what so bad about socialism

[tjnewberry8]

Even though Margaret may have felt this way, the UK is a very success socialistic country, and provides amazing citizen benefits that American could only dream about.

The UK sucked as a socialist country.

Sucked as it doesn't suck anymore? I agree there socialistic culture now is fantastic. Do you know of there benefit system? Benefits - GOV.UK UK is one of our best allies, and a successful free market, but there citizens receive entitlements like. They enjoy 5.6 weeks of paid vacation every year:. Holiday entitlement - GOV.UK They have a free healthcare system: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1-2900878-TSO-NHS_Guide_to_Healthcare_WEB.PDF

They have so many programs it would be very difficult to list them all, so please check them out Benefits - GOV.UK

 

[Toro]

Britain isn't socialist.

 

[Andylusion]

Even though Margaret may have felt this way, the UK is a very success socialistic country, and provides amazing citizen benefits that American could only dream about.

The UK sucked as a socialist country.

Sucked as it doesn't suck anymore? I agree there socialistic culture now is fantastic. Do you know of there benefit system? Benefits - GOV.UK UK is one of our best allies, and a successful free market, but there citizens receive entitlements like. They enjoy 5.6 weeks of paid vacation every year:. Holiday entitlement - GOV.UK They have a free healthcare system: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1-2900878-TSO-NHS_Guide_to_Healthcare_WEB.PDF

They have so many programs it would be very difficult to list them all, so please check them out Benefits - GOV.UK

UK health care is terrible. We covered that.

Do you really want to exchange "surviving" for "free"? You'd rather risk dying to save a buck?

That's not a benefit.

And yes, they do have more mandatory paid vacation. I will grant you that.

But there is a trade off. Money doesn't magically grow on trees in the back yard of the company building.

So when you demand a benefit...... that money has to come from somewhere else.

Do you understand a concept called "Total Cost of Employment"?

This is how it works. I've been in small business for 20 years. When the employer decides to hire someone, they determine how much money they can afford to spend, to pay an employee to do a job.

They do not determine your wage, and then figure out how much it's going to cost them.... instead they look at the total cost of employment, and then determine your wage.

For example. Let's say I need someone to help me with my lawn mowing company. I determine that I can afford to pay them $30,000 a year, and still make a profit off of hiring them.

That means I can pay them $15/hr... right? No. It does not not. First I have to take out taxes. Then I have to take out unemployment compensation. Then mandatory health care, or the fine for not providing health care. Then I have to take out other benefits.

If all the benefits, and fines, and fees, and taxes, add up to $10,000, how much can I pay the employee? Only $10/hr.

What my point?

Yes, they have some benefits required by law, that we don't have here.

But the employees of Briton are paying for those benefits, just like we pay for our benefits..... through lower wages.

There is no such thing as a benefit, that the company simply pays the CEO or board of directors, or the business owners less money.... so that you can have 5 weeks of paid vacation.

*YOU* the employee, pay for every single benefit you get, either through lower wages, or lack of raises.

Now if you are willing to accept lower wages, so you can have another week of vacation, that's fine. But understand, more benefits equals less pay.

Here in America, most of the big companies have huge benefits. My company gives everyone a month of vacation time a year, and has really good health care..... but the wages are lower than you might find elsewhere.

There's a trade off. People in America have been screaming that middle class wages have fallen. But it's just not true. One of the factors people have ignored is more benefits, more paid vacation, more health care insurance, and so on. Yeah, your take home pay hasn't gone up, but that's because you demanded more benefits.

You can't have both. The amount of money the company has to pay each individual employee isn't is a finite amount. If you demand more vacation time.... then you can't get a raise next year. That's the trade off.

 

[Andylusion]

Britain isn't socialist.

Socialism isn't a setting on a dial.

Socialism is a school of thought, that the means of production and distribution, should be controlled by society, rather than by private individuals.

If the government owns it.... or the government controls it.... it's socialized.

The British economic system is 'more' socialized than the American one, thus far. We're trying to catch up, but not there yet.

 

[boedicca]

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?

Because we'll run out of money.

 

[Wake]

Full-blown socialism only works in theory.

When they try it in real life, and everything gets fucked up, it's 'oh well, it just didn't go right.'

Ya.

 

[danielpalos]

Mixed market economies are the way to go; just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Mixed market economies are the way to go; just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.

100% stupid of course. China just switched to capitalism to bail out the socialism the slowly killed 120 million. You'd make more sense as a Nazi

 

[dblack]

Mixed market economies are the way to go; just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.

100% stupid of course. China just switched to capitalism to bail out the socialism the slowly killed 120 million. You'd make more sense as a Nazi

China is the epitome of mixed market economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China is the epitome of mixed market economics.

100% stupid of course. China is the epitome of a radical switch to capitalism wherein they compete all over the world and win in the Republican free market to the point where they have eliminated 40% of world's poverty. The USA is epitome of radical switch to socialism through Obamacommiecare, etc, etc. and so cant end a recession that is now 7 years old featuring constantly declining income.

They spend 5% of GDP on social programs while we spend 45%.

 

[dblack]

China is the epitome of mixed market economics.

100% stupid of course. China is the epitome of a radical switch to capitalism wherein they compete all over the world and win in the Republican free market to the point where they have eliminated 40% of world's poverty. The USA is epitome of radical switch to socialism through Obamacommiecare, etc, etc. and so cant end a recession that is now 7 years old featuring constantly declining income.

They spend 5% of GDP on social programs while we spend 45%.

If you think China has a free market, I have only two words for you: too stupid!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China is the epitome of mixed market economics.

100% stupid of course. China is the epitome of a radical switch to capitalism wherein they compete all over the world and win in the Republican free market to the point where they have eliminated 40% of world's poverty. The USA is epitome of radical switch to socialism through Obamacommiecare, etc, etc. and so cant end a recession that is now 7 years old featuring constantly declining income.

They spend 5% of GDP on social programs while we spend 45%.

If you think China has a free market, I have only two words for you: too stupid!

too stupid the world has a free market, mostly, and China is competing and wining on price and quality and in so doing has eliminated 40% of world poverty. When they were not capitalistically competing internationally 60 million slowly starved to death. Here are the major books with which to begin your education:



"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"


"How China Became Capitalist"

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis

 

[Andylusion]

Mixed market economies are the way to go; just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual.

100% stupid of course. China just switched to capitalism to bail out the socialism the slowly killed 120 million. You'd make more sense as a Nazi

China is the epitome of mixed market economics.

Of course. In fact, nearly all countries are mixed economies. Even Soviet Russia, under Stalin, had private Capitalist, profit motivated farming.

I don't know of a single example to my knowledge, of a system that was 100% pure Socialism, or 100% pure Capitalism.

So what we are referring to, is a gradual slider of left-wing socialistic bent, to a right-wing free-market Capitalistic bent.

What we have observed, is that every single time any country moves more towards socialism (cuba, venezuela, north Korea), the economy and people suffer. As any country moves more towards capitalism (South Korea, China, India), the economy and people prosper.

Even in the US, which aspects of our economy are the most socialized? Have the greatest amount of regulations, subsidies, controls and mandates? Health care and Banking, by far.

And which areas are we having the biggest economic problems in? Office supplies and food service, right? No... it's banking and health care. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

 

[Andylusion]

China is the epitome of mixed market economics.

100% stupid of course. China is the epitome of a radical switch to capitalism wherein they compete all over the world and win in the Republican free market to the point where they have eliminated 40% of world's poverty. The USA is epitome of radical switch to socialism through Obamacommiecare, etc, etc. and so cant end a recession that is now 7 years old featuring constantly declining income.

They spend 5% of GDP on social programs while we spend 45%.

If you think China has a free market, I have only two words for you: too stupid!

It may not be a 100% absolute 'free' market..... that's true.

But for decades it was almost a completely closed market. In 1980, less than 10% of the work force, worked for a private non-state-run company.

Today, 60% is in privately owned and profit driven companies.

As far as I can tell, 0% of the work force was employed by foreign companies. Zero not being absolute zero, but rather, such a low fraction of 1% as to be irrelevant.

Today that has completely reversed. Not only are the obvious foriegn companies in China, like Walmart, and McDonald or KFC... but a large host of manufacturing and distribution companies are there, like Johnson & Johnson, of the highest rated foreign companies to work for in China. Olay, Kraft, Ford Motor, Toyota, General Electric, and the list goes on and on.

China Lifts Decade-Old Ban on Foreign Control Over Steel - Bloomberg Business

A lot of people talk about the protectionism of China's steel industry. But even that is changing.

It wouldn't surprise me if by this time next year, foreign steel plants will be operating in China.

So back to the point.... Yes, clearly China is not a pure free-market capitalist system, but I would argue no system is. Instead what we see, is that relative to where they were, a generally closed system, is now by far, vastly more free-market capitalist than ever before.

 

[Treeshepherd]

There are appropriate applications for socialism. Police, Fire departments and the armed services are all socialist institutions and are preferable to privatization.

Talking about healthcare, I believe Obamacare is the worst of both worlds. It takes taxes and borrowed money and hands it to private corporations, which sets up a racket. It doesn't do anything to fundamentally curb cost. We'd be better off with either a totally deregulated healthcare system or a public insurance option.

 

[Andylusion]

There are appropriate applications for socialism. Police, Fire departments and the armed services are all socialist institutions and are preferable to privatization.

Talking about healthcare, I believe Obamacare is the worst of both worlds. It takes taxes and borrowed money and hands it to private corporations, which sets up a racket. It doesn't do anything to fundamentally curb cost. We'd be better off with either a totally deregulated healthcare system or a public insurance option.

Actually, that isn't entirely true either.

Rural Metro is a publicly traded company, that provides fire department services to 400 plus towns, villages, and cities throughout 21 different states. Rural Metro is one of many private fire department service companies that operate in the US.

To a lesser degree, there are companies like S.E.A.L. Solutions, which provides private police force to a group of small towns and villages as well.

Now armed military forces, yes absolutely.

I support socialism, within the stated limits of the constitution as it was intended.

And if individual states wish to socialize an area of their economy, that's up to the states to do. No problem... unless it's my state, which I would argue we can do, but shouldn't because it doesn't work.

But at the Federal level, that is absolutely terrible, and unconstitutional.

There is no way to curb costs, without curbing supply. A public insurance option, is pretty much what they gave us. It sucks.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Most US firemen are actually volunteers, which is a different form of socialism.

There is no way to curb costs, without curbing supply. A public insurance option, is pretty much what they gave us. It sucks.

I agreed with you until that last sentence. A public insurance option would be government issued insurance. It could potentially be a program where non-seniors pay a monthly premium to join the Medicare system. Medicare controls costs by dictating how much they'll reimburse for a medical procedure. That's how socialist countries control costs; they have one behemoth entity that reimburses doctors/hospitals and they just ain't paying $500 for an overnight stay or $15 for a Kleenex.

 

[Andylusion]

Most US firemen are actually volunteers, which is a different form of socialism.

There is no way to curb costs, without curbing supply. A public insurance option, is pretty much what they gave us. It sucks.

I agreed with you until that last sentence. A public insurance option would be government issued insurance. It could potentially be a program where non-seniors pay a monthly premium to join the Medicare system. Medicare controls costs by dictating how much they'll reimburse for a medical procedure. That's how socialist countries control costs; they have one behemoth entity that reimburses doctors/hospitals and they just ain't paying $500 for an overnight stay or $15 for a Kleenex.

Actually I would deny that. Volunteering is not even close to socialism. Not at all. There is no social "control" if the choice is mine to volunteer or not.

Socialism involves 'control'. You have to force it to happen. When people get together, and voluntarily choose to do something.... by definition, it's not socialism.

I personally have volunteered, and donated money to charity. No one has yet, accused me of engaging in socialism. And by the way, if that is socialism, then the vast majority of the top 1% in America, are all socialists. The entire Walton Family, are all socialists now..... who knew.....

Medicare is a disaster. One of the primary reasons health insurance costs are going up, is specifically because of medicare.

Not only is the system going broke, with more unfunded liabilities than even Social Security, but it also pays out less money than the cost of providing service.... just as you suggested..... but that forces care providers to charge non-medicare patients a higher premium, which is the reason costs have gone up so dramatically.

Look... See it? Every time that Medicare and medicaid pay out less for health care, the cost to private patients goes up enough to offset the loss on government patients.

This right here, is exactly why we haven't had long waiting lists for Medicare and Medicaid health care. The private patients (you and me), are subsidizing medicare and medcaid.... not only through FICA taxes.... not only through income taxes..... but also in our health care bills.

Bills for our health care is higher, so that medicare and medicaid bills are lower.

And yet Medicare and Medicaid is still going broke.

If we expanded Medicare to cover everyone, and eliminated private health insurance, then we would end up like Canada, with 2 year waits for basic health services. Because without private patients subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid.... they would be forced to ration care.

 

[danielpalos]

democracy is still a form of socialism to the extent it must effect Government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's how socialist countries control costs; they have one behemoth entity that reimburses doctors/hospitals and they just ain't paying $500 for an overnight stay or $15 for a Kleenex.

dear, socialist countries don't control costs at all which explains why socialist countries are so poor and why no one can afford anything! Capitalism effectively controls cost by driving higher cost producers into bankruptcy. Econ 101

Do you understand??