Socialism 101

Capitalism is a great engine of innovation and economic growth that works by providing fabulous rewards to those who provide what the market wants. These rewards incentive work, effort, and risk taking that provides innovation and efficiency. We should not destroy that element.

The problem with capitalism is that it does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence. Capitalism doesn't care if they starve to death in the streets or bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance. Capitalism is only interested in profit and enriching their owners. Capitalism doesn't care if our skies and waters and beaches are polluted or that our resources are mismanaged or that the workers are unprotected are abused. Capitalism just cares about profit.

"Leftists" like me recognize that profit and incentive are important and need to be maintained for an effective economy. But we also believe people have a value that is not simply a function of the current market value for their skills or services. We recognize that clean air and water have values over just profit margins. We like the fact that hordes of the aged or infirm or temporarily down on their luck are not living under freeways begging for food at stoplights, that our air and water are cleaner, that workers and investors and consumers have some basic rights and protections against sweatshops and ripoff and frauds, that people don't bleed to death outside a hospital because they don't have health care coverage, and that a little boy doesn't have to forego an education because his parent is too poor. And so we believe that society is enhanced when you provide social programs and regulations that limit some of the defects and harness of laizzes-faire capitalism.

And you can have a system that both provides tremendous rewards, but also provides tax revenues to support the safety nets and regulations that limit those defects of laizzes-faire capitalism.

That is why I support government "plunder". Other leftists can speak for themselves.

Right now, the richest 1% take 20% of the nation's income and have about 40% of the nation's wealth. Those figures are double from 30 years ago. It certain is not a question of how much more you think they need as they are well beyond the parameters of need. The question is how much more of the nation's income and wealth do you think the 1% should have, and how much less should the middle and lower classes have?

 

Wouldn't Norway be the "new" socialism? He talks about the old socialism as two insignificant countrys, NK & Cuba, but then admits his mind there is a second newer socialism where progressives find themselves. I know as a socialist, that is where I find myself. The problem here is defining what socialism is and what model of socialis you can examine today. I would say Germany is socialist, or most of the EURO with the exception of Greece is socialist under the "new" defined view in the current today's world.

One thing that happens with these con-turkeys, they want to claim a socialist nation is capitalist when it suits them, and they need to be boxed in on that abstract thinking. IMO

 

I gave you a like despite that last paragraph, but you had to go class warfare...

Externalities and management of the commons are legitimate areas of public concern and proper for government to be involved in at times. But that isn't what the left wants that we disagree with, we disagree how they achieve these goals.

So lets debate conservation of the commons and how to deal with market externalities, but class struggle, forced redistribution out of a notion of Robin Hood righteousness and government central programming infallibility aren't the most efficient ways of accomplishing any of those goals.vouchers, and charity are. Supporting business rather then taking it from it creates jobs and reduces the number of unemployed etc..

 

Agree. But when we are talking about people, IMO it is not simply a matter of what is most "efficient".

That is where liberals and conservatives disagree.

 

Efficiency + equality of opportunity + equality of government access to service (think post offices or defense of rural areas by the military being defended as well as major cities etc..or CDC outbreak coverage or FEMA relief) should be where the focus is. Not taking tearing some down so others can be better off. That never works.

 

and they are baseless because you say they are? see i can play your game also your claim that the op post is baseless is completely bases

 

How is it WAY off topic? It directly addresses you OP.

what in it do you contend is a personal attack?

1) The richest pay taxes out of money they have for luxuries. The poorest pay taxes out of money they need for basic necessities.

2) Our society maintains rules that allow capitalistic private enterprise and people to amass huge fortunes using the resources of or country and leveraging the efforts of its people. The quid pro quo is that if you do you share a portion of it to pay for a government and programs that ameliorate some of the defects and harness of a laissez-faire capitalist system

 

A 50% tax on a guy who made $100 million isn't exactly tearing them down. Neither is a 90% tax, for that matter.

I'm all for a merit based system, which we are FAR from being. But there are still those who because they are aged or infirm or temporarily out of luck without a market value that equates to even a poverty level of existence. Proving greater equality of opportunity is a great goal that we need A LOT of work improving, but it is not sufficient in and of itself.

 

What you said isn't disagreeing with either my initial or subsequent statements. Your statement now disagrees with YOUR initial statement. You've moved the goalposts, and backtracked in the process.

 

Yes it is. It severely restricts what they can do with it later. Gates charity is smaller then the daily spending by government, and will be with us for hundreds of years, supporting charities and good works that are measurable. The government will (*)(*)(*)(*) that money away by sun down.

Yes I agree. Lets get rid of AA, crony capitalism, the union system and tenure.

So give them vouchers, or a negative income tax if you dont trust them with the money or they are incapable of spending it themselves because of their infirmity. Next?

Lets start with vouchers for education, housing (already have food), and incentives for state governments to reduce crime in their worst neighborhoods. Can you agree there at least? Medicine too, lets take a step that way. Sliding scale all around, they dont get cut off after some arbitrary limit, each dollar earned makes them better off always. Meet me half way on the outline?

 

Someone netting $50 million or $10 million after tax isn't being "torn down", IMO.

I agree we can get rid of AA when we have truly equal opportunity in this country. Until then AA redresses lack of equal opportunity you agree we should have.

Unions don't create lack of opportunity.

A "voucher" for what? How is a negative income tax going to benefit someone without income? How are you going to pay for these things? .

See above. I don't have a problem with vouchers per se. How are you going to pay for them? What if they don't earn income?

How is "taking a step away from medicine" addressing a problem for people who can't afford health care?

 

Negative income tax pays people with out income cash money for them to buy what they need instead of a voucher. The one I favor pays everyone 20% of personal median income, and everyone is taxed 25%. If you make the median income you basically pay 5% in taxes. If you make no income you get paid 20% of the personal median income. It applies equally to everyone, and every income type which would all be aggregated - no deductions of any kind, and works out to be progressive in practice, but not in application. It is all pretty brilliant stuff really. Give me some numbers of gross income and I can calculate your taxes or subsidy in a second. HR Block would be out of business. The subsidy would be paid out weekly.

Tell that to a "scab" on the union line... got to bet back to work at the moment. I will be back when things slow down.......

 

And seniority! The glass ceiling! The CEO-board member-stockholder profits!!! All bad for the economy.

 

What CEO specifically? Your commie talking points break down in practice.

 

OK. My understanding of a "negative income tax" is that is provides a supplement to income to folk who are earning an income. You're talking about something different. How is your version of a negative income tax any different than plain old welfare?

Who is "everyone"? Does that include Warren Buffet?

So if personal median income is about $27,000, your essentially talking about a maximum of $5400 in assistance. Imagine a disabled person trying to raise a couple kids on $5400 a year. Oh wait, you want to tax them at 25% as well. That drops it down to $4,050 a year to live on. $337.5 per month.

How thoughtful of you. But not acceptable to me. People cannot even afford shelter for that amount.

If everyone is taxed 25% how are they only paying 5% in taxes? They make 27,000, they get $5400 for a total of $32,400, and pay 25% taxes, which equates to $8100. Which is essentially a 30% tax on their original income/

It appears what you want to do is have a drastic cut in assistance to people who need it, and redistibute the tax tax burden so it falls much more heavily on those who cannot afford to pay it.

Sounds like just the plan I'd expect from 1% apologists.

It doesn't change his opportunity to get a union job any different than anyone else.

 

Well I did expand with evidence of why I felt the claim was baseless - you must have missed that post in your rush to go to print

 

I can point out once the profit motive free market is useless for medical R&D , ANTIBIOTICS, not one US company had any R&D for that when new drugs are becoming VITAL worldwide. You want to know which nations are doing this now China and France both have dedicated government heavily funded R&D with companies taking part in the research. There is just no profits in these lines of research over other far more lucrative areas.

And China is doing this as a public health need incurable infections will be a nightmare if they become the norm.

 

If they become a nightmare, we will have a strong profit motive for curing them. Cancer, heart disease and stroke are the big killers and we dominate.

 

Instead of the means of production (and other facets of the economy) being in the hands of private individuals who organise themselves into corporations acting for self-benefit, the means of production are owned by society through the organ of the state. I realise I've over-simplified the idea but that's because I need to think of it, for myself, in very broad terms.

From this first principle of ownership differentiation, it follows that everything else will be different. In a capitalist system decisions by corporates are made with the express intent and purpose of benefiting the corporates. In fact it's a legal duty. There are benefits to consumers of course, but they're very much side-benefits. Corporates look at people in society as consumers, not as people and only attend to those needs identified as consumer-oriented. Again, perfectly rational in a capitalist system. In a socialist system it's societal needs which are considered. It's a fair criticism of past socialist economies to suggest that they, in large part, failed to provide for individuals as consumers, although I think some of the more enlightened socialist economies of Europe (I'm thinking the former Yugoslavia) were able to show the way with a move away from the strictures of Marxism-Leninism when it came to economics at least.

As an example of the contrast I will cite the evidence from the Ford Pinto cases exposed by Nader. Perfectly rational for a corporate in a capitalist system to use that sort of costs-benefit analysis, there is no place for anything other than a calculated cost-benefit analysis in a capitalist system, if it were otherwise it would be chaotic. This is why capitalist economies need to be regulated. A socialist economy would be an immediate fail if its entities carried out the same approach though. And here I'm referring to socialist economies, not the Stalinist approach with the well known quote about individual and mass deaths being very different in nature.

 

I love this new Yugoslavia love by socialists. When I was a kid socialists of the time all of whom followed the Kremlin propaganda line correctly identified Yugoslavia as fascist.

A modern socialists today will tout Tito's Yugoslavia as a great socialist model, not realizing that it was fascism, and at the same time argue that fascism isn't a form of socialism.

 

And if he is taxed at 10% what happens to the other 90%? Does he keep it in a money bin?

 

Pretty close. He sticks a big chunk of it into banks and offshore accounts.

 

And what happens to the money in the bank?

 

In modern times? It could go toward some risky business venture that may need to be bailed out in the future.

 

And lets say it does. Even if the business ultimately fails did the money do more good for the economy being spent in the private sector than the public?