Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

Socialism is INSURANCE it in principle gives all citizens a safety net and support from needs regardless of ones station or condition, what part of that simple principle do people not get. Capitalism is cruel, socialism shows mercy.

 

Baloney! Socialism produces so little wealth the poor get less assistance from socialism than from hard hearted capitalists. Socialism has been a dismal failure every time it is tried. If it were not for capitalism creating the wealth and prosperity it does, our poor would live in true poverty instead of the relative poverty they live in now.

Socialism is nothing but a principle which will not work because it robs high achievers of their initiative, their ambition and their motivation such that all it does is produce a huge under culture. Socialism has only a theory, and it is a theory which has never worked.

 

Unfortunately, your special pleading only works in a vacuum; everybody knows that the socialism of a public sector is what enables capitalism to flourish.

- - - Updated - - -

Not having to demolish ancient buildings makes it much less expensive to establish infrastructure.

 

I subscribe to a line of reasoning that claims socialism is merely an evolution from capitalism and is simply a requirement for States and statism to exist. Capitalism cannot include the coercive use of force of the State because then it would be socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you account for the socialism of our patent laws and that use of Capitalism, by Socialism. Even our money is manufactured by fiat, not capitalism and establishes that form of wealth in our republic.

 

What everybody knows is that socialism is a dismal failure, and your special pleadings will never change that absolute fact. I note that your special pleading is getting shrill Daniel, it is time to recognize your entire approach is fallacious thinking.

 

Capitalism only needs the state to enforce laws and protect private property and liberties. Statism/ Socialism cannot exist except for a coercive/oppressive government. Socialism does not "evolve" it is a forced economic/governmental system which takes advantage of high achievers by making promises (its theory) that it can't keep, then socialism evolves into dictatorship and everyone but the leaders lose.

Our patent laws aren't socialist, they are protection of intellectual or inventive property. Neither is fiat money socialist in nature, as it is but the strength of the government protecting private enterprise which is the force behind the wealth in our republic.

You keep forgetting what socialism really is. So here is the definition again.

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done ​

Socialism is an evil system which tends to enslave people under the theoretical guise of promising a class free society in which every receives as needed and contributes as able. It is a blatant lie believed mostly by the poor who are the only ones who believe at the onset socialism will improve their lives. It doesn't. It makes everyone's lives worse off as proved by every example ever tried.

 

Like taxing any company that outsources jobs at 50% and making them pay 5 times the tarriffs that foreign companies pay to import any of the goods back to the US

 

All that kind of hijenks will do is simply drive capital out of the US permanently. In fact, most of what has left the country was driven out by high taxes and extortionary wages and in fact the people who lost were the very high paid laborers who lost their jobs.

Jobs moving off shore did not cause our primary unemployment problem as according to studies for every job that off shored at least 1 job was created. Not the extortionary jobs that caused the move, but others who found work in different areas.

In my opinion, based on studies of tax incidence, labor pay the most, consumers pay part, and capital pays the least of all corporate tax.

You should learn a little about economics before making such a destructive assertion.

 

I am not sure what you mean; I have outlined my line of reasoning and it starts with a Social Contract and works from there. All you have is propaganda and rhetoric invented for a Cold War that no longer exists.

- - - Updated - - -

Public sector intervention in private Capital markets is Always a form of Socialism.

 

Not at all. You have outlined your "reasoning," ie stated your theory about a system which has failed dismally every time it has been tried. And the definition of Socialism is not a passe' cold war definition; it is a definition which continues to exist today, and it describes an evil system which saps humanity of all of its good traits. It robs people of hope, of motivation, of ambition, and it penalizes high achievers who are kept in line by oppressive governments run by dictators. There is nothing about socialism in the real world that is not evil on the surface; an evil which runs through the depth of the system. Marxism in all of its evolutions is a dismal failure. Your "social contract" becomes useless when those who can and do achieve get tired of supporting the dead beats and malingers and they can only be retained by force to feed all of the losers in the systems which breeds deadbeats by promising everyone they will get what they need with insufficient people to produce those needs.

 

What a dumb post, complete with the obligatory racist dig, and the requisite right-wing mantra of 'personal responsibility'.
Predictable and stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

 

So more of what made them relocate overseas in the first place is supposed to keep them in America.
Making goods from foreign companies cheaper than goods produced by American companies that outsource 50% of their production is a good thing in your idea and comment.

We cannot punish people into prosperity ... And making foreign goods cheaper won't help manufacturers here either.
Whip the horse until it is dead (taxation and regulation) ... But don't get upset when it doesn't meet you at the gate (does what it can do to escape the punishment imposed).

 

Daniel you cannot end poverty. Poverty is as much a problem of the spirit as a problem of too little money. Poverty isn't an objective but a subjective condition. And it is often a definition imposed upon people by third parties regardless of reality. Real poverty is a lack of contentment with one's circumstances combined with a belief that there is nothing one can do to change one's situation.

 

They don't relocate. They simply put their factories there. All of the companies that outsource jobs now, Nike, Apple, GM....They all are still headquartered in the US, taking advantage of US taxes and other benefits, but none of the jobs are here. The US is the only nation with unregulated lobbying, and we have the lowest business taxes. The vast majority of the goods produced by these companies overseas are imported back into the US. So, by making them pay higher taxes, and a higher tariff to import the goods back, you force these companies to make a choice, pay the higher expenses, or keep the jobs in the US.

 

Your appeal to emotion instead of reason is duly noted; how would you explain a hypothetical, divine Commune of Heaven where markets are so efficient, that "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" could be a reality?

 

"...taxing any company that outsources jobs at 50% and making them pay 5 times the tarriffs that foreign companies pay to import any of the goods back to the US "

Taxcutter says:
Somewhere, Smoot and Hawley are smiling.

Why do you hate consumers?

 

Only the Right, seems to have a problem with the Concept, of relative wealth in a political-economy where corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that the least wealthy should not be punished with a distinction between ordinary income and capital gains income, if that tax preference isn't working as intended.

 

You are confusing poverty with merely being poor. It is called a fallacy of composition or false Cause.

 

Your suggestions would destroy the prosperity of the US, one part of which is the freedoms we enjoy. Outsourcing is not what makes some people poor, nor does it increase unemployment over time. There are a number of countries in which their economies are not enhanced by manufacturing. In fact the richest countries in the world based on median incomes are totally service economies. Excess taxation and confiscatory wages are what drove some manufacturing out of the US, and the more we tax the more will leave.

 

Actually Daniel, I am not appealing to emotion. I am being pragmatic. Human behavior is as human behavior has been. Socialism has no "divine" component, and it is certainly not efficient mostly because it is forced on people because sane people won't put up with socialism's lies that it will help the poor. The very idea of "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need" cannot survive in a free country. It would require a dictatorship to keep those who are able such that they can continue to be slaves to the system and supportive of the malingerers. Eventually the government is over thrown or the achievers stop achieving and the economy collapses. Socialism cannot work; it can only be forced; and even then only temporarily.

 

Actually not just the right! you are putting your foot into pseudo reality again Daniel.

If not for the wealthy investing their money there would be no ordinary income because labor would not have jobs. Taking from the wealthy is an example of shooting the middle class and poor in their feet.

 

Actually he is correct! You cannot end poverty, or being poor. There will always be people who either can't, or won't work to better themselves. That is why we have social programs, to elevate the poor to only being poor relative to those who are more wealthy. No matter how hard we try, and we should continue to try, some will still slip through the cracks in our safety nets.

 

Pragmatism without reason is no better than being purely, social animals instead of political animals. Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies; how would you explain a hypothetical, divine Commune of Heaven where markets are so efficient, that "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" could be a reality?

Why do you believe a moral of "from each according to their ability to each according to their need", may not survive, under Any form of Capitalism; but, not necessarily truer forms of Socialism?

 

I agree to disagree; simple poverty can be ameliorated through public sector intervention in the market for labor such that the inefficiency of a natural rate of unemployment under any form of capitalism can be corrected for, through those public transfers and any "coercive use of force of a State" that may be employed; let's call it un-Socialism, for your propaganda and rhetorical convenience.

 

Yet pragmatism WITH REASON is the best of all.

So true, yet you permeate your reasoning with fallacies when it comes to socialism.

Ask me a difficult question Daniel, Divine Commune of Heaven are in Heaven, not on earth. You are hoping to establish a Heavenly condition on earth in stead of grounding your reasoning in reality.

Another simple question, with an equally simple answer. What you choose not to understand is, "to each according their need" creates a subculture of malingering or inept people who constantly take from those who are contributing to the economy; while "from each according to their ability" creates a functional class who must do all of the "contributing" to what the other group receives. The contributors are the achievers/high achievers, who will quickly get tired of carrying the non-achievers dead weight. It is basic human nature on earth, not some superhuman situation in "Heaven."

Is that really something you can't, or won't understand? Capitalism rewards achievement, rewards high achievement even more; and without that reward for achievement there would not be sufficient prosperity to fund the social programs the unable and malingerers need to keep on giving them their freebees.

There is no such thing as a "truer" form of Socialism. It is either Socialism or it is Capitalism (the two systems we have been talking about). Socialism is and has always been a dismal failure because those who like socialism simply do not understand human behavior, and human behavior is what drives any/all economic systems.

You also seem to refuse to accept that morals are what morals are and no economic or governmental system changes the morality of any human being. What moral you get is the same no matter the system and the system does not change anyone's morals.