what so bad about socialism

[Richard-H]

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.

You should take a trip to Switzerland sometime and see how it really works instead of just making things up off the top of your head.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You should take a trip to Switzerland sometime and see how it really works instead of just making things up off the top of your head.

Switzerland? The 'higher-than-the-US-on-the-economic-freedom-index' Switzerland?

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

That Switzerland? The one that's number 5 on the ranking, higher than the US at 12? That one?

You people look at entirely Capitalist countries, and claim they are Socialist..... don't have a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You should take a trip to Switzerland sometime and see how it really works instead of just making things up off the top of your head.

I was thinking of Eastern Europe and USSR.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What the hell is "defacto state of existence" supposed to mean?

We don't assume it's bad. Economists have analyzed it and determined that it's an unworkable system that gives the government absolute control over the individual make makes totalitarianism possible.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You should take a trip to Switzerland sometime and see how it really works instead of just making things up off the top of your head.

Switzerland? The 'higher-than-the-US-on-the-economic-freedom-index' Switzerland?

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

That Switzerland? The one that's number 5 on the ranking, higher than the US at 12? That one?

You people look at entirely Capitalist countries, and claim they are Socialist..... don't have a clue.

All their so-called socialist "success stories" are actually examples of capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No one said it has total control. Obviously, like any commodity, the demand for money has an effect on the price.

 

[bripat9643]

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 nations you are calling "socialist" aren't any more socialist than the United States. You're an ignorant boob who doesn't know the first thing about economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No one said it has total control. Obviously, like any commodity, the demand for money has an effect on the price.

No one said it has total control.

Ed has said they have total control.

 

[regent]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

 

[danielpalos]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Yes, socialism starts with a social Contract, like our supreme laws of the land.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Been there. Done that.

 

[Andylusion]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

 

[regent]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Do I just pick the definition

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Well I went through the definitions and some I like more than others, but none really fit what I want, so I guess I'll have to make mine up as the others did.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Do I just pick the definition

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Well I went through the definitions and some I like more than others, but none really fit what I want, so I guess I'll have to make mine up as the others did.

None of them "fit what you want?" ROFL! THat seems to be the liberal approach to all definitions.

 

[regent]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Do I just pick the definition

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Well I went through the definitions and some I like more than others, but none really fit what I want, so I guess I'll have to make mine up as the others did.

None of them "fit what you want?" ROFL! THat seems to be the liberal approach to all definitions.

Ah, finally someone that will define socialism for the boards. so what is socialism?

 

[danielpalos]

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Do I just pick the definition

Has anyone been able to define socialism as yet?

Everyone has been able to define Socialism. Who hasn't? You?

Well I went through the definitions and some I like more than others, but none really fit what I want, so I guess I'll have to make mine up as the others did.

None of them "fit what you want?" ROFL! THat seems to be the liberal approach to all definitions.

Ah, finally someone that will define socialism for the boards. so what is socialism?

In a nutshell, this is socialism; Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. The Federalist Number Two

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government,

both sides agree with the necessity of govt but not what its necessary for. Capitalists believe govt is necessary to protect natural freedom, while socialists believe it is necessary for libsoviet bureaucrats to improve upon freedom.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so what is socialism?

Powerful, violent, special interest, central govt that had always been the cancer on human history until our Founders gave us freedom from socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government,

both sides agree with the necessity of govt but not what its necessary for. Capitalists believe govt is necessary to protect natural freedom, while socialists believe it is necessary for libsoviet bureaucrats to improve upon freedom.

Not sure what you mean. How much "freedom" is there under any form of capitalism, with no capital. The socialism of our social programs, helps bail out Capitalism, like usual.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. How much "freedom" is there under any form of capitalism, with no capital.

how much?? 100% unless the govt interferes??