Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Tripartite corporative capitalism.

 

He's wrong anyway, Sweden isn't socialist. It's very left wing, but it's not socialist.

 

enforced socialism is only a political tool, when a community works well together there is a degree of cooperation that lends itself to collective self interest, however once a community or series of communitys come to expect universal contribution then there comes universal entitlements disguised as collective self interest even if those perpetuating this ambivalence are unaware of the harm being done.

 

But the likes of Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Ed Schultz say it works, DOcon. Are you saying these MSLSD pundits are all wrong?

 

Indeed, although on an absolute scale we are not very left wing, it's just in relation to the rest of the west. I think people are a bit confused because our historically biggest and most influential party -the social democrats- are democratic socialists, but that doesn't mean Sweden is. The social democrats want sweden to be socialist, but they have never been able to achieve that. The ideology of the ruling party and the ideology of the whole country are different things.

 

Money (capital) does not create wealth. No matter how much capital is invested into an enterprise if there are no customers, and there won't be customers if there are no jobs providing income to the workers, then the enterprise fails.

 

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_New_Democratic_Party#The_Clark_years

That article was written by the socialists main propagandist, and see what havoc they wreak .....go to "Glenn Clark - the only time in this province's history when we need transfer $ from the feds and in a time of a booming economy.

Never again.

 

You are incorrect. You immediately start harping on Socialism. Irrelevant.
Totalitarianism is Collectivist.

Do some research instead of parroting what you've been told to say.

I'm sure you'll learn something.

- - - Updated - - -

I see you haven't been keeping up with this conversation otherwise you'd know
that I've provided ample evidence. Go back and read then you can apologize for
speaking without know what you're talking about.

 

And your generalized statement, like almost all generalized statement, was wrong.

Fortunately in the USA that isn't a problem.

 

In reading your previous posts It was clear that you do not have a good grasp on terms such as "Socialism".

 

Actually poverty is forced upon roughly 40% of American households because their employers don't provide enough compensation for them to live on and that problem is getting worse. Simply look at the number of households that have dropped below the qualification level for SNAP benefits since 2000. Today about four times as many households per capita are collecting SNAP benefits because they don't have enough income to provide adequate food for the family.

 

Another falsification. I'm not the one using the term Socialism. If you'd
take the time to read my posts you would have known that, ergo, you
haven't read my posts.

By the way, I have a profound grasp of these terms.

 

The economy sucks. That's where the problem lies. If this administration would
cut personal income taxes and spending employers could pay higher wages. It's
not Capitalism that's the problem, it's ignorant politicians that refuse to look at
history.

You can blame the president for that. He wants everybody on food
stamps and government assistance.

It's not the fault of Capitalism.

 

supply and demand is a symbiotic relationship one cant happen with out the other you can have all the demand you want and if their isn't any one to supply that demand that demand is worthless and you can have all the supply you want but if their isn't any demand that supply is worthless

 

labor is a product just like any other product and it adheres to the same rules of supply and demand as any other product
Now when a product doesn't sell or sells for much lower then you would like is that they consumers fault or a fault of the product?

 

Here's a news flash. Humans are NOT like any other product. Human capital is exactly that. Capital. Capital requires investment.
In the case of humans:

Early childhood nutrition to ensure proper brain development. Nearly one in five children in America lives in households that struggle to put food on the table. Republicans would cut food stamps and make that problem even worse.

Early childhood education. Many families have both parents working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. How do we ensure these kids get the educational support needed to succeed in school?

Modern education available to all children to ensure an educated workforce for the future. How are we ensuring this? We rank #29 in the world. Canada ranks #10. What is our excuse?

Higher education to ensure technological and scientific superiority for the future. With our young people going deeper and deeper into debt to achieve this, how do we maintain our ranking in the world?

I could go on and on about the investments needed to cultivate human capital. Yet the Capitalists think only of the next 5 years, not the next generation.

American workers are some of the most productive workers in the world. There is no excuse for them not being compensated accordingly.

 

did I say humans I said labor what humans produce and that sir is a product and yes you can invest in a product but labor is still a product and abides by the same rules of supply and demand. if there is more supply (more looking for work) and less of a demand (less employers hiring) the price of the product (labor) goes down
Now if you want to increase the price of a product (labor) you find a market which there is a higher demand (a skill that an employer is in great need of) and less of a supply ( people looking for jobs with that skill) the price of that product (labor) will increase

the price of labor isn't determined just by the employer. the price of ones labor is a contract between the employer and the employee. what the employer is willing to pay for your labor and what the employee is willing to sell that labor for. just like a product and the consumer

 

Here's the thing, when I invest in a machine (that produces labor) it is a capital investment. Just like investing in human capital is a capital investment. Thus, just as the machine is capital, so is the human.
Failure to invest in capital equipment, invest in regular calibration, and properly maintain that equipment - is wasteful and costs my business money. Failure to invest in human capital, invest in education and retraining, and medical care - costs me too. Plus there is the added ethical consideration of valuing humans far more than I value equipment.

 

My name is Kunta Kinte! Not Toby!!!!

 

So, you should be given lower priority than equipment? The person I'm talking to seems to believe that human capital requires less attention than other capital investments. Slavery is where humans are worked without fair return for their labor (they were provided with subsistence living, just as many of todays' "free" workers are).

 

You should give me no priority because I am not an investment. I will take what you give me, and leave without a second's thought.

 

This is precisely the kind of short sighted thinking that many businesses are trapped in.
The business that my family started and continues to run today 150 years later, has very low turn over, high productivity, low absenteeism, and strong employee loyalty. Many of our employees today come from many generations of families that have worked for us over the years. There is a reason for this. We invest in our people and their families. The return has been excellent.
I worked my way up to CFO of that business and retired out about 5 years ago. Two of my kids now work for that company and thus shall it continue as long as we keep to our traditions of craftsmanship and investing in our workers and their families. That is the result of generational thinking, not 5 year plans.

 

I'm guessing an arms manufacturer like browning, perhaps.

But that's fine. I'm sure you understand that these investments don't actually mean ownership. It's an attempt to retain valuable employees, so it is an investment in the company. Individuals can still walk out the door whenever they want.

 

Educational services and products actually.

I'd rather have loyalty than ownership any day. Our people WANT to be here.