Can Someone Explain how we can Impliment Socialism and Still Enjoy the Benefits of Capitalism?

[Ringo]

 

[Seymour Flops]

Democratic Socialism is a hybrid system. It does not have to involve total government control of a market. Yes, in some cases, the government should own the means of production, like in the case of North Dakota Mills. But what is wrong with the government competing with the private market? In almost every case, the market itself controls price and demand.

"Almost."

If I'm running a meat packing plant and the government opens a competing meat packing plant, I'm not going to trust at all that there will be fair competion. Government hates to lose, and it frequently does. When it loses, because a plan doesn't work, they rarely abandon the plan, preferring to take drastic measures to prop up that plan.

The ACA is a great example of that. A disaster from day one, starting with just the website to sign up for it.

It's reaction was to not to recognize that the market itself should control price and demand and bow out. Its reaction was to subsidize the skyrocketing premiums that the ACA caused. Then further subsidize it to the point that a cottage fraud industry developed to sign up people without their knowledge for policies that they unwitting signers would not ever have to pay for.

Now that they know that people making six-figures plus are getting huge subsidies paid for by waitresses and teachers, did they immediately say "that has to stop?" Nope. The proponents of government-provided health care threw a fit at the though of reducing the subsidies, for these wealthy entrepreneurs.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Any honest capitalist will tell you that capitalism is about profit and only profit. And what is the most profitable and quickest way to make a profit? Plunder. Through the exploitation of workers or through war.

That is why, no matter how far technological progress has advanced under capitalism, poverty, crime, and war cannot disappear, because they are part of making a profit, and moreover, the most important part. Plunder.

Most importantly, technological progress in military affairs has led to the possibility of destroying life on Earth. And this danger cannot disappear under capitalism. So, for this reason alone, the rotten structure called capitalism must be destroyed. Humanity deserves better than to remain at the level of savages.

So, how will clothes, cars, food, medicines, electronic devices, and homes be produced in your no-capitalists allowed system?

 

[Woodznutz]

It is folly to lament the cost of those social programs while applauding massive tax cuts for the wealthy who- rather than return their windfall to the economy -tend to sock it away and watch it grown as an investment.

Money is always at work in the economy unless it's stuffed in a mattress somewhere. Our biggest problem is the trade deficit. Our spending isn't "returned to the economy", it's sent to the economy of China and others who have a trade surplus with us.

 

[task0778]

Money is always at work in the economy unless it's stuffed in a mattress somewhere. Our biggest problem is the trade deficit. Our spending isn't "returned to the economy", it's sent to the economy of China and others who have a trade surplus with us.

I would dispute the idea of the trade deficit being our biggest problem. First, we are mostly talking about business deals between US import companies and foreign export ones. Basically, the foreign export companies send us stuff and we pay them US dollars for it and sell the stuff to US consumers. But what is the foreign company going to do with US dollars? Either they buy stuff from us or they invest their dollars in US assets. As long as we control what assets they can purchase, what's wrong with foreign investments in the US? What's so bad about a foreign business building a Toyota plant in Texas or a Volkswagen plant somewhere?
So, at least some of the trade deficit does indeed come back to the US economy. But what about the rest of it? It sits in a bank somewhere overseas presumably, gaining interest, right? So where's the harm in that?

 

[Woodznutz]

I would dispute the idea of the trade deficit being our biggest problem. First, we are mostly talking about business deals between US import companies and foreign export ones. Basically, the foreign export companies send us stuff and we pay them US dollars for it and sell the stuff to US consumers. But what is the foreign company going to do with US dollars? Either they buy stuff from us or they invest their dollars in US assets. As long as we control what assets they can purchase, what's wrong with foreign investments in the US? What's so bad about a foreign business building a Toyota plant in Texas or a Volkswagen plant somewhere?
So, at least some of the trade deficit does indeed come back to the US economy. But what about the rest of it? It sits in a bank somewhere overseas presumably, gaining interest, right? So where's the harm in that?

I have to copy and paste an answer.

The national debt can significantly impact individuals through higher borrowing costs, inflation, and slower economic growth, ultimately affecting jobs, wages, and personal finances.

​

1. Higher Borrowing Costs: As the national debt increases, the government may need to raise interest rates to attract investors to buy its debt. This can lead to higher interest rates for personal loans, mortgages, and credit cards, making borrowing more expensive for individuals.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8498...vbi13aGF0LWl0LW1lYW5zLzg2OTQ3NzYyMDA3Lw&ntb=1
   
2. Stagnant Wages: Businesses facing higher borrowing costs may invest less in growth and hiring, leading to slower wage growth for employees. This stagnation can affect overall purchasing power and economic mobility.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=431a...jb3VsZC1mZWRlcmFsLWRlYnQtYWZmZWN0LXlvdQ&ntb=1
   
3. Inflation Risks: If the government resorts to printing more money to manage its debt, it can lead to inflation. Rising prices for goods and services can erode purchasing power, making it more difficult for families to afford everyday expenses.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8498...vbi13aGF0LWl0LW1lYW5zLzg2OTQ3NzYyMDA3Lw&ntb=1
   
   Slower Economic Growth: A high national debt can hinder economic growth by limiting the government's ability to invest in infrastructure, education, and other critical areas. This can result in a less dynamic economy and fewer job opportunities.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8498...vbi13aGF0LWl0LW1lYW5zLzg2OTQ3NzYyMDA3Lw&ntb=1
   Increased Risk of Fiscal Crisis: As the debt grows, the risk of a fiscal crisis increases. If investors lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its debt, it could lead to a sharp increase in borrowing costs or even a default on obligations, which would have severe repercussions for the economy and individual finances.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=036a...wMjUvYXJ0aWNsZXNob3cvMTI1MTcyNjExLmNtcw&ntb=1
   Political and Social Consequences: High levels of national debt can lead to political instability and social unrest, as citizens may become frustrated with economic conditions and government policies. This can result in the rise of populist movements and increased polarization.
   https://go.skimresources.com/?id=16...77d9d747&cci=0c94f94526888837cceb17366ea6646c
   
   Conclusion
   
   
   

The national debt is not just a concern for policymakers; it has real implications for everyday Americans. From higher borrowing costs and stagnant wages to inflation and slower economic growth, the effects of national debt can ripple through the economy, impacting personal finances and overall quality of life. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for individuals as they navigate their financial futures in an increasingly complex economic landscape.

 

[Mac-7]

I have to copy and paste an answer.

The national debt can significantly impact individuals through higher borrowing costs, inflation, and slower economic growth, ultimately affecting jobs, wages, and personal finances.

​

1. Higher Borrowing Costs: As the national debt increases, the government may need to raise interest rates to attract investors to buy its debt. This can lead to higher interest rates for personal loans, mortgages, and credit cards, making borrowing more expensive for individuals.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8498...vbi13aGF0LWl0LW1lYW5zLzg2OTQ3NzYyMDA3Lw&ntb=1
2. Stagnant Wages: Businesses facing higher borrowing costs may invest less in growth and hiring, leading to slower wage growth for employees. This stagnation can affect overall purchasing power and economic mobility.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=431a...jb3VsZC1mZWRlcmFsLWRlYnQtYWZmZWN0LXlvdQ&ntb=1
3. Inflation Risks: If the government resorts to printing more money to manage its debt, it can lead to inflation. Rising prices for goods and services can erode purchasing power, making it more difficult for families to afford everyday expenses.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8498...vbi13aGF0LWl0LW1lYW5zLzg2OTQ3NzYyMDA3Lw&ntb=1
   
   Slower Economic Growth: A high national debt can hinder economic growth by limiting the government's ability to invest in infrastructure, education, and other critical areas. This can result in a less dynamic economy and fewer job opportunities.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8498...vbi13aGF0LWl0LW1lYW5zLzg2OTQ3NzYyMDA3Lw&ntb=1
   Increased Risk of Fiscal Crisis: As the debt grows, the risk of a fiscal crisis increases. If investors lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its debt, it could lead to a sharp increase in borrowing costs or even a default on obligations, which would have severe repercussions for the economy and individual finances.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=036a...wMjUvYXJ0aWNsZXNob3cvMTI1MTcyNjExLmNtcw&ntb=1
   Political and Social Consequences: High levels of national debt can lead to political instability and social unrest, as citizens may become frustrated with economic conditions and government policies. This can result in the rise of populist movements and increased polarization.
   https://go.skimresources.com/?id=1629X694351&isjs=1&jv=15.7.1&sref=https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/can-someone-explain-how-we-can-impliment-socialism-and-still-enjoy-the-benefits-of-capitalism.1186548/page-5#post-37673403&url=https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=036a5626a97def21029f3fa3bd2ccd1643942c624fd16feacc305e269a5c629bJmltdHM9MTc2Mzg1NjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0709adf4-a3b1-6a95-2df5-bb59a2ee6bdb&psq=how+does+the+national+debt+affect+us&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lY29ub21pY3RpbWVzLmluZGlhdGltZXMuY29tL25ld3MvaW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbC91cy9yYXktZGFsaW8tdXMtZGVidC13YXJuaW5nLTUta2V5LWluc2lnaHRzLW9uLXdoYXQtaGFwcGVucy13aGVuLWEtY291bnRyeXMtZGVidC1yaXNlcy1kdXJpbmctYW4tZWNvbm9taWMtZG93bnR1cm4tdXMtZWNvbm9teS1wcmVkaWN0aW9uLTIwMjUvYXJ0aWNsZXNob3cvMTI1MTcyNjExLmNtcw&ntb=1&xs=1&xtz=360&xuuid=af95f1204ed18f9132de889277d9d747&cci=0c94f94526888837cceb17366ea6646c
   
   Conclusion
   
   

The national debt is not just a concern for policymakers; it has real implications for everyday Americans. From higher borrowing costs and stagnant wages to inflation and slower economic growth, the effects of national debt can ripple through the economy, impacting personal finances and overall quality of life. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for individuals as they navigate their financial futures in an increasingly complex economic landscape.

Deficit spenders pray that they die before the bill comes due

 

[Woodznutz]

Deficit spenders pray that they die before the bill comes due

I pray that they die before they spend any more.

 

[Winston]

"Almost."

If I'm running a meat packing plant and the government opens a competing meat packing plant, I'm not going to trust at all that there will be fair competion. Government hates to lose, and it frequently does. When it loses, because a plan doesn't work, they rarely abandon the plan, preferring to take drastic measures to prop up that plan.

The ACA is a great example of that. A disaster from day one, starting with just the website to sign up for it.

It's reaction was to not to recognize that the market itself should control price and demand and bow out. Its reaction was to subsidize the skyrocketing premiums that the ACA caused. Then further subsidize it to the point that a cottage fraud industry developed to sign up people without their knowledge for policies that they unwitting signers would not ever have to pay for.

Now that they know that people making six-figures plus are getting huge subsidies paid for by waitresses and teachers, did they immediately say "that has to stop?" Nope. The proponents of government-provided health care threw a fit at the though of reducing the subsidies, for these wealthy entrepreneurs.

What is the government meat packing plant going to do, produce tainted meat that kills people? So what, if they do, well then no one will buy meat from them again. Isn't that how the "free market" works?

Years ago, during the British Mad Cow epidemic, a small meat packing plant wanted to "certify" that their cattle were free from mad cow disease. There was a test available, believe it cost around twenty five bucks per cow. Now yes, there were arguments that it was unneeded, but that small plant felt it could provide them a competitive advantage, especially in the export market. But the big boys would have none of it. They were not going to spend that little extra money and no, that small packer wasn't going to either. Congress passed a law preventing that small packer from implementing a certification program.

As to your rant about the ACA. It is so wrong there really is no place to start. Maybe Trump will be successful and completely destroy the ACA. I can tell you, that will not be good, and we will pay a price. The ACA easily was the most successful program since Medicare in what, 1965? Running second, behind that, Biden's additional child tax credit, bought millions of children out of poverty. Republicans said, "**** that", put them childrens back in poverty.

 

[Woodznutz]

What is the government meat packing plant going to do, produce tainted meat that kills people? So what, if they do, well then no one will buy meat from them again. Isn't that how the "free market" works?

Years ago, during the British Mad Cow epidemic, a small meat packing plant wanted to "certify" that their cattle were free from mad cow disease. There was a test available, believe it cost around twenty five bucks per cow. Now yes, there were arguments that it was unneeded, but that small plant felt it could provide them a competitive advantage, especially in the export market. But the big boys would have none of it. They were not going to spend that little extra money and no, that small packer wasn't going to either. Congress passed a law preventing that small packer from implementing a certification program.

As to your rant about the ACA. It is so wrong there really is no place to start. Maybe Trump will be successful and completely destroy the ACA. I can tell you, that will not be good, and we will pay a price. The ACA easily was the most successful program since Medicare in what, 1965? Running second, behind that, Biden's additional child tax credit, bought millions of children out of poverty. Republicans said, "**** that", put them childrens back in poverty.

"Money answereth everything." Just keep printing it and everything will be alright.

The problem is that they can't print it fast enough to keep up with inflation (Oh Wait! That's what's causing the inflation!).

 

[task0778]

Let me address your post #86, one a time for brevities sake, starting with:

Higher Borrowing Costs: As the national debt increases, the government may need to raise interest rates to attract investors to buy its debt. This can lead to higher interest rates for personal loans, mortgages, and credit cards, making borrowing more expensive for individuals.

It is difficult for me to connect gov't spending with trade deficits, how does increased or decreased gov't spending have anything to do with a trade deficit? As I see it, the imbalance of trade is actually an accumulation of individual trade deals between US businesses and foreign ones, rather than a gov't to gov't transaction.

Stagnant Wages: Businesses facing higher borrowing costs may invest less in growth and hiring, leading to slower wage growth for employees. This stagnation can affect overall purchasing power and economic mobility.

Again, I see no connection between the Fed's prime rate that drives loans and mortgages and trade deficits. Correlation does not prove causation.

Inflation Risks: If the government resorts to printing more money to manage its debt, it can lead to inflation. Rising prices for goods and services can erode purchasing power, making it more difficult for families to afford everyday expenses.

True. Tariffs and other protectionist measures can indeed cause higher inflation and erode purchasing power. Which to me means that the US should not be printing or creating more dollars. But I see no need to do that to offset any trade deficit.

Slower Economic Growth: A high national debt can hinder economic growth by limiting the government's ability to invest in infrastructure, education, and other critical areas. This can result in a less dynamic economy and fewer job opportunities.

True, but a higher national debt is a direct result from gov't overspending over less revenue, which I think has nothing to do with a trade imbalance. I think you are trying to link trade deficits to a tariff policy that is not necessary. There are other ways to deal with a trade imbalance.

Increased Risk of Fiscal Crisis: As the debt grows, the risk of a fiscal crisis increases. If investors lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its debt, it could lead to a sharp increase in borrowing costs or even a default on obligations, which would have severe repercussions for the economy and individual finances.

True again. But this has zip to do with a trade imbalance.

Political and Social Consequences: High levels of national debt can lead to political instability and social unrest, as citizens may become frustrated with economic conditions and government policies. This can result in the rise of populist movements and increased polarization.

See above. My main point: high levels of gov't debt has nothing to with an imbalance of trade. The US federal gov't does not suffer in a measurable way from any trade deficit as far as I know. I'm not seeing it.


I'd be grateful if anyone can show me how national debt is increased via a higher trade debt.

 

[justoffal]

The system is now corporatism.

China is going to win because of this.

It may not be tomorrow, it may not be in two years time, but they will win nonetheless.

Greed always leads to the fall of civilizations.

Yep

 

[Seymour Flops]

Deficit spenders pray that they die before the bill comes due

It worked for Keynes.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What is the government meat packing plant going to do, produce tainted meat that kills people? So what, if they do, well then no one will buy meat from them again. Isn't that how the "free market" works?

No, I don't claim that a federal meat packing plant would be run any worse than a privately-owned meat packing plant, from a standpoint of health concerns.

What will happen, assuming this meat packing plant is run like the rest of the federal government, is that they will hire the number of people they need to run the meat packing plant, plus a number of non-essential meat packing plant employees. Benefits will be very generous, and pay will be far above what the free market would pay workers and manager for their levels of qualifications.

So, they could charge more for their meat to have the money to pay for those things. But they will not, because few would buy their meat. They will simply ask Uncle Sam to subsidize them, or keep subsidizing them, so that they can pay those benefits.

Where will that money come from?

Years ago, during the British Mad Cow epidemic, a small meat packing plant wanted to "certify" that their cattle were free from mad cow disease. There was a test available, believe it cost around twenty five bucks per cow. Now yes, there were arguments that it was unneeded, but that small plant felt it could provide them a competitive advantage, especially in the export market. But the big boys would have none of it. They were not going to spend that little extra money and no, that small packer wasn't going to either. Congress passed a law preventing that small packer from implementing a certification program.

A perfect example of why government should stay out of the meat packing business. If they were, examples like that would increase not decrease.

As to your rant about the ACA. It is so wrong there really is no place to start. Maybe Trump will be successful and completely destroy the ACA. I can tell you, that will not be good, and we will pay a price. The ACA easily was the most successful program since Medicare in what, 1965? Running second, behind that, Biden's additional child tax credit, bought millions of children out of poverty. Republicans said, "**** that", put them childrens back in poverty.

I don't think that the ACA can be destroyed. Socialism takes root like daisies and is very difficult to get rid of, no matter how poorly it serves.

But its worst excesses can be reduced and not giving people making six figures free healthcare paid for by people making four figures is a great place to start.

 

[Ringo]

So, how will clothes, cars, food, medicines, electronic devices, and homes be produced in your no-capitalists allowed system?

How? In the same way that everything in human history has been produced—by hand or with machines.
The only difference is in the ownership of the means of production. Private ownership implies the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of a few. Public ownership of the means of production abolishes this exploitation for the benefit of individuals.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How? In the same way that everything in human history has been produced—by hand or with machines.
The only difference is in the ownership of the means of production. Private ownership implies the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of a few. Public ownership of the means of production abolishes this exploitation for the benefit of individuals.

So the government will own factories, and farms?

It's been tried before and has led to shortages and famine. What will be different for the socialism you envision for the U.S. from those examples?

 

[task0778]

The ACA is basically gov't subsidized healthcare, also known as socialized medicine. It doesn't cover everybody yet, but that is the dream for democrats. They don't care that it substantially increases the national debt and therefore is unaffordable. Their solution is to raise taxes, primarily on the rich and the big corps, believing that there are no consequences. Which is not true.

 

[Ringo]

So the government will own factories, and farms?
It's been tried before and has led to shortages and famine.

That's not true. The USSR started from a very low base after the Civil War and widespread destruction. Twenty years later, there was a devastating war with enormous losses in both economic and human resources.
Despite this, just 12 years after the war, the USSR was the country that launched humanity into the space age.
Living conditions were constantly improving, and I am a witness to this. To this we must add free housing, free higher education, and free healthcare. If it weren't for the betrayal of the reborn party leaders, the USSR could now occupy the place of socialist China.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's not true. The USSR started from a very low base after the Civil War and widespread destruction. Twenty years later, there was a devastating war with enormous losses in both economic and human resources.
Despite this, just 12 years after the war, the USSR was the country that launched humanity into the space age.
Living conditions were constantly improving, and I am a witness to this. To this we must add free housing, free higher education, and free healthcare. If it weren't for the betrayal of the reborn party leaders, the USSR could now occupy the place of socialist China.

You really believe that?

The Soviet famine of 1930–1933 was a man-made famine in the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine and different parts of Russia (Kazakhstan. Major factors included the forced collectivization of agriculture as a part of the First Five-Year Plan and forced grain procurement from farmers. These factors in conjunction with a massive investment in heavy industry decreased the agricultural workforce. It is estimated that 5.7 million people died from starvation across the Soviet Union. In addition, 50 to 70 million Soviet citizens starved during the famine but ultimately survived.

Soviet famine of 1930–1933 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ringo]

You really believe that?

The Soviet famine of 1930–1933 was a man-made famine

A cheap piece of lying crap, started, by the way, in Dr. Goebbels' propaganda ministry. Only a brainwashed idiot would believe that a socialist state would deliberately starve its own people.
By the way, somewhere on my computer I have a scan from a Ukrainian-language newspaper published in the US about the famine in Ukraine in the early 1930s. Only it wrote about the famine in WESTERN Ukraine. Get it? The poor harvest hit not only the USSR that year. But it will do for bourgeois propaganda there is no garbage, everything be used..