what so bad about socialism

The objective is to make money, not hit a specific money supply target.

dear, we are not concerned about their objective to make money but rather how they control the money as you claim they do. So far you have conceded that their object is to make money not coordinate to control the money supply. Perhaps you feel their second objective is to coordinate and control the money supply??

dear, we are not concerned about their objective to make money but rather how they control the money as you claim they do.

I told you how. Making loans increases the money supply. Paying off loans shrinks the money supply.

So far you have conceded that their object is to make money not coordinate to control the money supply.

You're the one who feels banks have to co-ordinate to loan money.

Let's get back to your claim that the Fed has total control of money supply.
Why do you feel that?
 
I've seen and experienced great things in countries that are more geared to socialism. The happiest rated countries in the world are all highly socialistic countries. Why can't we do what we already know that works?

Socialism is the defacto state of existence for the USA. But because it's inexoribly linked to Nazis and Communism people assume it must be bad without ever realizing much of what they take for granted is defacto socialism.

Every farmer is benefitting from socialism. So too every retired person, senior citizen, child, and student.
 
You're the one who feels banks have to co-ordinate to loan money.

?

No, I'm the one who feels they have to coordinate to control the money supply.

Do you get it now?

Let's get back to your claim that the Fed has total control of money supply.
Why do you feel that?

In short, you want to change the subject having lost the debate on who controls the money supply?

Not at all. You said the Fed has total control.

The failure to admit your error is very liberal of you.
 
Not at all. You said the Fed has total control.

.

and who do you think controls the money supply if not the institution that was created to control it??

Have you already forgotten my posts explaining the different components of money supply?
Maybe you should check on those old concussions you got?

So are you going to post proof of your claim, like a conservative, or continue to run away, like a liberal?
 
Not at all. You said the Fed has total control.

.

and who do you think controls the money supply if not the institution that was created to control it??

Have you already forgotten my posts explaining the different components of money supply?
Maybe you should check on those old concussions you got?

So are you going to post proof of your claim, like a conservative, or continue to run away, like a liberal?

and who do you think controls the money supply if not the institution that was created to control it??
 
Not at all. You said the Fed has total control.

.

and who do you think controls the money supply if not the institution that was created to control it??

Have you already forgotten my posts explaining the different components of money supply?
Maybe you should check on those old concussions you got?

So are you going to post proof of your claim, like a conservative, or continue to run away, like a liberal?

and who do you think controls the money supply if not the institution that was created to control it??

and who do you think controls the money supply if not the institution that was created to control it??

Are you ever going to post proof that the Fed controls the money supply? Or run away, like a liberal?
 
Socialism merely requires social morals.

Does it also require slowly starving to death 120 million to encourage the survivors to have the proper liberal social morals??
The usual Smoke and Mirrors of using Totalitarianism, in the disguise of Communism, to defame Socialism.

The US has as much Socialism as a Regulated Market and has it's fair share of multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire entrepreneurs whilst most Socialist nations have their fair share of multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire entrepreneurs.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your agenda driven books once in a while to experience reality.
 
The US has as much Socialism as a Regulated Market and has it's fair share of multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire entrepreneurs whilst most Socialist nations have their fair share of multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire entrepreneurs.

can you say what your point is??
 
The US has as much Socialism as a Regulated Market and has it's fair share of multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire entrepreneurs whilst most Socialist nations have their fair share of multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire entrepreneurs.

can you say what your point is??
The point is, dear, that the right is literally incredible when they claim what they claim about unfettered capitalism.
 
The objective is to make money, not hit a specific money supply target.

dear, we are not concerned about their objective to make money but rather how they control the money as you claim they do. So far you have conceded that their object is to make money not coordinate to control the money supply. Perhaps you feel their second objective is to coordinate and control the money supply??

dear, we are not concerned about their objective to make money but rather how they control the money as you claim they do.

I told you how. Making loans increases the money supply. Paying off loans shrinks the money supply.

So far you have conceded that their object is to make money not coordinate to control the money supply.

You're the one who feels banks have to co-ordinate to loan money.

Let's get back to your claim that the Fed has total control of money supply.
Why do you feel that?

Nothing wrong with it. Americans love socialism, they usually just do as the Chinese do calling Capitalism something else. :)
 
What most conservatives do not understand about socialism vs. capitalism is that with a capitalist system every employee must be paid enough not just for their daily expenses but also enough to pay for the major cost centers in life.

These cost centers include housing, education, health care, transportation, retirement etc....

In a socialist system, the employer still pays for these but instead of paying to the employee, the employer pays taxes to the government and the government provides these cost centers to the employees. This means that the employer pays substantially less to each employee.

The question is which is more efficient, an economy where employees pay for these costs centers individually or one where the government supples these.

Generally, I'd say that it is more efficient and cheaper for the government to pay for these, so the employer saves a considerable amount in a socialist system.

But, in a capitalist system not everyone's needs are met. Many people do not receive enough to pay for the major costs of life. Though entitlement programs, paid by taxes make up for a lot.

The other aspect of Socialism, ignored by the capitalists, is that in a socialist society every able bodied person works. There are no 'free-loaders', there is no welfare system. So if everyone works, it's a more productive and therefore wealthier society - which means that employers end up wealthier than in a capitalist system.

Somehow the Swiss bankers are not crying about their socialist state!
 
What most conservatives do not understand about socialism vs. capitalism is that with a capitalist system every employee must be paid enough not just for their daily expenses but also enough to pay for the major cost centers in life.

These cost centers include housing, education, health care, transportation, retirement etc....

In a socialist system, the employer still pays for these but instead of paying to the employee, the employer pays taxes to the government and the government provides these cost centers to the employees. This means that the employer pays substantially less to each employee.

The question is which is more efficient, an economy where employees pay for these costs centers individually or one where the government supples these.

Generally, I'd say that it is more efficient and cheaper for the government to pay for these, so the employer saves a considerable amount in a socialist system.

But, in a capitalist system not everyone's needs are met. Many people do not receive enough to pay for the major costs of life. Though entitlement programs, paid by taxes make up for a lot.

The other aspect of Socialism, ignored by the capitalists, is that in a socialist society every able bodied person works. There are no 'free-loaders', there is no welfare system. So if everyone works, it's a more productive and therefore wealthier society - which means that employers end up wealthier than in a capitalist system.

Somehow the Swiss bankers are not crying about their socialist state!

The other aspect of Socialism, ignored by the capitalists, is that in a socialist society every able bodied person works.

Ahhhh, yes, we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top