism, Cold War Dinosaur. Non dinos know socialism is always democratic, simply well regulated capitalism with protections for citizens, and gov't interest in necessities...

So you're claiming that capitalism is socialism? Were the Soviet Union and Communist China socialist?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you prefer the kind of laissez-faire capitalism which has evolved during the past three decades and is effectively undermining the American middle class?

"laissez-faire capitalism?" You're joking, right?

Do you doubt that a tiny fraction of the U.S. population owns and controls considerably more of the Nation's wealth than the vast majority?

Yes, I doubt that. I've seen the figures.

There is a percentage of anti-Semites in every predominately gentile group. Do you believe that every member of the Occupy movement is anti-Semitic? If so, why?

Also, do you believe there are Jewish anti-gentiles?

The Occupy movement exposed its antisemitism for the entire world to see.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no clue what a socialist is. If you did, you wouldn't promote such bullshit. But alas, you are correct; I am sucking off the government tit. My kids get SS because their mother, my wife, died. I realize I should not be receiving this money as I have no right to it, at least in your eyes, but guess what? Fuck you and your bullshit.

Exactly right, you have no right to the money. You're a parasite.

 

[Mustang]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

"It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold." Op-Ed Columnist - Let’s Get Fiscal - NYTimes.com

If any of this were true then the socialist countries of Europe would be thriving. In reality unregulated deficit spending and debt is devastating the global market.

What is happening in Europe is a complete refutation of the left's steadfast faith that increased deficit spending during a time of glacial economic growth is what is needed to grow the economy.

Hell, what is happening today in America is a complete refutation of this administration's entire economic agenda.

Congratulations!

A. You don't know what you're talking about.
B. You're clueless about what you declare to be facts.
C. You wield your ignorance like a club.

The economic tactic that European nations embraced as aggregate spending was dropping due to a credit and spending shortfall was austerity. The effect of austerity is to FURTHER reduce aggregate spending within the entire economy by lowering spending in the public sector even as spending is decreasing in the private sector. In other words, while it's necessary to ultimately reduce debt, the absolute worst time to reduce spending in the public sector is when spending is also falling in the private sector because a reduction in spending (otherwise known as demand) is the very cause of the economic slump. It's a loss of demand which keeps unemployment high, investment low, and factories idle. Not only will austerity not fix the problem of reduced demand in the private sector, it actually increases the problem of an anemic economy because aggregate spending falls even further, thereby reducing spending even further in the private sector. It's like an economic death spiral.

You really have very little right to school anyone on not knowing what they are talking about.

First, point out to everyone what austerity measures you are talking about.

Macroeconomics is probably the only major social science in which so many people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how it really works even as they're directly or indirectly affected by the decisions our gov't makes regarding spending, interest rates, and general economic policy. That's one of the reasons I generally steer clear of economic threads; I'm just not crazy about dealing with people who think that the prescription to heal the economy and create economic growth is to slash gov't spending to the bone for no other reason, frankly, than because it suits their ideological preference of reducing the size of gov't anyway under any set of circumstances.

People can argue the merits (both pro and con) of reducing federal gov't spending, but there's no worse time to do it than when aggregate spending (private sector spending, state gov't spending) has fallen due to reduced demand in the private sector and reduced available state tax receipts for state spending.

All spending, even gov't spending, equals other persons' income, which translates to more available funds for spending. As an economy is contracting (or even growing modestly as it is currently), reducing gov't spending only exacerbates the problem of decreased demand by decreasing it even further.

Now, if the goal is to send our economy back into a recession, by all means slash gov't spending now. That's what happened in 1937 when austerity measures were instituted even as the economy was recovering.

 

[MikeK]

What we are witnessing are the effects of laissez-faire capitalism, which nearly caused the collapse of our economy. Adoption of certain socialist policies, along with restoration of those protections which have been repealed by the the right-wing de-regulations blitz, is the only hope we have of restoring the American Middle Class to the status it enjoyed before the coronation of Ronald Reagan -- the man from General Electric.

 

[Mr Natural]

What we are witnessing are the failures of 30+ years of supply-side economics forced down our throats by Reagan and his gang of criminal corporatist cocksuckers.

 

[francoHFW]

You have no clue what a socialist is. If you did, you wouldn't promote such bullshit. But alas, you are correct; I am sucking off the government tit. My kids get SS because their mother, my wife, died. I realize I should not be receiving this money as I have no right to it, at least in your eyes, but guess what? Fuck you and your bullshit.

Exactly right, you have no right to the money. You're a parasite.

Says the tax evading plumber/brainwashed dittohead. You're a criminal, a freeloader/90% chance racist pub dupe a-hole LOL.

And no, communists are no longer called socialists, except in cold war dinosaur dupe country, for decades. Socialism is always democratic, since WWII at least...

Change the channel, hater/dupe , or enjoy hell.

 

[regent]

So what economic system has worked best in world history, has it been feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, communism, other or mixtures?
When has this nation ever experienced economic well-being for longer than fifty years?
When has any nation experienced economic well-being for longer than fifty years?
Has any economic system figured out how to prevent business cycles or cure them?
Is our economic problems the result of greed or politics or both?
What should American's rightfully expect from an economic system?

 

[francoHFW]

Social capitalism, or capital socialism (sorry cold war dinos-that's socialism!)- Certainly not Reaganism/Savage capitalism, Republicanism- they cause all the depressions and most of the recessions....Pub dupes!!

Communism/Marxism is not in the running, is on its last legs, and does not EXIST in the USA in any meaningful form.