Socialism in the US

[slappy]

Should socialism be used in the united states?

[Amnesiac]

No. Laissez-faire capitalism maximizes individual liberty, which is what the United States is based on.

I mean, it worked for Hong Kong.

[Tristin.]

socialism as in the type of society similar to marxism and in a more purer form communism are systems that on paper solve everything, but in practice are flawed by the human flaw of greed and corruption. to your question of could it work in the us? i answer no. the entire entity that is the "US" was founded on the ideas that any man can buy land, own land and profit of that land=capitalism. if you were to impliment socialism or any of its relatives n the US, you would have to remove the entire system of government, ideas and social workings the US uses, in doing so, chaos would more than likely ensue de to the conflict caused by those who have benefitted and those who support the idea of capitalism. if you did successfully implement socialism in the US, you would be faced with many challanges, an entire new political and economic system would have to be made, the logistics invloved in doing this in a country as large as the US would be virtualy impossible. eventualy, if all this as doen succesfully, the human flaws of greed and corruption would ultimatly lead to a faling of your idea. in all likelyness, taking america as it is today and changing it so drastically would probably end in a "russian revolution" like scenario, with the core idea being lost and corruption and decadence taking over.

(sorry if some of this is not as accurate as it could be, i fear it turned into a sleep induced rant about half way through :/ :P)

[slappy]

No. [I]Laissez-faire[/

I mean, it worked for Hong Kong.

that's where I disagree with you
It actually has not worked for honking
Honking is deeply in debt and the workers are working in terrible working conditions. And many die in the job each day

[Amnesiac]

I voted for "I believe we need more capitalism in the US not as much socialism," but I also agree partly with "socialism is communism And it should not be used (why) at all". Socialism is not communism. Basically (and I mean basically), socialism is an economic theory advocating state (or 'public) ownership/control of production and trade. Communism goes further, using socialism for its economic policy and creating a social policy where the class system is removed.

Think of communism as a fully developed form of socialism. Communism incorporates socialism, then adds to it to create a fully classless and equal state.

that's where I disagree with you
It actually has not worked for honking
Honking is deeply in debt and the workers are working in terrible working conditions. And many die in the job each day

Source?

[slappy]

add on questions
please answer bellow

what kind of economic system do you think the us has?

Do you consider yourself a socialist?

[slappy]

I voted for "I believe we need more capitalism in the US not as much socialism," but I also agree partly with "socialism is communism And it should not be used (why) at all". Socialism is not communism. Basically (and I mean basically), socialism is an economic theory advocating state (or 'public) ownership/control of production and trade. Communism goes further, using socialism for its economic policy and creating a social policy where the class system is removed.

Think of communism as a fully developed form of socialism. Communism incorporates socialism, then adds to it to create a fully classless and equal state.



Source?

Congrats kid
You have been one of the only people I have met that knows the difference between socialism and communism.
I may not agree with you, but you are a smart kid

[Tristin.]

the US has a capitalist system.

and no, im not a socialist, if i was, i would have to give up everything my family has, is and is from lol

[Tristin.]

Congrats kid
You have been one of the only people I have met that knows the difference between socialism and communism.
I may not agree with you, but you are a smart kid

i stated the difference too btw lol just pointing that out :P

[TopGear]

Im going to let Commander Awesome take this! I agree with everything Commander has said so far.

[slappy]

Remember to answer the other questions

[Sage]

and no, im not a socialist, if i was, i would have to give up everything my family has, is and is from lol

Such as?

[scuba steve]

No. Laissez-faire capitalism maximizes individual liberty, which is what the United States is based on.

I mean, it worked for Hong Kong.

I personally don't believe that a Laissez - faire system can work effectively in all situations, only really in those who can effectively self motivate themselves towards goals and know how to achieve them.
Ideally there should be a balance of Capitalism and Socialism.

[Tristin.]

Such as?

my family are capitalists, old money. My father is a Businessman. I believe that if you have money, its yours. if you dont, then you should work for it. aka capitalist

[Sage]

my family are capitalists, old money. My father is a Businessman. I believe that if you have money, its yours. if you dont, then you should work for it. aka capitalist

That doesn't answer the question.

[slappy]

Well, here is how I see it. The simple meaning of socialism is taxes.
We pay taxes
That means we support socialism
That means that everyone in America is a socialist.

[Tristin.]

That doesn't answer the question.

in that case, i do not understand your question

[Sage]

Well, here is how I see it. The simple meaning of socialism is taxes.
We pay taxes
That means we support socialism
That means that everyone in America is a socialist.

Not everyone pays their fair share of taxes, however. In fact, there are a lot of assholes in the government right now that are advocating not taxing billionaires and corporations at all.

in that case, i do not understand your question
You said you'd have to give up "everything." What does "everything" encompass?

[slappy]

Not everyone pays their fair share of taxes, however. In fact, there are a lot of assholes in the government right now that are advocating not taxing billionaires and corporations at all.


You said you'd have to give up "everything." What does "everything" encompass?


True true but
We all pay sails tax and gas tax
We are all socialists

[Sage]

We are all socolistd

To extremely varying degrees. As well, there are many people who are morally against any form of taxation.

[Tristin.]

in that case sage, when i say everything, i imply it would be awefully hypocrytical of me to me a socialist, coming form my background and what i personaly believe, to be a socialist would be impossible for me and highly hypocrytical

[Sage]

in that case sage, when i say everything, i imply it would be awefully hypocrytical of me to me a socialist, coming form my background and what i personaly believe, to be a socialist would be impossible for me and highly hypocrytical

If you're just going to avoid answering clearly when someone questions something you've said, you shouldn't bother saying anything at all.

[Tristin.]

If you're just going to avoid answering clearly when someone questions something you've said, you shouldn't bother saying anything at all.

im answering the best i can, if you explain what it is your wanting me to answer a little easier for me then i will try again to answer your question

i think i see what you mean now

if we take socialism in ints purest form, i would have to give up my private edication, my lifestyle as a whole (i take you want to know my lifestyle? if you do say, as a rule i dont like posting as some see it as over braggin etc)

[slappy]

To extremely varying degrees. As well, there are many people who are morally against any form of taxation.


Well, no taxes= no roads
No bridges
No schools
No teachers
No public transit
No police
No firefighters

[Sage]

im answering the best i can, if you explain what it is your wanting me to answer a little easier for me then i will try again to answer your question

I already did. What would you lose in a more socialistic economy?

[slappy]

Everybody love everybody

[Amnesiac]

Well, here is how I see it. The simple meaning of socialism is taxes.

Nope. Socialism is basically regulation of the economy to the extent where demand is not a factor in the production of goods. Citizens are paid based on how much they contribute to society. Basic services are provided by the government.

If you want the specific definition:

As an economic system, socialism is the direct allocation of capital goods (means of production) to meet economic demands so that production is oriented toward use and accounting is based on some physical magnitude, such as physical quantities or a direct measure of labour time. Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.

We pay taxes
That means we support socialism
That means that everyone in America is a socialist.

No. Taxes are required for a government to function. Are you saying that every country in the world is a socialist country, and that every person who pays taxes is a socialist?

[Tristin.]

in more socialist society, i would loose (as stuck up as this sounds) my class. socialism removes all need of class, this goes against all teachings my bacground has given and is from. in doing so, if class was to be removed, my private education would go with it.
does this answer your question sage. i appologies if it doesnt, i am a little tired and if it does not answer it, once i have rested, i will try my best to answer your question in the detail you wish

[slappy]

Nope. Socialism is basically regulation of the economy to the extent where production of goods is limited so that demand is not a factor in production. Citizens are paid based on how much they contribute to society.

If you want the specific definition:





No. Taxes are required for a government to function. Are you saying that every country in the world is a socialist country, and that every person who pays taxes is a socialist?


Socialism is socialized
Socolised means taxes
Capitalism used to be all good
Now a days it has gotten perverted
It is a completely flawed system
It has gotten mixed with Reaginomics.
Witch made it worse

[Sage]

does this answer your question sage.

Yes, and it proves once again that the wealthy only care about themselves. I'm disgusted.

[embers]

Yes, and it proves once again that the wealthy only care about themselves. I'm disgusted.

You were just forcing him to make the statement you were so wanting to jump at.

[slappy]

Yes, and it proves once again that the wealthy only care about themselves. I'm disgusted.


I may not agree with u politicly
But I like u
Economically
The rich need to pay more
But here is something good
The president is going to announce
His plan to raise taxes on the rich tomorrow

[Sage]

You were just forcing him to make the statement you were so wanting to jump at.

If a private education and a meaningless social class are the things he's afraid of losing, then he should be plain in saying so. There's no need to beat around the bush. I could've also just assumed those were the things he was referring to when he made his first statement, but that'd have been presumptuous, would it not? I'd rather he present his concerns himself.

[slappy]

Yes, and it proves once again that the wealthy only care about themselves. I'm disgusted.


And lower them on the poor.

[Amnesiac]

Socialism is socialized
Socolised means taxes

Not necessarily. The term 'socialism' has a definition, you know, as well as economic and political theory behind it. You can't just say it means 'socalized' and automatically label all taxes as socialism. Using that logic, every form of government is socialist, and the only way to not be socialist is to become an anarchist.

Capitalism used to be all good
Now a days it has gotten perverted
It is a co portly flaws system
It has gotten mixed with Reaginomics.
Witch made it worse

Really, there's nothing wrong with Reaganomics. He could've done some things better, especially concerning worker safety and other necessary regulation, but overall, it was an incredibly effective policy.

[Tristin.]

Yes, and it proves once again that the wealthy only care about themselves. I'm disgusted.

i dont care only about myself, that is steriotyping. my family give alot to charity. money is not the be-all-end-all to me, to me, i just like the idea of class and betterment. i believe that anybody can elevate themselves to a better level of class and that people should strive to do so in order to create a more equal world, where i do not believe that people should just get it. in an ideal world, there would be no class, but that would not work.

[embers]

i dont care only about myself, that is steriotyping. my family give alot to charity. money is not the be-all-end-all to me, to me, i just like the idea of class and betterment. i believe that anybody can elevate themselves to a better level of class and that people should strive to do so in order to create a more equal world, where i do not believe that people should just get it. in an ideal world, there would be no class, but that would not work.

Because a world where people elevate themselves to a higher class is totally more equal.

[slappy]

Not necessarily. The term 'socialism' has a definition, you know, as well as economic and political theory behind it. You can't just say it means 'socalized' and automatically label all taxes as socialism. Using that logic, every form of government is socialist, and the only way to not be socialist is to become an anarchist.

That is a problem
Socialism is nit a political party, it's an economic system



Really, there's nothing wrong with Reaganomics. He could've done some things better, especially concerning worker safety and other necessary regulation, but overall, it was an incredibly effective policy.


Trickle down economics (Reaginomics) has proven and is still to this day dose not work

[Tristin.]

Because a world where people elevate themselves to a higher class is totally more equal.

yes, as eventualy, everyone would be at the same level

[Sage]

i dont care only about myself, that is steriotyping. my family give alot to charity. money is not the be-all-end-all to me, to me, i just like the idea of class and betterment.
Would you support financial social classes if you were poor?

i believe that anybody can elevate themselves to a better level of class and that people should strive to do so in order to create a more equal world, where i do not believe that people should just get it. in an ideal world, there would be no class, but that would not work.
You're contradicting yourself in saying you want both equality and a social status above other people. I might also add that social classes don't work as they used to- being wealthy puts you in a minority, and people are going to be more inclined to hate you and your frivolous lifestyle than envy it.

For one person to make money, someone else has to lose it. Speak ideally all you like, but the existence of the mega-wealthy (I'm talking billionaires and trillionaires now, I'll assume your family isn't that wealthy) perpetuates a system in which some people, a great many in fact, are never going to see themselves get better regardless of how hard they work.

[Amnesiac]

Trickle down economics (Reaginomics) has proven and is still to this day dose not work

According to a 1996 study from libertarian think tank Cato Institute:


On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.


I beg to differ.

[slappy]

Because a world where people elevate themselves to a higher class is totally more equal.

Than we become what is called a plutocracy
Witch means
The top one percent control the government and the other 99 percent are considered peasants

[Tristin.]

sage, i take it you believe that being wealthy means life is all sugar coated and brilliant?

[Sage]

sage, i take it you believe that being wealthy means life is all sugar coated and brilliant?

No, I take it that being wealthy means you own a lot of useless extravagant bullshit.

[Tristin.]

No, I take it that being wealthy means you own a lot of useless extravagant bullshit.

no, not really, my parents own a house? not useless or extravagant. the have 4 cars, two 4x4 for the snow and 2 sports cars. harldy extravagent compared to others. we have the same things as others, games consols, tv's, radios etc. hardly useless?

[Sage]

no, not really, my parents own a house? not useless or extravagant. the have 4 cars, two 4x4 for the snow and 2 sports cars. harldy extravagent compared to others. we have the same things as others, games consols, tv's, radios etc. hardly useless?

If you're trying to look modest you're not doing a very good job. What does your house look like?

[Tristin.]

ok sage, you and i are never going to agree, our upbringings are totally different. in te core of it all, if you have the money to spend, spend it, because at the end of the day you cant take it with you, so spend it on extravagant things, have fun, help others, because at the end of the day, its yours to do with as you wish. those without will always be jelous and angry at those who have, 8/10 blaiming the wealthy for thier own misfortune or situation.

[embers]

ok sage, you and i are never going to agree, our upbringings are totally different. in te core of it all, if you have the money to spend, spend it, because at the end of the day you cant take it with you, so spend it on extravagant things, have fun, help others, because at the end of the day, its yours to do with as you wish. those without will always be jelous and angry at those who have, 8/10 blaiming the wealthy for thier own misfortune or situation

Your mentality is what makes 'those without' even angrier.

[slappy]

I beg to differ.

Reduce Government spending.
Reduce Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
Reduce Government regulation.

All of this is just cutting taxes for the rich and cutting government spending

[Sage]

ok sage, you and i are never going to agree, our upbringings are totally different. in te core of it all, if you have the money to spend, spend it, because at the end of the day you cant take it with you, so spend it on extravagant things, have fun, help others, because at the end of the day, its yours to do with as you wish. those without will always be jelous and angry at those who have, 8/10 blaiming the wealthy for thier own misfortune or situation

Power comes with money, and there reaches a certain point where the things you spend it on do matter. If one person has -so- much money in their pockets and is only spending it on frivolous things that are of no use to anyone but themselves, they are entirely part of the problems facing society. They might not have been directly responsible for the level of poverty throughout the country, but by having the means to make a difference and choosing not to, they are perpetuating it by their selfish inaction.

[Tristin.]

Your mentality is what makes 'those without' even angrier at people with the same.

i have the mentality, because those without always treat those with, before even knwoing them with hostility

[slappy]

That is Reaginimics

[Tristin.]

Power comes with money, and there reaches a certain point where the things you spend it on do matter. If one person has -so- much money in their pockets and is only spending it on frivolous things that are of no use to anyone but themselves, they are entirely part of the problems facing society. They might not have been directly responsible for the level of poverty throughout the country, but by having the means to make a difference and choosing not to, they are perpetuating it by their selfish inaction.

but, surely if they have earned that money, they are entitled to spend it on themselves? why should those who sit about doing nothing, get money from those who do work?

[Sage]

but, surely if they have earned that money, they are entitled to spend it on themselves?

Just because you can does not mean you should.

why should those who sit about doing nothing, get money from those who do work?
That's not what I'm advocating. Why should people who can invest in things that are beneficial to many choose to only spend on themselves? Why do you need two sports cars? What's wrong with normal cars?

[slappy]

but, surely if they have earned that money, they are entitled to spend it on themselves? why should those who sit about doing nothing, get money from those who do work?

Not every family is as lucky as yours

[Tristin.]

Just because you can does not mean you should.


That's not what I'm advocating. Why should people who can invest in things that are beneficial to many choose to only spend on themselves? Why do you need two sports cars? What's wrong with normal cars?

yet, i have already stated, my family give to charity, so we do spend on others also. not all wealthy can be branded with the badge of "doesnt care"

[Sage]

yet, i have already stated, my family give to charity

How much?

not all wealthy can be branded with the badge of "doesnt care"
Though you did specifically say that you care about your "class", suggesting that regardless of how caring you try to look, you still seek to be above other people. Why?

[Amnesiac]

Reduce Government spending.
Reduce Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
Reduce Government regulation.

All of this is just cutting taxes for the rich and cutting government spending

As was explained, reducing regulation didn't just give "the rich" more money. It increased income across the board.

Government should be as small as possible.

[slappy]

but, surely if they have earned that money, they are entitled to spend it on themselves? why should those who sit about doing nothing, get money from those who do work?


Not everyone is trying to cheat the system
There are good people out there you know
I believe that things like unemployment are useful and helpful to a point
Until you find a new job. It should not be the only source of income.
But what really upsets me is people who say all people on things like unemployment and Medicare welfare are lazy and are just looking for a handout
The republican party has time and time again tried to get rid of these useful things. That would make things a lot worse for us in America

[Tristin.]

How much?

i dont know how much my parents give, im lucky to see them 3 times a year! and when i do see them, asking how much they gave to charity his year is hardly on the top of my list of things to ask. i can tell you how much i give. from the money iam given each term to buy clothes, books etc i give £200. maybe not the thousands you want, but its what I can give.

[Tristin.]

Not everyone is trying to cheat the system
There are good people out there you know
I believe that things like unemployment are useful and helpful to a point
Until you find a new job. It should not be the only source of income.
But what really upsets me is people who say all people on things like unemployment and Medicare welfare are lazy and are just looking for a handout
The republican party has time and time again tried to get rid of these useful things. That would make things a lot worse for us in America

i know what your saying and i agree 10000% with it

[slappy]

As was explained, reducing regulation didn't just give "the rich" more money. It increased income across the board.

Government should be as small as possible.



It lowered income taxes
Witch means
The rich pay less taxes and get more money

[Sage]

The republican party has time and time again tried to get rid of these useful things. That would make things a lot worse for us in America

The democrats aren't a lot better. I, once again, will insist that inaction is not acceptable. It is one thing to say you support a certain policy, but if you fail to defend yourself and concede at every given opportunity, as many democratic politicians do, it is meaningless. (note: My criticism of democratic politicians does not apply to many of the people that vote them in.)

But I digress, the nature of the two parties in America is better suited to a different thread.

i dont know how much my parents give
Then I'm afraid you're not in a position to defend their charitability.

[slappy]

The democrats aren't a lot better. I, once again, will insist that inaction is not acceptable. It is one thing to say you support a certain policy, but if you fail to defend yourself and concede at every given opportunity, as many democratic politicians do, it is meaningless. (note: My criticism of democratic politicians does not apply to many of the people that vote them in.)

But I digress, the nature of the two parties in America is better suited to a different thread.

Yea I know
We where just talking about Reagin and he was a republican and he didn't believe in those things

[slappy]

That's how I got to the topic of republicans

[Tristin.]

Then I'm afraid you're not in a position to defend their charitability.

yet, i can defend my own, and therefore, i can say not all are selfish

[Sage]

yet, i can defend my own

You don't control your wealth. You get it from your parents.

[Tristin.]

but it is mine to do with as i wish, meaning, iam being charitable with it

[slappy]

You don't control your wealth. You get it from your parents.

Unless he has a job

[Tristin.]

Unless he has a job

a job? while at school? impossible

[Sage]

but it is mine to do with as i wish, meaning, iam being charitable with it

My arguments in this thread are criticizing the wealthy, not their spoiled children. How you spend your money means nothing to me, because it isn't yours, it is your parents. Without their allowance, you would have very little to nothing. (I say very little because most jobs available for people your age only pay slightly more than minimum wage.)

[slappy]

a job? while at school? impossible

I do it

[Sage]

I do it

About 2/3 of the people in any of my classes at school have jobs. One girl I know works six days a week.

[Amnesiac]

It lowered income taxes
Witch means
The rich pay less taxes and get more money

So? I don't understand the negative attitude in this thread towards "the rich". Yes, they're rich. A majority of them got there by working hard and making educated moves in the market. Only a fraction are the fraudulent people you make them out to be.

Capitalism is all about the opportunity to move up the ladder. If you know your shit and are dedicated enough, chances are that you'll start getting promotions and making more money for yourself. Most of the rich people in the world have earned the money they have, and I don't care how they spend it. I certainly don't think they have some obligation to society just because they have a lot of money.

Now, I'm fine with regulating the economy so that workers aren't abused by corporations and consumers aren't cheated out of their investments and purchases. However, there's no reason to hate the rich for having more money than everyone else.

[slappy]

About 2/3 of the people in any of my classes at school have jobs. One girl I know works six days a week.

U wouldn't like my job

I work for the Obama campaign

[Tristin.]

i go to boarding school. and iam hardly spoilt. you may say i was, if anything, they try to buy me. and unless you have met in person a member of the wealthy, you can hardly criticise them

[Sage]

Most of the rich people in the world have earned the money they have, and I don't care how they spend it. I certainly don't think they have some obligation to society just because they have a lot of money.

And here, Justin, lies what I believe would be the fundamental disagreement between you and I.

[Tristin.]

So? I don't understand the negative attitude in this thread towards "the rich". Yes, they're rich. A majority of them got there by working hard and making educated moves in the market. Only a fraction are the fraudulent people you make them out to be.

Capitalism is all about the opportunity to move up the ladder. If you know your shit and are dedicated enough, chances are that you'll start getting promotions and making more money for yourself. Most of the rich people in the world have earned the money they have, and I don't care how they spend it. I certainly don't think they have some obligation to society just because they have a lot of money.

Now, I'm fine with regulating the economy so that workers aren't abused by corporations and consumers aren't cheated out of their investments and purchases. However, there's no reason to hate the rich for having more money than everyone else.

thank you!

[slappy]

thank you!

I don't hate rich people

Most if them earned there money fairly
I just believe they should pay higher taxes
Because they can afford it

[Amnesiac]

And here, Justin, lies what I believe would be the fundamental disagreement between you and I.

I see, Sage, I see.

What I don't like about this thread is how people seem to be suggesting that socialism is a viable alternative. It's not. Really, we shouldn't eradicate freedom for fairness. (That term doesn't apply to every situation, but to most.)

[Tristin.]

I don't hate rich people

Most if them earned there money fairly
I just believe they should pay higher taxes
Because they can afford it

but using your idea of all being equal, surely everyone should pay the same ammount?

though as a rule, most rich do pay more anyway? :S

[Sage]

though as a rule, most rich do pay more anyway? :S

As a percentage of their total income, not really. And if we're talking about corporations, definitely not. There are plenty of loopholes that corporations use to lower or even eliminate their taxes.

[anonymous.john]

Why is "neither" not an option. Socialism cannot work, as attaining true socialism requires a redistribution of wealth, which simply can't be done in our "buy a pack of 30 when you only need two" society. Capitalism can't work because it relies on cyclical consumption based on the idea that all money spent goes towards societal needs like food, but the vast majority of money in this country is made in the arena of financial investment, which has no positive tangible benefit for society, thus negating the Adam Smith concept of Capitalism.

[Sage]

Why is "neither" not an option. Socialism cannot work, as attaining true socialism requires a redistribution of wealth, which simply can't be done in our "buy a pack of 30 when you only need two" society. Capitalism can't work because it relies on cyclical consumption based on the idea that all money spent goes towards societal needs like food, but the vast majority of money in this country is made in the arena of financial investment, which has no positive tangible benefit for society, thus negating the Adam Smith concept of Capitalism.

And what do you propose then, Jon?

[Tristin.]

And what do you propose then, Jon?

i have to agree with sage here, im intregued to what you will propose

[Sage]

i have to agree with sage here

There's nothing to agree on because I didn't raise any point. I was simply asking him to propose his.

[Tristin.]

There's nothing to agree on because I didn't raise any point. I was simply asking him to propose his.

im agreeing on the fact that i wish to know what he would propose

[anonymous.john]

I don't necessarily have to propose anything to believe that neither of them can work. I am absolutely certain of myself that capitalism can't work, and I'm not too confident in socialism simply because of current societal conditioning. I'm not an economic wizard, and I don't suggest that I have any viable answer.

Edt: The rich don't pay more. The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but the problem is that no one pays them. GE actually had a seven billion dollar tax bonus last year. Economic class generally runs like this: The upper class doesn't do any of the work, and keeps all of the money. The middle class does all the work, and pays all of the taxes. The poor are locked in a vicious cycle that they can't get out of, forced to take shit jobs for little pay because they don't have enough money to get an education while supporting a family so they can have a slightly less shit job for slightly more pay.

[Tristin.]

but capitalism does work? it works quite clearly. look at western civilisation, built on capitalism?

[Sage]

I don't necessarily have to propose anything

Oh, so you're done then? Okay.

but capitalism does work? it works quite clearly.
Perhaps from your view up at the top.

[Tristin.]

Oh, so you're done then? Okay.


Perhaps from your view up at the top.

im hardly at the top sage

[anonymous.john]

I think that to truly advance civilization, we should drop this monetary nonsense in full, but I know that that can't happen.

[Sage]

im hardly at the top sage

Have you ever had a job that sucks and doesn't pay you well at all? Have you ever worried that you might not find a meal to eat for a day, or a week, or longer? Have you ever had to worry about getting access to an education?

[Tristin.]

to them, no. but i have my own issues and troubles to worry about, by asking those questions you are insinuating that my life is sugar coated

[Sage]

to them, no. but i have my own issues and troubles to worry about, by asking those questions you are insinuating that my life is sugar coated

Financially, it is. We're debating economics here, and I'm saying that you coming from a very financially secure background in a wealthy family gives you a biased and skewed outlook on capitalism. You can't see its failures because you know nothing about what it is like to live through them. You are in a minority.

[Severus Snape]

The problem is a rigid document known as the Constitution. It halts progress because a majority of conservatives in the nation refuse to move on from their idyllic 18th century outlook of the world. The western definition of basic human rights is expanding to include potentially expensive institutions that benefit more than just the wealthy. Let's analyze a particular component of "socialism"

Western philosophy seems to be changing and demanding the government of our super states to provide for the wellbeing of the citizenry. Healthcare is a practical branch of this and much more beneficial to the advancement of the human race in comparison to military spending. However military spending is necessary. But how much? The US could cut military spending in half and still maintain the most powerful fighting force in the world. Why don't they? They're obsessed with it. The military is more important than other things, such as healthcare for the impoverished.

This mindset is fueled by a fundamental misconception most Americans have borne of their culture, that the poor of society are lazy, choose to be poor, and are worthless. America fancies itself "a land of opportunity", where if someone fails, they fail because it is their own fault. So the single mother working two jobs to support her two kids is a failure? The small business owner that goes out of business due to a bad economy is a failure? These people aren't lazy, they're unlucky. They're in shitty positions because of circumstance. Americans seem to fear that a small minority of non tax paying individuals who do in fact live off the state will bankrupt their already bankrupt nation.

Most of the working poor who do in fact pay their taxes lack healthcare. These people are not lazy and the question is whether or not they should qualify for healthcare based on an arbitrary societal measurement of how successful they have been? The fact that America fancies itself the best nation in the world but refuses to even take care of its own smacks of hypocrisy, pettiness, and a certain arrogance. the fact most Americans fear a progressive tax system speaks for this assertion.

The problem with the US is its refusal to join the rest of the west in the 21st century.

[slappy]

but capitalism does work? it works quite clearly. look at western civilisation, built on capitalism?

Yea, look at western civilization. Being destroyed by capitalism

[slappy]

Financially, it is. We're debating economics here, and I'm saying that you coming from a very financially secure background in a wealthy family gives you a biased and skewed outlook on capitalism. You can't see its failures because you know nothing about what it is like to live through them. You are in a minority.


Well here's the thing
My family is a bit more in the higher bracket (but not rich)
I have things I love
A 32' HDTV in my room came out of my pocket
$500 phone came out of my pocket

What I'm trying to get at is, ur family can make a lot of money but have very little to spend, it may be because the size of ur family or other things

[Continuum]

I think it is right to just maintain a healthy balance between the two. Personally, I do not care of the well being of the US; I'm an outsider to American Politics and policies, so I have limited information. Although, in my standing, I see some hardship in American citizens. I think the first priority is to allocate most of the government spending on its citizens.

Yea, look at western civilization. Being destroyed by capitalism

How, exactly? Have you seen the Human Development Index of the west? Seriously, think before you speak. The west is far from being obliterated by some economic policy that even helped them reach the point of being stable. I won't even think twice that the west is going to ruin. Some hard times, yes, but not complete economic downfall.

Have you ever had a job that sucks and doesn't pay you well at all? Have you ever worried that you might not find a meal to eat for a day, or a week, or longer? Have you ever had to worry about getting access to an education?

Hah, that's the whole story of my life.

[Bougainvillea]

a job? while at school? impossible

Yeah. I just got my CNA, and I work -two- jobs.

I think the problem with instituting a system like socialism is that a lot of people will get angry.

When people fall in love, with what seems to be a perfect theory, or a set of rules. They love those rules more than they love people, and uhm, places. And the messy reality of life starts to interfere with the imagined beauty. Which, of course, exists in their minds and their beloved texts. And the flipside of the love, is that hatred for anyone, or anything outside of that system can be so dangerous. And that's the other thing about these systems, is that they can't coexist. They need the whole stage.

[A.J.]

Socialism DOSENT WORK. Look at all of the countries that use or used that form of government, they were shitholes. Capitalism is best but its fallen out of trust with so many because of Corporate greed, and because Regan signed over all of the power in industry to the banks 30 years ago.

[scuba steve]

Socialism DOSENT WORK. Look at all of the countries that use or used that form of government, they were shitholes. Capitalism is best but its fallen out of trust with so many because of Corporate greed, and because Regan signed over all of the power in industry to the banks 30 years ago.

All Commonwealth countries that follow the Parliamentary system use heavy socialist values compared to others and accommodate some of the richest nations in the world.

[Korashk]

what kind of economic system do you think the us has?
Crony/State Capitalism (Which isn't capitalism)

Do you consider yourself a socialist?
No.

Well, here is how I see it. The simple meaning of socialism is taxes.
We pay taxes
That means we support socialism
That means that everyone in America is a socialist.
Bit of a broad statement, also untrue. I for one only pay taxes because if I don't let the government steal from me, they'll demand that I let them steal more from me. If I refuse that they'll arrest me and send me to jail.

Well, no taxes= no roads
No bridges
No schools
No teachers
No public transit
No police
No firefighters
Lol. None of those things need taxes to exist. In fact, when America was a fledgling country most (if not all) of those things were run privately. Hell, if those things stopped being funded by the government, they'd be done for cheaper and to a higher standard.

No. Taxes are required for a government to function. Are you saying that every country in the world is a socialist country, and that every person who pays taxes is a socialist?
You don't need taxes to run a government. Just cut back on most government services and charge those that want them voluntary user-fees.

Because a world where people elevate themselves to a higher class is totally more equal.
Equality in the sense I think you're referring to is bad for society.

a job? while at school? impossible
I hope you're being facetious.

I don't hate rich people

Most if them earned there money fairly
I just believe they should pay higher taxes
Because they can afford it
Why should they pay more because they have more. But this is just an inquiry because I think that everybody should pay the same amount in taxes. That amount being zero percent.

Why is "neither" not an option. Socialism cannot work, as attaining true socialism requires a redistribution of wealth, which simply can't be done in our "buy a pack of 30 when you only need two" society. Capitalism can't work because it relies on cyclical consumption based on the idea that all money spent goes towards societal needs like food, but the vast majority of money in this country is made in the arena of financial investment, which has no positive tangible benefit for society, thus negating the Adam Smith concept of Capitalism.
What are you getting at here? The argument behind Capitalism isn't "it relies on cyclical consumption based on the idea that all money spent goes towards societal needs" it's "people are greedy, and if left to their own devices, that greed will lead to a society where everyone is better off."

Perhaps from your view up at the top.
Sage, do you live in America? For the purposes of this response I'll assume that you do. This is a quote for you:

"Poverty" here isn't like poverty in the past or in most other places in the world. For example, starvation was a constant danger for most of humanity since time immemorial, but it is almost unheard of today in America even with all its three hundred million occupants. Most people "below the poverty line" here have access to running water, modern plumbing, electricity, refrigeration of food, a bed, furniture, air-conditioning, products for personal hygiene, cleaning products, cooking and eating utensils, plenty of warm clothing, and more than sufficient food to stay healthy. In addition to these goods that satisfy the more basic needs, virtually anyone can save enough to have access to modern goods like television sets, telephones, DVD players, washing machines, personal computers, books, radios, CD players, and microwave ovens. Many of these goods, not long ago, either didn't exist or were only accessible to a wealthy few. This high and rising standard of living for even those with comparatively modest incomes is possible because of radical increases in the production of all these products. The "rich" of the past couldn't have dreamed of having all this. If policies like those advocated by the critics had been pursued in the past, this economic progress for the poor would never have occurred.
Sure, many people in America are "poor" compared to "the rich", but really there are billions of ACTUAL poor people that would love to trade places with almost any "poor" person in America. Want to know why this is? It's because historically, America has chosen to adopt policies that are more capitalistic than not. Sure, the life of a "poor" person in America may not be all that great when compared to a rich person. But they'd be much worse off if not for capitalistic principals.

im hardly at the top sage
From what I've been reading your family is more rich than mine, which puts you in the top 1% in terms of world income. You're only not at the top if you compare yourself only to those that are more rich than you.

[Tristin.]

to the thing people seem to be saying about me having a job, my school is in the middle of no where, getting a job for anybody here is impossible

[Amnesiac]

You don't need taxes to run a government. Just cut back on most government services and charge those that want them voluntary user-fees.

There are a multitude of smaller issues with such an idea, but overall you're right, a government like that would work. However, the problem with America's political stance on things like this – demanding less taxes while wanting more services – makes it simply impossible for such dramatic a change as what you're proposing to occur.

[Severus Snape]

Socialism DOSENT WORK. Look at all of the countries that use or used that form of government, they were shitholes. Capitalism is best but its fallen out of trust with so many because of Corporate greed, and because Regan signed over all of the power in industry to the banks 30 years ago.

Norway is socialist and has the highest standard of living in the world as well as some of the most desirable cities to live in. Also, you seem to be confusing socialism with communism. Woops.

[Korashk]

Norway is socialist and has the highest standard of living in the world as well as some of the most desirable cities to live in. Also, you seem to be confusing socialism with communism. Woops.
The "socialist" Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than America.

EDIT: They're just capitalistic in different (and better) ways while having higher taxes and some nationalized industries which is more socialist than some things in America.

No country today is any one economic system. They're all mixed economies.

[Severus Snape]

The "socialist" Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than America.

EDIT: They're just capitalistic in different (and better) ways while having higher taxes and some nationalized industries which is more socialist than some things in America.

No country today is any one economic system. They're all mixed economies.

Which is more socialist, the US or Norway?

[iangillan]

Which is more socialist, the US or Norway?

Norway is more socialist. US is totaly capitalist.Just look on Health-Care system,
education,scholarship.
I read that Ex-Yugoslavia vas full socialist (not Comunist) country.They had a best Medical-care system,don`t pay anything.Free scholarship,no unemployed people,no homeless.Look at USA,how many homeless and unemployed people are there.
Maybe is the best combination socialism and capitalism.

[Korashk]

Which is more socialist, the US or Norway?
Norway.

[Severus Snape]

Norway.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Korashk]

Thank you for proving my point.
What point of yours did I prove?

[Number02]

i go to boarding school. and iam hardly spoilt. you may say i was, if anything, they try to buy me. and unless you have met in person a member of the wealthy, you can hardly criticise them

IIRC, Tristin, you are a fellow Brit, no?

And you're right, 99% of all the wealthy people I meet (and I meet a fair few in my line of work) are some of the mose genuine and nice people I've ever met. I'm not saying that my experience of the wealthy classes is representative, because I've not met a representative amount of wealthy people.

As for the original question in hand... For me, ideally, a communist state similar to that of Cuba, or perhaps China if we were to go for economic growth.

Now, I am not naive, and I am fully aware that the success of Communist states survive on two things alone - violent repression of dissidents, or wholehearted support from the entire population.

And taking into account my experiences of Americans, and my faint knowledge of America itself, I do not believe that you could change America's economic system drastically. Any kind of socialistic movements made to improve conditions for people who are homeless and sick, or unemployed, are branded as being 'the end of free america', with 'the government telling them what to do'. Republicans will even go to the extent of lying about the British NHS, twisting the image, and using an already bad example to make it worse (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205953/NHS-branded-evil-Orwellian-high-level-US-politicians.html) (the example being the NHS itself, NOT Prof Hawking. I'm aware that this article glorifies the NHS, which was the standard British response at the time, despite the large and glaring flaws within it). If anyone would like me to get into the REAL flaws in the NHS, I would gladly do so, however, I don't feel iT would be particularly relevant.

[Severus Snape]

What point of yours did I prove?

That countries with overt socialist policies not only do well, but are among the best in the world.

[Korashk]

That countries with overt socialist policies not only do well, but are among the best in the world.
You are free to think that's the case. I say it's because of their more capitalist aspects.

[Apparitions]

Coming from the UK where a socialist party damn near ruined our country, I can advise you that no, you probably shouldn't use it.

[Severus Snape]

You are free to think that's the case. I say it's because of their more capitalist aspects.

They are much more of a socialist nation than capitalist, but if you are going to keep willfully ignoring evidence that dismantles your argument, I am not going to waste my time debating with you.

[slappy]

Crony/State Capitalism (Which isn't capitalism)


No.


Bit of a broad statement, also untrue. I for one only pay taxes because if I don't let the government steal from me, they'll demand that I let them steal more from me. If I refuse that they'll arrest me and send me to jail.


Lol. None of those things need taxes to exist. In fact, when America was a fledgling country most (if not all) of those things were run privately. Hell, if those things stopped being funded by the government, they'd be done for cheaper and to a higher standard.


You don't need taxes to run a government. Just cut back on most government services and charge those that want them voluntary user-fees.


Equality in the sense I think you're referring to is bad for society.


I hope you're being facetious.


Why should they pay more because they have more. But this is just an inquiry because I think that everybody should pay the same amount in taxes. That amount being zero percent.


What are you getting at here? The argument behind Capitalism isn't "it relies on cyclical consumption based on the idea that all money spent goes towards societal needs" it's "people are greedy, and if left to their own devices, that greed will lead to a society where everyone is better off."


Sage, do you live in America? For the purposes of this response I'll assume that you do. This is a quote for you:


Sure, many people in America are "poor" compared to "the rich", but really there are billions of ACTUAL poor people that would love to trade places with almost any "poor" person in America. Want to know why this is? It's because historically, America has chosen to adopt policies that are more capitalistic than not. Sure, the life of a "poor" person in America may not be all that great when compared to a rich person. But they'd be much worse off if not for capitalistic principals.


From what I've been reading your family is more rich than mine, which puts you in the top 1% in terms of world income. You're only not at the top if you compare yourself only to those that are more rich than you.



Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources witch means bridges roads and schools.

[Korashk]

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources witch means bridges roads and schools.
What?

[Amnesiac]

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources witch means bridges roads and schools.

So? Just because the United States borrows some concepts from communism and socialism when it comes to what government manages doesn't mean it's a socialist economy. The United States is a mixed/leaning capitalist economy, and an inefficient one at that.

I mean, just because China is creating a somewhat free-enterprise economy doesn't mean it's suddenly capitalist. China is still a solidly communist nation, with one party, an oppressed people and all those 5-year plans.

[anonymous53]

Should socialism be used in the united states?
No, United States is built on a free market. You take that away, there will most likely be a revolution.


Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources witch means bridges roads and schools.

I think you have socialism a little bit confused Bord
"political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles"

Means of production and distribution are controlled by the people, that doesn't mean roads and schools. It means everything is owned by everyone and everyone has an equal share in everything. In other terms, the guy working the checkout at the grocery store will earn as much as the person who went to business school for years and now is a ceo of a company.

I believe the United States should stay based upon Capitalism.