Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[the other mike]

all kindsa folks borrow good ideas from other folks!

And stupid ideas like 9/11.

 

[ph3iron]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

 

[Shawnee_b]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

You are like a broken record, how many times have you posted that shit, very many, about every post. If someone doesn't kill your dumb ass before you are SS age you'll be on it too.

What a fucktard, never anything to add except the same old SS shit. Fuk you asshole. I told you you are a bug up your own ass and that is mild.

 

[the other mike]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Well I'm 58 and white, but don't consider myself an old fart yet.
I know a lot of folks my age are planning to collect their SS at 62 ( instead of waiting until 67 like I probably will ) Obviously the longer you wait the more you'll get and everyone has their own situation.

 

[ph3iron]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

You are like a broken record, how many times have you posted that shit, very many, about every post. If someone doesn't kill your dumb ass before you are SS age you'll be on it too.

What a fucktard, never anything to add except the same old SS shit. Fuk you asshole. I told you you are a bug up your own ass and that is mild.

I am on it darlin and appreciate Medicare.
You don't?
Thanks for the foul mouth and confirming zero education.
wV white boy???!!

 

[dblack]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Blame the victim much?

 

[ph3iron]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

You are like a broken record, how many times have you posted that shit, very many, about every post. If someone doesn't kill your dumb ass before you are SS age you'll be on it too.

What a fucktard, never anything to add except the same old SS shit. Fuk you asshole. I told you you are a bug up your own ass and that is mild.

I have to keep posting that because our old white farts are too dumb to know they are enjoying commie benefits.
Kentucky? Most dirt poor and the con supporters?
Go figure.
Keep sucking off blue state money

 

[jc456]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Well I'm 58 and white, but don't consider myself an old fart yet.
I know a lot of folks my age are planning to collect their SS at 62 ( instead of waiting until 67 like I probably will ) Obviously the longer you wait the more you'll get and everyone has their own situation.

8% interest a year to wait. Intelligent people take that 8% money. Can’t get that anywhere

 

[Oddball]

I have to keep posting that because our old white farts are too dumb to know they are enjoying commie benefits.
Kentucky? Most dirt poor and the con supporters?
Go figure.
Keep sucking off blue state money

Having the 15+% of the earnings that were stolen from people during their working days returned to them isn't commie anything, commie cocksucker.

 

[Paulie]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Here we go AGAIN with this faulty logic. Your FICA benefits are YOUR MONEY. It was taken your entire life, without your consent, with a promise to be paid back at retirement. Receiving the benefits already owed to you isn’t being a socialist it’s being practical. Who in their right mind is going to let the government take a portion of their income their entire life for a benefit to paid back later and then just not take it?

 

[the other mike]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Well I'm 58 and white, but don't consider myself an old fart yet.
I know a lot of folks my age are planning to collect their SS at 62 ( instead of waiting until 67 like I probably will ) Obviously the longer you wait the more you'll get and everyone has their own situation.

8% interest a year to wait. Intelligent people take that 8% money. Can’t get that anywhere

Yep. Unless you're on disability already, don't plan on living long or you think SS is gonna be bankrupt soon, I totally agree you should wait til 70 for the extra $1500 a month. It's basically a separate savings account but it depends on whether you're still working or have other retirement funds ....many people lost everything in 2008 and still struggle. I was lucky and fell into something else when the company I worked for shut down.

The maximum monthly Social Security benefit that an individual can receive per month in 2020 is $3,790 for someone who files at age 70. For someone at full retirement age the maximum amount is $3,011, and for someone aged 62 the maximum amount is $2,265.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Thanks for the foul mouth and confirming zero education.
wV white boy???!!

Fuk you asshole and you have no idea my education, Far beyond your 3rd grade level. Post something new.

 

[Paulie]

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Well I'm 58 and white, but don't consider myself an old fart yet.
I know a lot of folks my age are planning to collect their SS at 62 ( instead of waiting until 67 like I probably will ) Obviously the longer you wait the more you'll get and everyone has their own situation.

8% interest a year to wait. Intelligent people take that 8% money. Can’t get that anywhere

Yep. Unless you're on disability already, don't plan on living long or you think SS is gonna be bankrupt soon, I totally agree you should wait til 70 for the extra $1500 a month. It's basically a separate savings account but it depends on whether you're still working or have other retirement funds ....many people lost everything in 2008 and still struggle. I was lucky and fell into something else when the company I worked for shut down.

The maximum monthly Social Security benefit that an individual can receive per month in 2020 is $3,790 for someone who files at age 70. For someone at full retirement age the maximum amount is $3,011, and for someone aged 62 the maximum amount is $2,265.

Whatever anyone lost in 2008 has been gained back plus a ton more. I know that doesn’t excuse it but still. And not for nothing but if people simply learned some basic financial knowledge they’d be able to manage their own accounts and move their money to places less exposed to deflation. At some point people in this country need to start educating themselves on how to manage their own money. It’s ridiculous that people put all their faith in the government or a money manager when no one else but yourself is gojng to have the best interests at heart with your money.

 

[Shawnee_b]

[
Keep sucking off blue state money

Moved here for retirement not born here but even a 6 toed local inbred is better than you are. You fukin fuk. Come visit, I'll rip your stupid nuts off if you have any. Fucktard.

 

[the other mike]

Whatever anyone lost in 2008 has been gained back plus a ton more. I know that doesn’t excuse it but still. And not for nothing but if people simply learned some basic financial knowledge they’d be able to manage their own accounts and move their money to places less exposed to deflation. At some point people in this country need to start educating themselves on how to manage their own money. It’s ridiculous that people put all their faith in the government or a money manager when no one else but yourself is gojng to have the best interests at heart with your money.

The closer to retirement age in 2008, the worse off most were.
There are millions who got royally fucked.

 

[Paulie]

Whatever anyone lost in 2008 has been gained back plus a ton more. I know that doesn’t excuse it but still. And not for nothing but if people simply learned some basic financial knowledge they’d be able to manage their own accounts and move their money to places less exposed to deflation. At some point people in this country need to start educating themselves on how to manage their own money. It’s ridiculous that people put all their faith in the government or a money manager when no one else but yourself is gojng to have the best interests at heart with your money.

The closer to retirement age in 2008, the worse off most were.
There are millions who got royally fucked.

People too old to wait out the recovery probably suffered, yeah. But think of the ones who were smart enough to realize that if they just moved their money into other sectors that benefit from deflation they could prevent losses. It’s not really that hard to do. I mean shit even if you got out of equities and just stayed cash or at least moved into treasuries you would’ve been better off. People will literally just sit there and watch their accounts dwindle and do absolutely nothing to try and stop it.

 

[Paulie]

The writing was on the wall in 2007. I watched many Ron Paul supporters call that crash and they moved their money to safe places before hand. These weren’t people with economics degrees or anything they’re just regular people who learned about the markets and finance and managed their own money. If you can read words you can learn how to manage money well enough to protect your own investments.

 

[jc456]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

I'm sure 90% of our old white fart posters are sucking off their socialist SS Medicare VA benefits

Here we go AGAIN with this faulty logic. Your FICA benefits are YOUR MONEY. It was taken your entire life, without your consent, with a promise to be paid back at retirement. Receiving the benefits already owed to you isn’t being a socialist it’s being practical. Who in their right mind is going to let the government take a portion of their income their entire life for a benefit to paid back later and then just not take it?

It was a forced investment. And we who’ve invested get to take it back beginning age 62. It’s not practical, it’s our money

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Are there people in this asinine thread defending this shit over the American system? If so take your stank ass and get the fuck out of our country.

 

[danielpalos]

Governments with more centrally planned economies can make better use of the multiplier effect.