Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Food for thought (chew it out):
If we get good AI to do most jobs. If we have large 3D printers that can make anything out of good resources. If there is no different currencies. And if we reach total success in Capitalism...
THEN socialism could work.

 

This statement proves that you do not understand free markets. Capitalism as it is known today has nothing in common with free markets. Capitalist governments have created and issued privileges which allow the formation of monopolies. Below a short list of government-issued privileges.

– Land titles allow the monopolization of land.

– Bank charters allow the private monopolization of money creation

– Patent and Copyright law allow the monopolization of ideas

– Occupational licensing allow the monopolization of profession or vocation

– Corporate charters give groups greater rights than individuals

These are just the worst privileges governments have created but there are many more. Now think about all the rich capitalists you know of … I can say with almost 100% certainty that all of them are using at least one of the government issued and enforced privileges listed above. A truly free market would have none of these privileges. Under a free market, as soon as medical doctors, as a profession, earn more then hamburger flippers, the free market will direct some of those hamburger flippers to become medical doctors (with no government regulation to stop them). Free markets are so full of competition that it is virtually impossible to amass huge fortunes such as we see today in capitalist countries; with mass poverty being the other side of the coin.

In a truly free market it would be economically infeasible to tax capital, because competition would eliminate any surplus (profit) that capital can earn. As soon as capital earned more than the labor required to produce it, then more capital would be produced and those profits lost (to higher wages). Under a free market there are no rich like we see today under capitalism, because fierce competition will not allow it. But neither would you see people as poor as we see today, because free markets produce so much wealth and opportunity that even working a day or two a week would earn enough to gain the necessities of life.

 

Actually your simplistic novel shows you do not understand free markets. You are focusing solely on labor markets. In who's definition of capitalism do labor markets constitute 100% of the equation?

It's not solely about the wide diversity of earned incomes. It's fueled by the wealthy having more investments and better performing investments. The wealthiest people in this country put 3/4 of their earnings and savings into investments. The middle class are up to their eyeballs in debt and are risk averse. Certainly the rich can afford to take bigger risks and lose some of the time, but it's crystal clear that the wealth gap is largely caused by the investment gap.

 

Land titles no more lead to monopolization of land than automobile titles lead to monopolization of cars. These resources are owned by millions of individual owners. There is no monopoly.

 

This response is just clueless. You give no support for you claims nor do you address or refute the majority of the claims given by Geo.

The wealth gap is cause by the investment gap ? What the heck are you talking about?

How does one invest if one has no wealth. How does one gain wealth as efficiently as the next one has barriers and the other doesn't ?

You claim "your simplistic post shows you have no understanding of free markets" . Your post shows you have no clue what a monopoly/oligopoly and how these organizations work to stifle free and fair competition, among other things.

 

[MENTION=13235]geofree[/MENTION] is using the term monopoly incorrectly.Owning things such as land and automobiles is not a monopoly. Only owning ALL of them would be a monopoly.

 

[MENTION=13235]geofree[/MENTION]'s position is that every instance of land ownership is a monopoly. He is using the word monopoly incorrectly.

 

Clueless? I'll allow you to keep making a stooge of yourself with your criticism.

I didn't state there was causation....reading is a skill. But the investment gap (more and better investments) is one of many factors, while you keep focusing 100% on labor. Here's a hint. The middle class overspends on big homes which means big mortgages. They overspend on fancy cars with big car loans. They overspend on vacations. They overspend on yada yada. If middle classers would live a modest life and invest their hard earned money they could grow their wealth exponentially. They choose not to.....they instead want to keep up with the Joneses.

But don't let me stop you.....feel free to keep (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and moaning about how the deck is stacked against everybody who isn't rich.

 

So in your fantasy perfect world everyone's wealth can grow exponentially.

There's an "infinite supply", and there is no reason why !

Your hypothesis is simplistic nonsense.

I wont list off all the ridiculously nonsensical assumptions inherent in your inane and ignorant argument but here are a few:

1) Wealth is infinite
2) Stock markets and other investments never lose value
3) All folks have access to income potential that well exceeds survival needs such that they can invest
4) That no collusion or anti competitive forces exist
5) I did not even mention labor in my previous post never mind focus 100% on it Nice Straw man
6) That the wealthy start on an equal playing field with someone born into abject poverty

What an bunch of ignorant twaddle.

 

Expand your horizons a bit and substitute the word "oligopoly" instead of monopoly.

Also the term "monopolization" does not necessarily imply monopoly.

Regardless, there are all kinds of various oligopolies that operate to stifle competition, influence regulation and tax laws, and who engage in anti competitive behaviour and price fixing which has a net result of detracting from the free market and generating a form of indentured slavery.

One relatively modern aberration is the fusion of oligopoly with bureaucracy in this country. This is a particularly ugly and insidious Beast. In fact I call it "The Beast".

The Beast has a number of heads and has huge influence. Every time a tax law, or regulation is made the Beast is sitting at the table - an it should be allowed to have a seat. The problem is that often the seat that is supposed to be representing "we the people" is empty or filled with someone who is in the pocket of the beast. It is not like every decisions goes the way of the beast but over time, table after table, decision after decision, the Beast skews the game in its favor.

Insider trading is legal for Congress. They can sit on a committee which allocates contracts to a company and then invest in that company (along with their buddies- nudge nudge wink wink) prior to the news hitting the street. Sure there is a voice of integrity here and there calling out this practise for what it is. No worries, that little voice (think of Horton hears a who) is easily drowned out by the cacophony on the take.

The Beast is not some cabal or some star chamber. The Beast comes naturally out of the structure and is based on self serving nature and greed of the individual or rather the mass of individuals.

The publically traded company is a tool of the Beast. Over time the sole purpose of these institutions is to squeeze as many pennies as it can out of the worker even at the risk of its own demise. The bigger the company gets the more power the bean counters get until they start making decisions simply on the basis of a financial sheet. Take for example the recent deaths due to faulty parts in cars. The folks on the floor knew of the problem but the bean counters over-ruled the folks that knew what they were doing.

In many industries you there are only a few companies you can work for. This stops employees from leaving the company in search of higher pay. Even if they do leave the two companies will be structured similarly thus artificially reducing wage competition.

The Beast has many heads. One such monster is the Military/Defense Oligopoly. This is a massive monster that eats up 1 Trillion dollars a year of our hard earned money. (Up from 350 Billion in 2000)

If we could have put a leash on that beast at 350 Billion (perhaps increasing with inflation at 3% annually) that would have freed up roughly 550 Billion dollars over 14 years = 8 Trillion that could have been used for infrastructure, technology and building a new economy.

Instead this money was diverted to filling the pockets of defense contractors and civil servants. We have retired generals interviewed by the mass media propaganda machine (Oligopoly) telling us "We need to go to war" .. " We need to prepare for War" knowing that even when the truth comes out that these Generals had a serious conflict of interest being paid lobbyists and that the network failed to mention this conflict of interest, nothing will happen.

The raging masses are far to ignorant or apathetic to notice and the few voices that do notice are drowned out by the cacophony of ignorance and silenced by the media propaganda machine.

We have clown puppet Presidents standing up and telling us that it is our Patriotic duty to give up our individual rights and freedoms (Think Patriot Act).

You think there is a difference between red and blue ? Think again. Both serve the Oligopolies.

Obama walked the exact same line as Bush telling us "If we want increased security, we have to give a little" justifying NSA spying and the head of the NSA who lied to congress but never was even punished never mind losing his job.

The raging masses are far to ignorant to realize that this is the age old trick of totalitarian regimes.

The founders knew this trick "using fear of a foreign threat to take away rights and freedoms" Compare the above Obama quote to Ben Franklin "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty or security"

You think Obama does not know this ? The ignorant raging masses of course do not but 100% Obama does. Yet, the disingenuous little clown puppet said what he said knowing he was full of BS.

Stalin used fear of a foreign threat to take away rights and freedoms calling it "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler did the same calling is program "Fatherland Security"
Bush, lacking the brains to come up with a unique name "Homeland Security" and of course it became our Patriotic duty to give up the rights and freedoms for which our forefathers sacrificed their lives.

Read the Declaration of Independence. The reason those folks were fighting was to set up a system where "we the people" had authority over the Government and not the reverse. The whole point of putting individual rights and freedoms "ABOVE" the power of the Government (endowed by the Creator) was to stop the Government from taking these rights and freedoms away.

Enshrining individual rights and freedoms is not there to protect us against Osama Bin Ladin. They are to protect us from the Government.

So what is this risk of harm that is so great that we should give up these rights and freedoms ?

The risk of harm to a US citizen from terrorism is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "WALKING". The various arguments trying to justify taking away our rights are so fallacious and stupid it is not even funny but, how are the masses to know.

12 years of school and nary a kid can tell you what a logical fallacy is. The basics of philosophy - logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument ...Where on earth would we have the time to teach that useless stuff in only 12 years of school.

This is the work of the Beast !

Another big head is Healthcare. There's another Trillion dollars. Somehow we manage to have no universal healthcare like every other first world country but manage to spend more than any of these other countries ?

How the frick is that possible? We pay more but offer less. These other countries healthcare systems are grossly inefficient bloated government bureaucracies. How the heck does our efficient private system come even close to spending what they do, never mine more ?

ding ding ding..... ding ding ding.... ding ding ding ... Its called price fixing and anti competitive labor practices.

I have ranted a long time, too long really, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

And that's something we've been easing into ever since the birth of the Central Bank, fiat currency and Big Government in the early TwenCen.

 

Are you really incapable of understanding the difference in impact on other people between owning a product of labor like a car and owning an area of the surface of the earth?

 

1 landowner with an enormous amount of highly valuable land
10 landowners with the same total amount of highly valuable land as the one landowner
50 landowners with the same total amount of highly valuable land as the one landowner

The land yields the same amount of rent.

On the other hand

1 car manufacturer
10 car manufacturers
50 car manufacturers

Higher competition improves quality of the product and drives down price.


Ownership of land is always a monopoly. It always automatically gives you a stranglehold over the market. The area of our planet is not produced. That's how simple it is.

 

To say that a private landowner, say guy who owns a house and yard, is a monopolist is inaccurate. Owning something doesn't make one a monopolist. They aren't synonyms.

- - - Updated - - -

What does your rant have to to with the fact that [MENTION=13235]geofree[/MENTION] is using the term "monopoly" incorrectly. Any ownership does not equate to monopoly. Some guy who owns a house and a yard doesn't have a monopoly over anything.

 

I'm not surprised that you dodge my question and immediately try to shift attention to "house and yard". Owning land is inherently a monopoly, no matter how much or how little one owns. You just, as usual, have no clue whatsoever what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, or 50 owners of the exact same amount of land. It yields the same rent. There inherently is no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing competition between producers in the land market. Because it's not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing product. Get that through your skull.

It's a monopoly by default. And even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't make a difference with regards to the impact it has on others, which is the truly important part.

Now, I ask again: Are you really incapable of understanding the difference in impact on other people between owning a product of labor like a car and owning an area of the surface of the earth? Do you not see it?

 

In answer to your question: No.

Can you please provide your working definition of monopoly? And then can you explain how a family who owns a house on a quarter acre hold any sort of monopoly?

 

Sure.

Monopoly is a family board game trademarked by Hasbro. When that family plays that board game they endeavour to hold a monopoly on that quarter acre of land.

How was that- do you understand now?

 

And the USA has operated under a more hybrid system all along.

We've never been purely socialist nor purely capitalist.

 

No, landownership is a monopoly. That is why land can be taxed at 100% of its rental value without effecting supply.

-------------

"But all these other monopolies are trivial compared with the monopoly of land. The value of land expresses a monopoly, pure and simple..."

"Land value expresses the exchange value of monopoly. It is not in any way the creation of the individual who owns the land. It is created by the growth of the community.
Hence, the community can take it all without reducing the incentive to improvement, and without decreasing the production of wealth. Taking the entire rent in taxes will not reduce the wages of labor or the reward of capital one iota. Nor will it increase the price of a single commodity. It will not make production more difficult in any way."

-- Henry George

------------

"Control of natural resources: A prime source of monopoly power is the control of resources that are critical to the production of a final good"

– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

-------------

"It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly ... In fact, you may say that the unearned increment on the land is on all fours with the profit gathered by one of those American speculators who engineer a corner in corn, or meat, or cotton, or some other vital commodity, and that the unearned increment in land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. It is monopoly which is the keynote, and where monopoly prevails the greater the injury to society the greater the reward to the monopolist will be."

– Winston Churchill

 

Can you please provide your working definition of monopoly? And then can you explain how a family who owns a house on a quarter acre hold any sort of monopoly?

 

This is simple and has already been pointed out. If one man owns the whole world (earth) he is a land monopolist. If one person owns the northern hemisphere and another man the southern hemisphere, they are both land monopolists over their respective halves of the earth. Keep dividing the land and keep adding owners does nothing to change the fact that those who own land are monopolists.

Do you have some arbitrary level at which you want to suddenly declare that a monopoly suddenly doesn't exist? Sure, some peoples monopoly over land is trivial … but that still doesn't make it not a monopoly.

 

Ok, first things first. Can you please provide your working definition of monopoly?

 

communism its a party!!!

 

In the context of this argument, a single provider of a location on earth.

Examples:

1) I want to build my business on the south-east corner of I-50 and HWY 45, and the only way I can have that location is to buy/lease it from the land monopolist who currently owns it.

2) I want to drill an oil well at location [X],[Y],[Z], and the only way I can have that location is to buy/lease it from the land monopolist who currently owns it.

3) I want to build a 100 acre farm anywhere in the state of Alabama, and the only way I can have any part of that location is to buy/lease it from the land monopolist who currently owns it.

See, I can go to five different car dealerships and get identical Corvettes (only the VIN #'s would be different) but there is no identical location on earth. Each location has a single provider, and that provider is the land monopolist who currently owns it.