... and welfare income based on the number of children you can crank out.
While that cartoon has a point, it is one of those (like most) political statements that relies on a half truth, ignoring the other half.
Every time I come into the politics forums I just think that the great rhetoricians of the past must watch us debate the health of the U.S. and cry a little at the opportunity we still have--it's not dead yet--but that we squander with an increasing dedication to "winning" through wit and popularity rather than genuine problem solving.
In the forums I'll happily go with wit and winning!
The only problems I ever see solved here is sometimes a hubber will lose it and get banned.
I think it is interesting that you find that witty. I think it is rather dull witted and obvious. Two characteristics of things that are not funny.
MIGHTY MOM DOES IT AGAIN! One itsy bitsy funny thing and everyone goes crazy.
The welfare on how much children you can crank our is very relevant in South Africa where I live. Very often that is all entire families have to survive on!
The first public schools, that is schools open to the public, were established by the Catholic Bishop of Baltimore. "WALL OF SEPARATION, OH MAY"
The first hospitals for the public were established by private charities. "PRIVATE CHARITY HOSPITALS, OH MY" (private charity hospitals are subjected to a tax under Obamacare)
A a single payer health care system meets the definition of socialist medicine just as Social Security is a socialist program. It takes something from everyone who works and doles it out more or less equally - how is that not socialist?
Shouldn't people be caustious about socialism? It worked so well for the USSR and it appears it is about to work as well for China.
Neither the USSR nor China are socialist countries. Yes, I am aware that the second "S" in USSR stands for "socialist" but China's official name is the "People's Republic of China." Is it a republic? They are/were communist. There is a big difference between communism and socialism.
Another error: The first public school in the Americas was Boston Latin School, which opened in 1635.
Most countries in the world have health care as a right guarenteed in their constitutions.
So you would prefer a constitution that tells you what your rights are as opposed to one that tells the government what its limitations are. You see, the American Constitution was to make the power of government definite and finite. It has since become indefinite and infinite. This cannot happen and retain the natural rights of the individual - which are, by their nature, indefinite and infinite. It requires a tyrannical state to enumerate the rights of the people.
A constitution that tells you what your rights are tells you that you are not free.
@undermyhat: I can't help but be encouraged by your reply. If you read our Constitution, it specifies that we have certain GOD GIVEN rights...not Big Brother's opinion on what you rights are/should be. For example: the right to free speech, as in GOD gave you the brain that thinks, and the mouth to express that thinking. As we are doing now!!!
Now and then I hear my American neighbours quoting their Constitution as saying their rights are "God given". A question that occurs to me at such time is, if your rights are already given by God, who presumably is the the eternally existent God that rules the heavens and the earth, why is it necessary to point out that they are also in a document that was written a couple hundred years ago by a group of mortals?
Hey are you trying to be logical and rational? How dare you!
niteriter: You miss the point of GOD GIVEN and it is expressed in the Constitution for a few reasons,
1:The king of England believed our rights came from HIM, not God, He was wrong.
2: People like yourself have to be reminded regularly that our rights are natural and given by God, so when someone takes liberties with our rights we feel a lose of power within ourselves.
3:The only way to keep people free and free thinking is to occasionally remind them of the freedom they possess, We do need reminding that WE hold power through choice and action, those are not given by any government but is something we are born with, hence God given. We need only exercise it to feel the freedom of choice and the power of controlling our own destiny.
4: God granted us the brains to know not everyone has our best interests in heart, so he gave us the ability to make and use tools, not just to make great things but to make weapons to defend ourselves from greedy usurpers and those who would make slaves of those that are weaker or dumber. Now granted some people have, throughout history, done their best to impose their opinion on others and eventually the oppression is overturned, not once in history, but again and again. This I think is due to that tickle of liberty that God has given us to be free and responsible for our actions and lives.
Your "God" is just another concept (like democracy) thought up by a Bronze Age civilization. Ironically you don't have the "freedom" of mind to understand that fact. You know a bit of history but, evidently, not enough.
So the Declaration of Independence was written in the Bronze Age?
Where did I say anything about the "The Declaration of Independence? "Democracy" comes from the Greeks — a Bronze Age civilization.
Do you see how you just conflated the ideas with sloppy thinking? That's the problem with jumping to ridiculous conclusions from partial information.
The notion of Natural Law and God given rights of the citizen don't date from the Bronze age or maybe I am wrong. I am sure you are right.
Not to mention the monkey-like compulsion to start quoting an irrelevant two hundred year old document at every little bump in the road.
If it seems irrelevant it's because neither party we have here will actually uphold it.
I'm supposed to be back at work, JS. Now you and Brother Shannon just quit dragging me back in here! And I meant no disrespect to your Constitution. I was just taunting the great minds on here who keep contradicting themselves. (You're not one of them, by the way.)
Wizard, I see that you have no desire to debate but to play troll and snipe at those more informed and quite possibly smarter than yourself. Insults do not make for a comment worth any response but you I see need to be put in your place as a person who wishes to demean and discourage any kind of descent. Please when commenting about anything I say actually place your ignorance in the background and keep your elite lack of education to yourself. Progressives like you, and I know you are one, I have been reading your blathering for a while, are looking for nothing more than a moment to measure your penile fortitude against those who have no desire to play that game. I expect you to respond in some infantile way as that is your MO or better yet as I have proven myself so easily your better you remain silent.
Thanks, Brother, for your projections and evasion of a valid point. I find it telling and typical that a true-believer in "God" would be so aggressive and belligerent after lecturing someone on "freedom" and "God." Hypocrisy is always fun to witness!
Wow, Brother Shannon, you're really on a roll now! I see you lack the ability to put together a recognizably structured sentence, you have my sympathies for that. But, Brother Shannon, I am shocked and dismayed at your presumptive inclinations toward a fellow Hubber. From where did you obtain the authority to be putting Brother Wizard in his place? And where is his place exactly?
Just for clarification Brother Shannon, did you mean dissent as in challenge and disagreement, or descent as in the passing from higher to lower?
In some vast rhetorical venn diagram those two words over lap - probably at Hubpages Forums.
Actually the king of England thought he was the preordained ruler by god (The divine right to rule) and thus his word was the delivered word of god, a definition some disagreed with sure but he still believed the rights were god given.
Brother Shannon, you are a prize.
"People like yourself..."? What kind of people are you talking about?
"not given by any government..." That's what I said. Oh wait, maybe your enjoy the the little sticks the corporations use to prod you into the life they want you to live.
And the question remains: If you know your rights are given by God, why do you need to bring up the words of a few rich mortals from a couple hundred years ago?
Much like sacrament, which is a reminder of your agreements made with God. The Constitution is a document affirming our rights from God and of what the government CANNOT DO!!. The only reason some of our rights are spelled out is that they are addressed as counterpoints to what the King was trying to infringe upon ( which he was doing at the behest of a corporation mind you). Things like due process, freedom of speech, and freedom OF religion, ( not freedom FROM religion) not to mention the the ability to defend ones self, are GOD GIVEN, and in this country it is recognized as such and the Constitution is an affirmation of that, as well as a rulebook of what our government cannot do, like infringe ( or take away) our God given rights. If the government gave it to you they can take it way, like a drivers license.
In this video a man playing a bum says it best and I cannot say it better so I simply ask that you watch it. It pretty much sums up and defeats any counter you have in reference to " rich mortals" writing the Constitution. Also remember that those same mortal men, as many do today, defended even your freedom 200 plus years in the past, so you can today say what you say:
I stated "people like yourself " because, if you and people like you, have to ask the questions like that you obviously don't know history or the reason why this country was founded. The question speaks for its self.
Try listening to a guy named Mike Church on Sirius, He's all about explaining the constitution and how today's government is breaking it regularly. It's just a hunch but I am confident you won't even make it through the video, if you do, I am happy to be wrong...
The reason we speak of those who came before is that they spoke with a passion and an understanding of what it is like to NOT have these rights respected, and much like looking to the Bible for guidance today, what those mortal men said so many years ago still are, in a spooky way, relevant. 200 plus years ago the actions of our government (today) were predicted by Patric Henry and others, that is why the limits exist in the Constitution, not for us but for the Government, and the fact that you have to ask explains why we must look back to then and them for answers. To know history is to learn from it, ignore it at your peril.
Brother Shannon, it's so good to see you still have your quill and inkpot at hand. Please grant me these few moments to respond to the brightest jewels in your post:
1. Anti-government paranoia - such a new concept from you freedom lovers. But then I guess you come by it honestly since your government ripped freedom from the hands of the Native American tribes who had inhabited the land before their arrival. I guess the poor aboriginals should have thought to write a Constitution. How careless of them.
2. I agree that a man playing a bum can say things better than you.
3. I'm sorry to have to point out a gap in your considerable knowledge. Your defenders of freedom tried to remove mine from me in 1812... exactly 200 years ago!
4. Why, Brother Shannon, I am shocked that would presume to know the extent of my larnin'.
5. Again, I really don't relish shattering your confidence but I did make it all the way through the video. It's amazing how some people can stay focused for a whole five minutes at a time.
6. What a shame; you don't even know how to spell the name of your hero.
7. Yes, your admonishment is a great point. You were taking notice as you wrote it, right?
The phrase "God-given" just means "natural." When people talk about having "God-given rights" they are simply talking about their "natural rights" (those rights that were initially theorized by 18th-century philosopher John Locke.) I dislike it when people dismiss someone's argument simply because they use the term "God-given." It often changes important arguments into petty ones.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"
Jefferson was schooled in Natural Law Theory and used the language of it. It is always petty to choke on the phrase because its root is the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America - not relevant to everyone(or is it) But the Enlightenment ideas it reflects have informed even Canada's laws.
I thought the first public school was Harvard.
I see your comment wasn't addressed "The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont and was later moved to School Street. Boys from various socio-economic backgrounds attended Boston Latin School until 1972 when girls were also accepted."
http://www.cityofboston.gov/freedomtrai … public.asp
Whether Russia or Chin are socialist depends on the broader meaning of socialism. They were both founded in social theory at least, you know - the theory that pointed out to people who were little more than slaves that 1% of the population had everything and happily watched them starve and their kids die of easily cured deseases.
But hey - that old wheel of ignorance just keeps turning, and now you guys have to hitch a ride with the remains of the USSR to the space station that the USSR mainly put up there, and you depend on China to bail you guys out financially to prevent you crashing to third world status just by over-spending. On balance captialsim is'nt doing so good except for your fat cats that would have been called barons a short while ago.
The reason China is becoming so prosperous is because of the capitalisation of their economy. Businesses want to base there because regulations are less strict and there is, on balance, more economic freedom. In the height of the USSR and communist China, nothing was being produced (well, they did make some good movies), and only through trusting in freedom to a fair degree they have regained some standing in the world. Socially though, both Russia and China are behind.
There is nothing like capitalism to be seen in the western world, only this twisted form of corporate fascism that is the furthest thing from a free-market - a free market that would tend to the needy and sick where a government can not.
I disagree. I think Russia right now is what you get with an unfettered free market. China controls their economy very tightly. Yes, regulations are less strict, such as workplace safety, etc., but I wouldn't say they have economic freedom.
WHY are you guys praising the pseudo-commie nations of China and Russia?
You do realize that these are very poor countries.
The average Mexican is twice as wealthy as the average Chinese, should we copy Mexico's political system.
Per capita income in Russia $12,993
Per capita income in the U.S. $43, 387!!!
If we continue to export jobs and technology we will soon acquire a standard equal if not less than those we sell it to.
You do understand that the countries with the freest trade are also the most prosperous and those with the most restrictive are the poorest. Who produces hammered brass decorations? Check Pier One Imports - they aren't wealthy countries. Should we not export hammered brass manufacturing? Countires that are poor make everything they consume - trade creates wealth.
It isn't until the explosion of trade following the Age of Discovery that economies actually grew. The most static economies are the poorest. Dynamic economies are wealthy economies and dynamism is messy, chaotic, destructive,empowering, liberating, inspiring and creative.
Old methods of production must be destroyed in favor of new ones, failing to do so destroys prosperity. Exporting jobs is a part of a dynamic economy.
Countries that practice free trade also live in greater peace.
"If trade does not cross borders, armies will.' Bastiat
Your theories and conjecture is based on a free and open trade policy with the countries trading. Unfortunately the trade is more and more the technology and not the items manufactured. For instance GM has opened plants in China to manufacture the products that if made in the US would be cost prohibitive. This is by Chinese mandate. Who profits from this when it is the most lucrative trading item we can export. In the meantime China exports items of low quality to the US that need double the replacement that quality items would incur. American companies are driven out of the marketplace by these cheap imposters because other companies partake of the shortsale using their American name to push the sale. I know this because I manufacture in China. You have to play the game to survive. Your general push towards this trade imbalance make it more and more difficult for US companies to compete because of the slave wages being paid in China for equal work in the US. The only way competition can be equalized is to reduce the cost of wages or mechanize everything possible or go out of buisiness and ship the job overseas which leaves the US worker unemployed.
As a social compliance auditor and consultant in China I object to your statement about slave labour.
Most Chinese companies pay low wages, not slave wages. Low is a subjective term. When an isolated rural village earns in total less than 20,000 Yuan per annum - a one year contract can send a worker back home with at least 10,000 Yuan - a small amount even here, but in his or her village that is retirement material.
If you manufacture here and pay slave wages then the shame is all on you.
Foxconn Technology Group has workers beating down their doors for jobs. Poor is relative, low is relative. China's economy may be in trouble because of distortions caused by priorities set by the government but the people of China certainly benefit from the wages paid by all kinds of foreign companies.
Yes they do - except that workers who must earn to keep their families are not the same as fat US workers who may or may not work if they choose. Foxconn can increase their wages and the working conditions by the application of less than 1% of the profit Apple and co. make from them - from one of the biggest profit makers that is shameful.
From where I sit in China the economy is in anything but trlouble, I guess your telescope is the wrong way around old chap.
Low in China is comparatively slave wages here. If you wish to comingle the economies for a point then you must take into account the relativity of the two being compared. And if you are some sort of arbitrator in this cluster flop then shame on you for a such a cacofony of misleading unrelated items.
Not confusing but a bit perplexed about perspective. My point is that you cannot trade equally with an economy that lives at a different standard. It happens all the time here in the US when you see gas prices more in one area than in others. The taxes may be the big difference with most but so is the relative wage structure and living standard to be able to pay the prices asked.
I don't think that is what we were talking about - it is the almost obscene millions of dollars profit made by Apple from which only a part of a percentage increase in what they pay the people making their products would put right all the complaints at Foxconn
And what happens if Chinese workers want to form a union?
Were there police car poopers and rapists at Tiananmen? How about window smashers, drug dealers and exhibitionists? How about bridge bomb conspirators? How about those receiving love from Communist and Nazi Parties? How about pushing journalists around? I don't remember much violence by the students in Tiananmen - I do remember one of them crushed under the treads of a PEOPLE"S LIBERATION ARMY tank.
OWS and the subsequent rash of off shot protests were little more than the usual idiots who think that their childish tantrums, the ones that their hippie parents tolerated, are fit for public display. Attention seekers seeking attention is pathetic at best and acting if you can get paid for it.
Article 30 of the Chinese Labor Laws :-
The trade union shall have the right to air its opinions if it regards as inappropriate the revocation of a labour contract by the employer. If the employer violates laws, regulations or labour contracts, its trade union shall have the right to ask for handling the case anew. If labourers apply for arbitration or raise lawsuits, the trade union shall render support and help in accordance with law.
No one owns jobs, and there is a little thing called competitive advantage, that you should read up on.
You know who doesn't export jobs and technology, North Korea. Surely they must be better off.
Always the gutt punch when you don't understand the point being made. Afraid of the unknown so place your fear right out there. What a shame because you seem to be an educated and knowledgeable person only caught up in some sort of preconcieved prejudice of theories and conjecture.
To expand the conversation you must be open to the thought before the training takes over.
Do you think this dribble is funny or is it an attempt to insult me with arm chair economic theories? It is funny how the people who are not cognizant of the deterioration of quality jobs that started with NAFTA and such are so quick to point out that the jobs lost were too low a level job to consider as a loss and therefor the service oriented jobs that need to be filled will suffice the population. What is even funnier is that the highly educated workforce that we are turning out of college are not qualified to even fill blue collar jobs that employers are in need of.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155837962 … up-on-math
The ignorance you allude too speaks volumes to the fact that we are rated 27th in the world in math skills. Maybe the South Park reference is the best you can come up with but someday at the rate we are going a tomato picking job may equal your salary with the jobs that will be open for the so called educated.
Yeah people with a bachelor's in anthropology, are known for their exorbitant salaries.
I know I'll probably be never be rich, most likely lower middle class, but I'm not going to blame NAFTA, China, "Ilegals", or the "Corporations".
Its my fault, my interests don't overlap with fields that are highly remunerated.
You're right at least communism is not an arm chair economic theory, its more of a send people to the gulag, execute them and throw them in a ditch, forcefully "re-educate" people, type of theory.
You really must learn to not accept extreme conditions as the only result from which you can stand on. This country is not just one thing. For example the country is founded as a democratic republic that operates under a capitalistic model. There are contradictory elements strewn all around that statement and it just doesn't begin the complexities that are involved in operating such a system. To extricate one element from any of that would upset the whole balance. And if any element of that is at the forfront to the exclusion of any of the others it would have the same affect. Just because something is not a freedom to your understanding, it doesn't make it communism or socialism. The extreme references in your answers are really a distraction and limit your understanding to fully engulf the reasoning.
This is as preposterous as me setting one person up on a cliff face with a hammer and a team of builders on a piece of flat ground then ask them to build a house, if the team on the flat ground with the good tools build it faster it means their system is better right? of course not.
Socialism and communism only occur in countries that are in extreme poverty (look for an example to the contrary) be it China or the USSR or Cuba or most of South America when conditions under capitalism are no longer bearable revolution occurs and the system changes but it takes over a country which is already in dire economic straits. Therefore what we should be looking at is not how much money do they have right now but how fast are they growing in real GDP terms. Like communist Mongolia which grew 11.5% last year, Turkmenistan (socialist) which grew 9.9%, Argentina (socialist) 8.8%, Laos (communist) 8.3%, Bhutan (communist) 8.1% etc. etc. etc.
"Socialism and communism only occur in countries that are in extreme poverty "
couldn't another explanation for this correlation be that socialism causes poverty?
No because revolutions to socialism and communism occur only during extreme poverty, the poverty is pre-existent and thus has nothing to do with the socialism/communism.
Really the most perfect case study so far occurs in Korea.
The country was arbitrarily divided into North and South Korea. One communist and one capitalist. The results are clear.
The North Korean economy is glorious.
tiny carbon foot print
a vast vegitarian population
no evil bankes
no evil insurance companies
no hand guns(in the wrong hands)
LOL! No one can accuse you of looking only at the negative side of a situation! Please excuse me now, I'm off to apply for citizenship in NK. And it's your fault!
Yes and the North Koreans are so happy, just look at how they wept following the death of their "dear leader"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … reets.html
Ohhh, Daily Mail, such an authoritative source...
Which is weird considering how most political analysts consider it to be a far right wing state. I recommend reading "The cleanest race" by Brian Myers
LMFAO you communists/socialists are hopeless.
It's a waste of time talking to you guys, you're to caught up in a cult with Marx as your prophet and the "Che" as your virgin mary.
Weird thing is I don't even like Marx.
But hey it's cool you can just go with generally accepted knowledge instead of investigating facts, it happens that North Korea's leadership is pushing nationalism, racial supremacy,homophobia, set gender roles and hereditary privilege (in the leadership) something you might just barely think to be inconsistent with a system whose main premise is absolute equality (some would say beyond reason) and international working brotherhood, don't strain that brain now
A statist government has nothign to do with conservatism and so I am completely unconcerned with what North Korea is called - it is what they call themselves.
No I agree, I did not suggest it is conservative, conservatism is right wing but North Korea is not conservative (obviously) it is fascist (perhaps, I just think people should think about it) according to people who study the NK state (not really my field) it's using communism as a cover to staying in power and have convinced the citizens they have communism when they do not.
Yes, their economic woes have nothing whatsoever to do with sanctions either...
Not actually at all relevant to the discussion, we were arguing whether poverty cause the rise of socialism or communism.
Sweden. Socialist, yet is among the highest in life expectency, per capita income, literacy, etc. And they've been putting out a lot of good books lately. And then there's: http://www.swedishbikiniteam.com/
Sweden isn't socialist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N … -nightmare
Even Sweden's actual socialists gave up on rent controlled housing -OVER FORTY YEARS AGO - NYC is more socialist than Sweden
A free housing market always has a surplus - an available reserve of empty apartments. We call such a market a buyer's market because the buyer has the upper hand. The normal situation in such a market can be said to be that a hundred house owners compete for each tenant. In such a market even a poor family has opportunities of finding and renting a flat. According to a housing census from the free market of 1940 (see above) 97 percent of all married couples had dwellings of their own at that time. In such a market landlords are often put in a choice situation with only two alternatives: to leave apartments empty or to accept poor families with children as tenants. Under such conditions the last is often chosen.
A deficit market, on the other hand, is always a seller's market. The normal situation in the present Swedish housing market is that a hundred homeless potential tenants compete for every vacant dwelling. These hundred include both families with children and single persons. Heavily squeezed between the demands of the tenants for repairs on the one hand and the reduced rental income due to the rent control, it is understandable if the landlords in many cases show a preference for single persons. Wear and tear—and repair costs—will be smaller with single tenants than with families.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ … ;Itemid=27
:lol:lol: It always really makes me laugh when a right winger points a finger at a suffering economy and suggests it's because they are socialists.(when so often they are not) Then points the finger at a winning economy and suggests that thier success is due to capitalism, when they are clearly an economy led by socialist ideas. Still laughing...
No. These countries were poor. The people were poor. Now they are less poor.
I wasn't praising either of them. Russia is a mess, all but controlled by organized crime, and China is... well... where should I begin? A deplorable human rights record, currency manipulation giving them an unfair advantage over free nations, zero environmental protections, etc.
You are out of date twosheds - their human rights are ahead of the US if you include the sl;aughter and mayhem that you engage in around the world. Environmentally they had a huge clean up 20 years ago that continues now, while you still have not paid out for the mess you made in Bhupal with Union Carbide. And the latest outcry over Chinese working conditions is at factories owned by Apple and several other American companies - who still have not fixed the situation.
Currency manipulation the dollar has been the biggest manipulated currency in the world for so long it is institutionalised.
And China is bailing out you guys with trillions in loans.
Don't be embarrassed to praise china, there is a long way to go until they have their whole population (one quarter of the words population by the way) up to speed, however if you want to criticise all the real things wrong here then there is a big issue - because on almost every count you guys are doing worse.
recommend1 how much is the Communist government paying you, to be a China apologist.
Human rights ahead of the US? How many unions are there in China? How are Christians doing in China? Um, do we really want to start talking about Tibet? How about Ai Weiwei? Or Liu Xia? Gao Zhisheng? When you go to the doctor, do you pay someone to stand in line for you? How much of Hub Pages is censored? Can you even view this web site: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wo … 2012-china
I am well aware of the suffering the US has caused, and I strongly and vocally oppose it, but using the tu quoque logical fallacy doesn't change the fact that China's human rights record is deplorable and indefensible.
China is constructed behind a screen and what we see is the shadow that the central committe of the communist party wants us to see. The cracks in China's economy are begining to show. The central purpose of business in China is to produce sufficient prosperity to protect the central committee from potential revolution.
It is only a matter of time before the slow down in China's economy is finally obvious.
Hard to argue with a declining America scenario except to identify the cause. As the Federal government over stepped its responsibility and stripped from the individual the responsibility for his own well being, the decline started. It is the cost of establishing a government preserve for the millionis of state wards who must be fed, housed, clothed, educated and maintained removing from them their own responsibilty to do these things.
As the welfare state, in all its iteration - including Obamacare - grows freedom must contract. The decline of America will continue as long as Americans believe that they have a legitimate right to have the Federal government confiscate the private property of one citizen to award it to them. It is the divorce of work from survival that is destrooying America. But that is the ultimate goal of collectivists like Obama. People who dwell on the Federal preserve are much easier to control.
I'm a little confused as to why you would urge caution against socialism when your supporting examples are of countries that experimented with communism.
Was Marx a socialist? or a Communist? Was Lenin, Mao, Castro Marxist or Socialist or Communist? Not much difference - centrally direct economies don't work for long.
I don't think right now is a great time for you folks who sing "America the Beautiful" with such gusto to be criticizing the economic systems of other countries. Not to mention that you're exhibiting a poor understanding of socialism's concept and aims.
Wow, that's it. The EU is a basket case held up only by inertia and Germany. The cracks are starting to show in the Chinese screen. Japan has been limping for decades. The Vilnius 11 are suffering because the Euro is proving to be an over valued Deutsche Mark. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain and now Belgium are in so much trouble they can't afford to buy the letters to spell trouble. Italy will crash the Euro. Greece will go back on the Drachma.
And all you have is that.
Socialism is good in its theories and aims(though I do not agree) but how is it in practice? Why do you think the EU is a basket case? Too much or too little socialism? Or could it be that the EU is too dependent on a handful of counties for it prosperity, not the least of which is the US. And our problem is too much socialism - just to get that out there.
I think the problem in the US is too much capitalism. Your country is not in trouble because too many poor people got a few tax dollars to but food or medicine. It's in trouble because big corporations are gobbling up tax dollars as blackmail to retain domestic jobs or as bailout funds when the realities of capitalism aren't going in their favor. Not to mention that your leaders, even one of the contenders for the Presidency, are playing dirty tricks to avoid making tax contributions to the very economy from which they are obtaining their riches.
I don't mean to be mean-spirited. After reading my previous comment it seems that I may have come across that way. If I did, sorry. I see a lot of value in a mixed economy, a mixture of capitalism and socialism. It is my belief that those who are at the top of the capitalist system are preventing any form of socialism to get a fair shot at proving its value. Capitalism alone certainly has its blemishes.
Tell me about what has happened in Canada in the last few years. Isn't it a shift away from old more socialist priorities that is driving a good economy?
By the way, I do not take things as mean spirited on here - it is just talk. Besides, I have yet to meet a genuinely mean Canadian - I suspect you only let them out for hockey games.
Just to butter you up a little. Canada is about the best neighbor a country could ask for, the US is lucky. I am not sure enough Americans or American politicians appreciate it.
There is a major difference between "capitalism" and socialism. One is a system, defined and designed. The other is an organism.
The problem here is you don't know what socialism is. Canada is not socialist, hail the great aid to debate, the dictionary:
A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
we are looking at the top definition and there we can see very clearly that neither Canada nor the vast majority of Europe is actually socialist they are just liberal. (Belarus is communist/socialist).
For countries that are actually socialist/communist we should look at how they are growing.
Mongolia (communist) 2011 real GDP growth: 11.5%
Argentina (semi socialist and rapidly becoming fully socialist) 2011 real GDP: 8.5%
Turkmenistan (socialist) 2011 real GDP growth: 9.9%
Laos (communist) 2011 real GDP growth: 8.3%
just to list a few, in the modern era socialist and communist states are succeeding economically the vast majority of the time and in impressive fashion.
Invisibility is a cool theory - can we have that? Belarus is run by a hardliner - I think he might scare Vlady alittle - nice example. When your economy is in shambles any up looks good - hence the turn toward a garbage system like socialism. Once the 8% growth is done and real a real economy begins what will they do with the naturally occurring rich people. It always happens, those willing to make sacrifices, employ more brain and muscle power, are more creative, more driven and more ambitious invariably accumulate more property.
What do good socialists to then? Kill them, prosecute and jail them, bury them in taxes until they stop being productive or just quit being Turkmeni or Laotian or Argentine.
Or here, call them names, tell them that the product of their individual human uniqueness is because some city planner built a road in front of their shop, blah, blah, blah Obama blah.
There are no two humans exactly alike, Marx was a bitter, loser fool who let his family starve than blamed everyone else - especially Jews and socialism is garbage - or at best - a plank in the Democrat Party Platform.
I didn't say I supported these countries i just pointed out they were working economically.
"Real economy" let me guess not your field right? As an economist let me tell you that the period of growth after an economy in shambles is recovering is the hardest period of growth because there is no infrastructure, no industry and no work ethic.
There are systems to prevent the growth of inequality, it would take too long to explain here so just read some socialist texts if you are interested (I suspect you are not).
Marx lived in wealth supported by his rich wife so you are a bit off there... Socialism is also far older than Marx who invented not socialism but communism (also he didn't entirely invent it).
In his early London years, the family was very poor. His wife had to pawn her
jewelry to pay the rent. Sometimes Marx could not even leave his lodgings because his
suit was at the pawnbrokers. His wife, Jenny von Westphalen, a charming aristocratic
woman who lived with Karl through thick and thin, suffered through grinding poverty
because her husband was not much of a provider.
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/KAR … ARXISM.pdf
"My house is a hospital and the crisis is so disrupting that it requires all my
attention. My wife is ill, Jennychen is ill and Lenchen has a kind of nervous fever.
I couldn’t and can’t call the doctor, because I have no money for the medicine.
For ten days I have managed to feed the family on bread and potatoes, but it is
doubtful whether I can get hold of any today. How can I deal with all this devilish
oh that, you really know nothing about the period do you? I suggest reading "The ragged trousered philanthropists" for further insight, the situation you described is one of comparative wealth during the industrial revolution, this was a period where upwards of 90% lived in those conditions or worse and where the "lower class" lived more than a third less than their "betters" where people often went to the workhouses (look it up) and very few families managed to feed themselves and stay in rent all year round even with their children working. By the standards of his time what you describe is middle class and later things improved for him, Marx was not a part of the poor of his time.
He was the son of a lawyer and university educated, when the "poor" in London were, in the main, illiterate. It is true that Marx and his partner suffered economic hardship for periods during his exile in London. However, he was not poor in the same sense that the lower classes were. He was unable to support his wife and family in the way that they had been accustomed too. Nevertheless, he was helped financially by Engels and worked on/off as a journalist for a period of time. He later inherited his mother's estate and was no longer poor, relatively speaking that is.
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/s … article160
The problem based on old economics is CRONY capitalism. If the government got out of the way and its Representatives actually did their job we would not be in the mess we are in. A free economy with fair across the board regulations is the way of old, (real old). It didn't take the government long to relies that once we were , as a country in debt, we the people were screwed. and basically slaves to the body politic. Again read history, it is loaded with instances of a failed economic system followed by a collapse, and most started with manipulation of the currency. We Americans were dong just fine before the advent of the FED, or central bank. The same problem is now happening in Canada. The fox has the keys to the hen house.
There you go, now you're on to something with a little substance. Now, I should point out before there's any confusion, we're not talking about Fox News. I think, Brother Shannon, that you are in desperate need of information from sources other than those funded by the organizations that are taking your money. Oh, I almost forgot; they're also the folks who are infringing on your freedom.
Margret Thacher said " socialism is good until you run out of other peoples money" Seems like it is so true.
You know except that socialism does not run on other peoples money but details right? Who needs them.
What is money and from where does it come? Is value created or ascribed? From where does a socialist state derive its "money?'
Money is simply the numerical value we give to resources, socialism focuses precisely on industries that add value to a nation, things like mining, industry etc. and expands those programs enormously to open up both earning capacity and employment and by the creation of wealth (mining) or the adding of value (manufacture) we thus create wealth. Obviously there are other sources also like agriculture.
That represents a fundamental difference between the imposed, expert managed, artificially created economic system of socialism and the real economy.
The difference between a managed economy and a free market one yes, of course managed economies work, just ask the 1.5 billion Chinese.
The Chinese economy is a silk screen that is worn and cracked. Before long the rest of the world will notice that the centrally directed aspects of the Chinese economy are dragging it down, just like the same things are doing in Europe. Just like the same things continue to do here.
Oh yes the fastest growing super economy three times over is obviously having it's growth brutally stifled by it's manifestly planned economy, every aspect of the Chinese economy is planned and government regulated, often to a greater extent that I would like and it still grows so powerfully. Also China is not slowing down at all when speaking on relative scale, while China's growth dropped from about 11.5% to 9.5% due to the global economic crisis which is statistically a fraction of the average slow down in economic growth around the world due to the economic crisis. So the most successful economy in the world currently is a panned economy almost entirely but obviously planned economies don't work. Sure...
Stick around, the binding is about to drop from the other foot. China is in a massive slow down despite building useless and unused facilities, redundant productive capacity and increasingly corrupt local governments. It will be fun to watch - just a matter of time. Took those good socialists in the USSR decades to crash an economy powered by the great Russian people. Even the amazing people of China will not be able to stop the fall.
What does socialism run on, then? (Aside from brute government force, of course.)
Socialism produces via the concentration of capital to create investment and labor. In other words socialism produces "money" by concentrating on industries that add value and resources ie. mining, factory work etc. it in no way runs on other people's money.
Brother Shannon, please accept these thoughts as an encouraging word toward a better life for you. Try to upgrade your education just enough to allow you to spell people's names... oh yeah, and maybe a little punctuation as well.
Stop straining at gnats. Is the idea cogent?
THAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? HA HA HA HA HA HA. Where is your argument? Any kind of retort? You make me sick. Did I spell that right ? TROLL.
My, my, Brother Shannon. I am so terribly disappointed. We have conversed so very little and you have so quickly descended into vitriol. May I gently suggest kindness of spirit as a part of your life that could benefit from a little coaching?
I don't wish to distract you from your history studies or anything, Brother Shannon, but I would like to leave you with a soothing word. You do appear to be somewhat upset.
OMG! Niteriter is back and with wisdom as usual!
Really! The comic doesn't point out that they are failed systems and those that were screaming socialism were right to do so. You can also look at Greece.
The biggest problem is that even when we know they are failed systems - we can't take them back or stop them. It is like taking candy from a baby. Screams and tantums. :-)
No. A single-payer system--at least the variant in Canada--takes something from *everyone who pays* to benefit *everyone who pays.*
The difference is that everyone GETS to pay--no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no insurers changing the rules post hoc.
There are severe limitations to the Canadian system - one big one is technology available for diagnosis. There are more MRIs, Cat and PET scanners in Michigan than in all of Canada. There are also regular bus runs from the Canadian border to American health facilities. These things happen for a reason.
the US receives 60 000 medical tourists yearly. Cuba receives 20 to 30 thousand, Costa Rica receives a further 20 to 30 thousand, Canada gets tens of thousands. The US is not a popular medical tourism spot unless you are very rich, Cuba a tiny island which people from the US aren't even allowed to go to gets half the medical tourism we do.
Additionally the US healthcare system is ranked very low #37 I believe and we rank horribly behind in almost all stats except cancer, things largely unaffected by environment like Maternal Mortality rate America is below 50th in the world etc etc.
Our health system is a shambles because it is run for profit . I am amused and despair all at once when someone runs down public health for low quality of care. It's better than nothing. This is another pompous stance. I get my care from the VA, a public health system. Maybe not the best but it will do.
Why is over 47cents of very health care dollar a taxpayer dollar if it is for profit medicine that is the disaster? Market forces have been driven out of medicine by government and insurance pools. if market forces were available for insurance the cost would be driven down. This hasn't been the case in decades - perhaps it is time to unwind the governemtn - state and federal - from medicine and see what would actually happen
Ah, so the poor should rely on philanthropic giving from those who can afford. Why then, do those who can afford, oppose any form giving to the needy which does not rely on the rich? I'm sure it has nothing to do with tax avoidance schemes.
Socialism had not been invented until the 1860s so only in the last two could people have cried socialism.
Just inserting some historical accuracy.
Historical accuracy? Not so much.
The term socialism was coined in the 1830s, but this was simply a description of an ideal that had existed for quite some time. Many of the philosophers and intellectuals of the 1700s, such as François-Noël Babeuf, espoused ideas that were definitely socialist.
The term hadn't been invented but socialism dates back to ancient Persia.
Just on a side note - I am finding that a great many things date back to ancient Persia from noodles to spaghetti, belly dance to Latin American dance, Pizza, to various modes of formal behaviour, political manners and devices, farm and ornamental gardening practices and much more - I am beginning to realise that Alexander was the barbarian letting in the flood of 'us' and possibly setting back the progress of civilization a thousand years.
As a system for a larger society, yes, but the family is a socialist society. Think about it: the parents control all the resources, but distribute them according to need, all the while providing the children with the tools they need to succeed as they grow older and more self-sufficient. Ideally, of course. To apply capitalist thinking to a family would be to expect a baby to get a job to support himself. (Though I suppose a baby could get a job as a model)
Actually, a good argument can be made that socialism is THE original form of human society. The vast majority of 'primitive' societies, hunters and gatherers, included the very few that remain, practiced a vital and real socialism where personal possessions were limited and most assets were spread throughout the group.
Until a surplus was created by the better hunters. once that happened everything changes. socialism may work best when humans are close to starvation - the USSR proves that.
Better hunters got more prestige but little else. Europeans never did understand Native American society and interpreted it with Old World notions of class and royalty. In most cases, the chiefs were only those people who had stood out with their abilities, but they couldn't order anyone to do anything. Their prestige enabled them to influence and convince others to do things, but obedience was the individual's choice, not the ruling class.
Well the word socialism wasn't, but the practice was around much longer and farther back than that.
Mighty Mom asked for this; does that make it self-promoting? I guess we'll find out...
http://jimmiles.hubpages.com/hub/Single … are-Please
You can get your answer to all of this when we start figuring out how to pay for the added $600 billion in insurance premium subsidy debt which will either come to you in the form of a debt load at the state level via Medicaid or at the national level when the federal government steps in to cover those thoses who opt do not institute Obamacare. Penalty to the state or not, by continuing we are certainly penalizing those who currently carry the tax burden in America. The wealthy will not suffer nor will the poor....look out middle class, Obama cares most about you! WB
No, no. It's much better to spend our tax money enriching bad actors like Romney and the rest of the elite, including congress, in waging wars than can't be won by combat and taking all our frustration out on the weakest of our citizens. This makes sense.
hehe, nice one!
this is what you get when you live in a society - if not we can go to the mountains and live like Tarzan, no society and all
Whether socialism and capitalism (difficult to define), man is above all a by product of himself, society and culture he/she is in and a little bit of the economic system!
I do believe men tend to be more selfish in an economy which pretends to be a capitalist economy.
Maita, if you don't soon beak down and tell me that I am the most generous socialist liar you have ever met, I'm going to give it all up and start pretending to be a capitalist.
Hey, how are ya?
Your poster very much resembles the propaganda posters I saw at the holocaust museum last year. Strangely looks Nazi like. I guess we have come full circle. If you show it enough people just may believe it to be true.
Crying communism at everything you disagree with to push an extreme right wing agenda? Yeah it's not surprising they seem the same. I guess the right will be choosing illegals as the evil people responsible for all the problems alongside the communists and they will be done.
Oh, Josak, the answer is more war. Give more to the uber-wealthy, don't enforce taxes on them. The solution lies in more arms, more war and tax breaks. History teaches us this, we know from experience that tax breaks, arms manufacture and unnecessary wars create employment and a very stable world in which we are all happy and all free.
The American people have been taught that Socialism is Capitalism. If we had real Capitalism the system would not be the mess it is today. We are a product of socialism, most people don't realize.
Yet another person who does not know what socialism is....
I recommend a dictionary.
The sad irony is that these deluded folks think an oligarchy is pure capitalism.
What am I not understanding? Social security isn't socialism? Medicare Medicaid?
No it's not. Look at it this way. If a state were very leftist but had a tough on immigration policy (like say Australia) would that make it conservative? No it would make it a country with one conservative policy.
But as I said I recommend a dictionary, here I'll do it for you.
#1 A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the state and the public.
#2 (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Since the government does not own the means of production, distribution or exchange it is obviously not socialist and as such this is a capitalist country. Simple.
PS. socialists oppose social security payments.
What about the government distributing education and healthcare? I'm pretty sure the government regulates many areas of the economy. What about the government producing solar and wind energies that failed?
I don't know how you can say social security isn't a socialist policy.
Because it's not, I have a hub on the subject, the socialist rallying cry for many revolutions was "he who does not work neither shall he eat" socialism is a workers movement, socialists believe that the state has a duty to provide everyone with the opportunity for a job but if they don't want to work the they do not support any social security for those people. See what I mean? This is the flag of a group I am involved in:
P.S. people who don't work is a literal definition in a socialist perspective, owning a company that makes you money while you play golf all day is not working etc.
They shouldn't provide any social security at all. Actually, there is no money in it anymore, it is bankrupt, they spent the money on war.
Just because people who don't work, and don't receive social security doesn't mean it isn't a socialized program.
Your statement doesn't really make sense, simply put socialists do not support social security or unemployment benefits, it is not a socialist idea and America is a capitalist state with all the issues of a declining capitalist economy.
America is a mixed model. And I am thinking you don't know many socialists.
Well as for not knowing many socialists I am a member of over a dozen socialist organizations in three countries and participate in weekly meeting and community work with them so it's not true, having said that "socialists" are often radically different in their beliefs and opinions so no matter how many I know it doesn't make me an expert on them.
America is a mixed model... Yes in a certain sense it is, there are some socialist idea in practice here, things like universal healthcare. However that definition becomes meaningless because I can't think of a single country that does not have some policies associated with a different political or economic system, America is a mixed model in the barest sense but it is fundamentally strongly capitalist, private ownership dominates this country in all areas, hell even our prisons (which makes me cringe every time I think of it) and it makes America a capitalist country possibly the most capitalist country.
Socialists champion the rights of individuals to obtain work and support themselves. They are also advocates for those who are economically "redundant" or "not viable" in a capitalist system. And, I have met many socialists and belong to a party of socialists.
So many things it would take a book to list them all, fortunately there are hundreds of those books.
Fair enough I was a bit short there. To be as general and non exclusive as possible. Socialists support public ownership of industry with an economy designed to bring prosperity to the populace as a whole (rather than individuals), they support humanism, workers rights, absolute equality indifferent of race, sexuality or gender, wealth according to effort and labor rather than inheritance or ownership and social justice. Beyond that there are many more viewpoints but it covers the basics.
Well if you think we are completely capitalistic, then what direction is our country taking then more capitalism?
Sorry I don't really understand the question, are you asking if I think America is becoming socialist? well maybe it very slowly is (and I hope it is) but it certainly nowhere near there.
The most successful countries seem to be those that combine both systems.
Agreed... it's the respective quantities no one agrees on though
I wonder how Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal would agree but than Germany would be paying for that phone call.
The false assumption is that any of those were particularly socialist. let's see, Spain has a conservative government, Greece collapsed when the newly elected socialist government discovered that the previous conservative governemnt had been lying about the economy for years etc these are not particualrly leftist countries. The ones that are are doing fine which is mainly Scandinavia.
Paint the picture how you like. A European "conservative" has more in common with a socialist than with an American conservative.
Not true at all, in fact you will find lots of hardcore conservatives in Europe though on average yes they tend to be a bit more reasonable and informed they are certainly nothing like socialists though, far closer to American conservatives.
The cultural heritage that has produced American conservatism is unavailable in Europe, the closest thing would be Britain and they really aren't European are they.
The places that are doing best actually are the leftist ones. Asia is doing fine and is largely leftist, South America is doing great and is largely socialist, Australasia is doing fine and is way further to the left than the US and Scandinavia is doing great and is pretty far to the left.
We shall see, and I still disagree with you, I think we are closer than you think.
I would argue that social programs stemming from socialist ideas are the result of our decline, among other things of course. Socialists don’t believe in SS or unemployment? What programs do they support? I actually would like to know, and I thought you would be a good source. Can you help shed some light?
What most people don't understand is that socialism is a workers movement shaped by the industrial revolution, men and women who worked 16 hours a day six days a week and often still did not have enough, the idea of giving people money for not working is aberrant rather they correctly recognized that with funds properly invested as a whole state rather than divided amongst the wealthy who often did not want to create jobs the state could create enough jobs for everyone to have one that paid significantly better this would mean that people need not seek hand outs because they could do dignified, well treated and well paid labor to get by, obviously if someone is sick they should be cared for and if someone has become elderly they should be treated with respect and dignity and provided for by the people. Thus one of the problems socialism eliminates is giving to people who won't work.
"The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy"
Social democracies are also socialist.
Many things have been mislabeled. Let me make it clear that I fully support social democracy it's a great system but it's not really socialist it simply uses many socialist policies I think that produces a far more moral and ethical state than a purely capitalist one but it again does not make it socialist.
This causes fundamental problems, many of the socialist ideas are based on the premise of publicly owned industry, we want better workers treatment but that can't happen through legislating private businesses or for a salient example: socialists don't support giving to those who do not want to work but social democracies have massive unemployment programs because under a capitalist system that is the best alternative, between letting people who can't find work go hungry and rewarding those who don't want to work we must go with the lesser of two evils and give people unemployment benefits, that puts a huge strain on the economy, in a socialist system everyone is offered work and those who don't want it don't receive unemployment. There are many such examples, fundamentally socialism is an economic system that allows the people to help the people and to own the industry of their country, that isn't what social democracy is.
Public schools, poor education and expensive
Pulic Water system, infected with chemicals and fluoride.
Public Highways, may have interfered with a better solution by the free market
Public Parks, expensive to maintain and workers steal revenue
Public healthcare, Expensive because government created Medicare and Medicaid and inflated the cost, and because of this they are creating complete control of healthcare when they should leave it it to the free market
"If the people let government decide
what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
Walmart, McDonalds, Home Depot all rely on the government picking up the slack where they refuse to care for their own. Corporate socialism is the term that is used to describe it. The purists claim it does not exist.
"Ours is a system of corporate socialism, where companies capitalize their profits and socialize their losses...in effect, they tax you for their accidents, bungling, boondoggles, and mismanagement, just like a government. We should be able to dis-elect them."
"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class"
The reason why government does these things is that no one else would and never have.
No matter what the system is, they are all controlled by their credit and debt. Every monetary system prints money until they collapse.
Our day is coming.
The picture is right. We believers in the value of the constitution as a living masterpiece of civilization have the same OMG face every time more government is used to fix a problem. Are people so blind to believe that a/the federal government at this point can help the situation? The social programs of puppeteers should be the last place you should hold hope in.
Socialism= Bigger Government= I need you to tell me what to do & how to do it= you suck at life
Anyone out there that thinks they need the government to survive/thrive, don’t worry I’ll help you out when you really need it, if you can find me.
It does not matter how you look at it, socialism in its pure sense has failed, but a degree of socialism in every country is necessary for certain basics the market system can not take care of.
What can socialism do that market economics cannot. I have yet to discover one thing.
Redistribute wealth in a more equitable fashion. But to be clear, I am NOT talking about handouts.
One fairly obvious example is that the National Health service in the UK provides a huge amount of health education because it makes financial sense to educate the people into good health. In the USA you do not have the same financial incentives for health education.
We also provide free contraception because contraception is cheaper for the Health Service and for society than unwanted babies.
Of course, your doctors and other health workers live in abject poverty, don't they? </sarcasm>
Ironically, my insurance wouldn't pay for a weight-loss drug for my wife, but they were happy to pay for diabetes treatment, knee replacement sugery, etc., if she had needed it.
But more to the point, pretty much EVERY public amenity is "socialist:" public schools, roads, libraries, housing, transit, etc. Everyone contributes to the public good, with those more able to contribute, contributing more.
As you will see above,
"If the people let government decide
what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
Convincing in theory, until you see that the US healthcare system costs more and achieves less than comparable socialized systems.
Well government is already controlling this with the FDA and Medicare and Medicaid actually pushed the prices of medical care up by inflation. Before the government was involved in healthcare prices weren't high, there was competition and people weren't without healthcare.
Yet more governemnt involvement through single payer care produces better and cheaper results.
There was a time when the neighborhoods and small towns that cry out for doctors now had a local doctor. The coming change in health care is likely to further reduce the number of doctors.
Over 40 cents of ever health care dollar in America is a taxpayer funded dollar. With Obamacare it would exceed 50 cents and 20 of those will be borrowed from China. Unless we unwind the socialist and proto-socialist garbage from our economy and politics the whole country will be a basket case like California, Illinois, Maryland, Greece, Spain, etc....
I am against welfare. However, an example of something that the free market cannot provide is a national defense. Also, a dam to prevent flooding. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. National defense protects people from foreign intruders, and things like dams protect people from natural disasters. I do agree with undermyhat that people should not be protected from being poor.
\Free markets are where well planned government projects get their jobs done. NASA hired out, the DOD hires out, bridges, roads, dams are frequently built by private contractors. The government acts as the customer. Populating the defense structure is still not a socialist endeavor. A first sergeant is paid considerably less than a first lieutenant. Officers often have to purchase their own uniforms. Around large bases service people rent apartments and eat at local restaurants - with only a limited stipend defraying only part of those expenses.
We are still doing this... *sigh* socialism is not welfare, in socialist systems there is no welfare except for the sick/crippled and the elderly.
People don't have protection from being poor.
Between the high unemployment rate, jobs being outsourced and whole industries disappearing, the mortgage lending crisis combined with deflated real estate values and the outrageous cost of health insurance, it's very easy to become poor in the U.S.
And many formerly middle-class Americans have!
Glad to know you approve of this trend!
Obviously they aren't since over 15% of our population and about 20% of our children live in situations where they can't afford shelter and or food.
Government is by nature socialist, as the pooling of resources like taxes. This idea of socialism as something new, must have meant maybe, government for the people instead of the monarchs. Since capitalism is sooner or later monarchy, long live the king.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS
That chart is a fantasy. The military budget is only around 19%, the bulk of government spending is entitlement programs.
This one is a little more accurate.
According to the taxation department 28 cents out of every dollar taxed this year will go to the defense budget.
Fantasy? Really? The chart I provided is of OBama's 2013 discretionary projections and you compare it to 2010 figures of the entire budget—and I'm in a "fantasy" and your's is "more accurate?"
Moreover, Liberals are going crazy because Obama's is so high.
Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process. It includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget, which are programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Mandatory spending is that part of the U.S. Federal budget that has been mandated by Federal law outside of the annual budget process. A great example is the Social Security Act of 1935, which set up the Social Security retirement program. The Federal government must, by law, pay retirees their benefits. Other Federal laws require the government to provide benefits to people with disabilities, people under a certain income level, and the unemployed. The mandatory portion of the budget simply estimates how much it will cost to fulfill these Federal laws.
there you go again quoting facts and other irrelevant stuff to someone who thinks it is ok to carry a gun in one hand and a bible in the other.
Better than carrying guns in both hands.
Or bibles in both hands.
... maybe not.
We all know:
Guns don't kill people.
And bibles don't make people intolerant religious fanatics.
Tolerance is a beautiful thinK. (misspell intended)
Mandatory spending is only that because Congress has decided not to restructure that spending. It is not enshrined in the Constitution and so is subject to change by any Congress at anytime. it is only manditory in so far as the Executive is required to spend it. We have seen, time and again, this Executive uses the ignorance of its supporters drawing Soc. Sec. and Medicare to manipulate the budget and debt debates. Time and again the threat of Soc. Sec. checks not arriving has been used to frighten those solely dependent on SS for their well being.
It may be mandated by a law that could be undone at any time but it is used as a scare tactic by Obama anytime real discussion of how to address the National Debt begins.
Well, a couple of points.
It's probably only fair to point out that Social Security & Medicare aren't being funded out of the general budget as such - millions and millions of people are paying for those programs with each and every paycheck. (Which is also why I object to the sneer with which conservatives refer to them as entitlement programs, as though there's something wrong with feeling entitled to someday qualifying for programs that they've been paying into for years.)
But if you'd like to refer to ignorance regarding those programs, you might like to also acknowledge that while employees pay for the funding of SSN & Medicare, it's NOT fear-mongering to suggest that those checks won't go out if the government is shut down. A government shutdown means that the money to pay the federal employees that process those payments is frozen, which in turn means that those payments will not go out to their intended recipients.
1) A government shut down does not shut all the government down. It does shut down non-critical functions. why are we funding non-critical functions. The government is required - again by a law that it continually renews by inaction - to gurantee those checks.
2) Social Secutiry receipts have been folded into the general fund since the 1960s. All else is book keeping. Also, dollars are perfectly fungible. Unless the actual money taxed from each employee is placed in an actual account for that employee it goes to the general fund. - there is no lock box.
3)No one is receiving anything for which they have paid. They are receiving that which others are paying for them. That is how it has worked from the beginning. How is that not welfare?
4)Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in. The funds in Social Security do not accrue interest even at the low rate of savings bonds. If we wanted a genuine retirement program a payroll savings plan would be a better choice.
5)No one owns anything in Social Security. It can disappear at anytime. The benefits received can be reduced or cut at anytime. It cannot be inherited, used by ones children as a means of accumulating wealth for later generations - in short it is a welfare program not an investment.
6)It is a means for pulling the old into the Federal preserve rather than encourage a real plan in which the accumulated proceeds of principle and interest are available to the individual upon retirement. If one dies one day after reaching retirement age under Social Security all value of that "retirement fund" is lost to the family of the individual. If one owns a retirement plan, that has a pre-set retirement age, and dies the day after reaching retirement age his widow and family inherit his property. HOW CAN THAT BE INFERIOR TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW?
Lots of theory with no practical applicable standards. The problem is that you are so booksmart about this you can't fathom the application of it.
Let me know how that works for you when America starts looking more like Greece - ooops, too late.
We looked like Greece way back before they did. The problem is that you want the regulations to end and a free for all atmosphere that has no rules to run the system. Keep govermnent out of it and when the Glass/Steagel act was repealed in 1999 the banking industry went wild with speculation. Something that was somewhat in check since 1933 when the Great Depression ruled the banking industry. I agree that untamed spending is at the heart of the issue for a recovery but there are other things that need to be addressed also and legislation to ensure it happens.
Led in no small part by the worthless Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac - I was in the mortgage industry in 1999 and the hand writing was on the wall.
No, I want the government to stop interfering in the natural creation and destruction that is necessary for a dynamic economy. I want government to stop insulating everyone from the consequences of their bad economic decisions - we already have decades of bankruptcy laws to cover that. I don't want GM and Chrysler removed from the economy to be sheltered in an artificial construct of bogus bankruptcy. I don't want people who were greedy and signed for a house that they in no way could afford just because it was so big and pretty.
I want every adult to be treated like an adult and sink or rise, fail or recover on his own merits and abilities. I don't want the government to take from anyone the property that he has earned through his own industry, sweat, toil, effort and genius and award it to those who are foolish, self destructive, promiscuous, drunken, drug addicted, lazy, ignorant, reckless, greedy, or just plain stupid because if they don't it is just mean and people will suffer.
If someone is suffering the natural consequences of his idiotic decisions let him suffer and let his suffering be an example to others. Why should someone who has no money to put down on a house be able to get a mortgage for which they cannot demonstrate an ability to pay.
As a society we have been running from the natural consequences for all kinds of stupid actions and protecting the lion poker from getting eaten by the lion. Perhaps if a few idiot lion pokers were to be eaten there would be less of that brand of stupidity if for no other reason than they will have been selected out of the gene pool.
Let failures fail. Let bad businesses collapse. Let it burn. Too many bale outs, too many excuses and too many whiners.
I totally agree with your desire to let the bad business' fail for their bad decisions. The consequences should fit the action. The only dilema in the situation was that the regulators fell so short in their jobs and I have yet to hear or read of one government official or guilty Wall Street trader take the fall for any of the oversight debacle that took place. The idea of doing away with these regulators is not the answer but making them pay for the horrible job they did. Wall Street and the SEC were too close for comfort and they should all be replaced. But bureaucrats are thick as thieves and rooting out the bad is bad government gone awry trying to catch and punish the guilty.
Should the humongous industries affected by the 2008-2009 crisis be allowed to fail and bring the whole world into a huge depression.. I know your answer but who would be affected? Everyone including those that took no part in the mess. Should the innocent be made to suffer and pay for it? Absolutely not! But how do we get the offenders to pay up. Mind you that I think this current group in congress and the various government agencies is a slimy bag of S#$T but how can we change that when all "we the people" do is bicker back and forth over party politics and nonsense?
When a major evil is committed and one stand by and does nothing is one therefore innocent? A hideously high price will be paid some time. If the lesson is lost, as it invariably will be, the same failure will happen. If the collapse had been permitted and the free market economics was allowed to happen it is more than likely we would be out of the the worst of it. We are told the worst is still in the future - by the Fed. and by the Europeans.
That is awesome and what is being done about it?
Well Romney is a felon and you wouldn't have anything if somebody else didn't suckle you at the public teat. Those are some good answers.
Those aren't answers; they're just distracting propaganda points that you just think are answers.
So if we elect minded people that were on the first watch when this all began with the expansion of government and wars how would that change the outcome in the second place. Electing democrat or republican makes no difference in the grand scheme of business as usual in the buerocracy that covers itself. Romney who like everybody else in the GOP race likened themselves to cited Regans conservative views on government growth which went up 90% under his watch and 11 tax hikes that did not even help to change the deficit spending going on. The two parties have no answer yet you harp on one over the other. Romney wants to re-enact Bush policies in many areas including giving unemployed workers a $3,500 to $3900 retraining bonus instead of extended unemployment benefits. What a joke and after all was said and done the realization that retraining costs compared to the money was ridiculous. They spent the money on repairing their cars or daycare while they went out to look for similar jobs. He doesn't have the answer anymore than Obama
No one is standing by with their finger up their nose but the politics of the day with the polarizing tactics keep any person in the dark as to the underlying truths and how to fix it.
What this election will come down to in the long run is who do you like as most of them do
Australia survived the global recession quite well and our banks were left relatively unscathed precisely because the industry was well-regulated. The constant call from some quarters to shrink regulation and * let the free market handle everything* is so 1980s. Aren't we over Reaganomics yet..?
There has to be a balance between the free market and government regulation. We should control capitalism..not the other way around. A *let her rip* attitude to the free market would see too many of us end up in the poorhouse. [climbs soapbox) People complain about the nanny state, but they forget; every benefit, every labour law, every concession to ordinary workers had to be hard fought over a long period of time. Without government regulation people had to rely on what rights and benefits the employers chose to give them - which wasn't much. Just open a history book to see what things were really like for ordinary people. The *free market* doesn't care about people - it never has because it's all about profit. Why would anyone want to be at the mercy of it?
Long winded with little sense. Social security is a payroll savings plan fool. The problem with voluntary plans is that weak old man, many if not most, wouldn't do it. We'd forget or delay or blow it all on the latest, biggest ego-wagon. The ONLY practical way to can get people to save is by legislating it. Social security wouldn't be so troubled if Congress and everyone one else with the pin number weren't dipping into it constantly for their sub rosa projects. I see no problem with my children paying my social security. In the end it's family taking care of their elders. Pretty traditional, that.
Wrong and insulting - and you have decided that because some one is stupid and weak that we should all bail them out. Why not let them fall flat on their face? Since when is it the job of the federal government to FORCE everyone to rescue people who decide not to take care of themselves?
The government didn't decide; the people decided. The people elected those who enacted the law. The social security program is overwhelmingly popular. I guess the people were compassionate and dismayed by the number of elderly and disabled who were suffering in poverty.
Imagine the nerve of a people seeing a problem and supporting a solution through government. Ballsy, weren't they?
No, No obviously our elderly no longer being able to work because of their age should simply starve quietly in the corner, they are no use to us now. Why don't we let our elderly "fall flat on their face" Christ what a hellhole this country would be if people like that were in charge.
I know. In another thread he has such compassion for poor Sarah Palin being hounded by the media. I don't get it.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the baby boomers retire and my generation has to pay for their well-being.
http://www.dudelol.com/us-population-gr … 02010-gif/
That little skinny part at the top is what social security covers now...and funds are already pretty stressed. Imagine what will happen when that big Baby Boomers bulge hits the top.
Yes, of course—millionaires and corporations could care less about their income and the GOP would never use scare tactics because they're truly loyal to the precepts of democracy and have no problem with paying taxes.
I do not identify with Romney, but isn't this whole bit about unreleased tax returns a little similar to the bit about Obama's unreleased birth certificate? And liberals said conservatives were being paranoid...
I am perplexed by the implications of the big MILITARY called out on the first pie chart. Are we indciting the military spending the United States does so that Europe, Canada, Japan and other developed countries, who want military power to protect them but prefer it be American made, staffed and purchased, don't have to?
"This one is a little more accurate" could you also make it a little more readable, please?
Yeah, New Zealand and Canada, what losers. Clearly in chaos with their... um, well what about even more socialist place ike Iceland! That country is a total... success, generally speaking.
You can either make people buy their own stuff, or collect tax and buy the stuff for them. It isn't that big of a difference if a country is well governed.
The US is actually a mixed model. Rife with socialist roads, police, water etc.
Iceland had a brutal financial collapse that is continuing even now. Besides how many people actually live in Iceland? Fort Wayne, Indiana is bigger.
Canada has been through some major reforms beginning in the 1980s
large corporate tax cuts
personal tax reforms
balanced federal budgets
decentralizing power by cutting the central government....
Canadian federal spending was cut from 23.3 percent of GDP in 1993 to 16.5 percent by 2000.
Canadian unemployment rate plunged from more than 11 percent to less than 7 percent...
http://www.iea.org.uk/events/canada%E2% … for-the-uk
If the US looks bad by comparison
Actually Iceland refused to bailout its banks, which is the free market thing to do, while the U.S. bailed out corporations and even nationalized some.
While nationalizing industry is indeed socialist bailing industry out is precisely anti socialist.
I don't see the difference either way the government is the one allocating capital.
There is a huge difference between owing industry and giving private companies public money.
What happens if the industry goes bankrupt? Do they keep funding it or do they let it fail and move on?
They is whoever is funding the socialist system. Which is the public through the government. Does the government keep funding that industry or do they let it fail?
In a socialist system? Well it would be up to the economic experts who would decide if it's likely to turn around and become profitable soon or if it should be closed.
Are you socialist or are you leaning more towards communism?
So does this mean you will be starving the Kulacks to death because they hold private property and are unwilling to hand it over to economic experts - like a committee of firm socialists?
Shame on you! Josak has always been clear he favours democracy.
Would you suppourt what the USA did in Argentina described on this forum thread? Glass houses comes to mind!
I have been reading about how Britain treated Bengal - glass houses indeed.
Yes under capitalism the British Empire exploited our own people and those we conquered, and used cruelty and ither methods to obtain compliance. I am ashamed of much of our history.
You have not answered my Argentina point.
Didn't see a point - saw a statement. So if one is uinashamed than one is not as good as one who is? I wonder if socialists are embarassed at the support they routinely gave the USSR and the murder of the Kulaks, Jews, etc...?
Still haven't learned the difference between socialist and communist huh?
Apparently neither did the socialists who cheered the USSR or the ones who lionize Che Guevera
Socialists generally did not like the USSR (which was a combination of Communist and Stalinist) Che Guevara was a socialist though Cuba is more communist that socialist because well he didn't get to decide what it looked like after the revolution.
It's okay, you can write the history how you want. Socialists, Progressives, liberals, Democrats from all over the world loved Stalin and Mao. While Che was busy torturing and murdering Cubans, liberals were and still do love him with some Democrats actually displaying Che's image in Obama campaign offices. I am sure it is embarassing so rewriting the history is the best way to protect socialist abuses and brutality.
Che Guevara was a revolutionary, yeah he put people to death, people who were convicted of mass murder, for example of of the men he personally executed was responsible for ordering the the murder of twenty thousand random Cuban peasants and then having pieces of their body hung from trees as a warning to others not to read socialist books or trade with the socialists, I thought you guys believed in the death penalty for monsters?
I do respect with a certain measure of caution Che because I respect that amount of guts and self sacrifice which does not mean I agree with everything he did.
Mao and Stalin I never supported and I have never met a socialist that did (though I suppose they exist) just like racist conservatives exist and conservative religious nuts exist etc. doesn't mean a thing.
You are right, of course, Che never executed those who were merely opposed to a Communist/Socialist revolution and in favor of a free Cuba. Never, he was/is holy. He was never a coward or a brutal tortureer. After all when you are destorying the country to save it any excess is acceptable. what is the difference again?
Communism and Socialism dervie from Marx. Racism has nothing to do with conservatism. Racism is its own particular aberration.
........................................So many things wrong, how about this socialism started hundreds of years before the birth of Marx.
As for people who opposed socialist Cuba most were deported they were executed if they took up arms as criminals, the vast majority of those killed were not supporters of a free Cuba but supporters of the genocidal dictator which the socialists replaced (with massive public support) I am not a fan of the non democratic process of Cuba but the last independent World Bank research conducted anonymously showed about 94% support for a socialist system so...
Executions etc. also have nothing to do with socialism they are their own aberration. If you look at the actual execution numbers they are not that big and the vast majority are for war crimes.
I think you should study the Cuban revolution and socialism it's painfully obvious that you don't know what you are talking about when you say things like socialism is derived from Marx.
You are right, socialism was bsuy failing about a hundred yeara before Marx introduced another branch of a failing philosophy. Henri de Saint-Simon introduced the word socialist and defined it. And following that proptly began to fail, over and over again. Nothing like constantly repeating the same failure and calling it different names
Economic control by experts that always works. Wow, that is so funny.
Actually socialism was around a bout a thousand years before the term was coined and had long periods of success before Marx but I am quite happy to compare economic performance for socialist and capitalist countries right now if you want, my guess is you know nothing about economics either.
As i said, I am happy to compare economic facts anytime you want, there is a difference between faith and fact.
Neither did the Egyptians..........or lot's of other folks who thought they were getting a better deal and wound up oppressed. That's exactly the sort of thing I have been trying to tell you for how long??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/
What are you talking about? As you should know given Cuba is right there, Che left Cuba after the revolution to participate in the revolutions in Africa and South America and did not have much of a say in the shaping of Cuba he was also not the leader of the Cuban revolution but second in charge (Castro was obviously).
So he basically failed because what occurred in the end was not what he wanted. Makes you wonder why he is held in such high esteem?
Well I think he would be pretty happy with his legacy, I know his daughter personally (he and I were born in the same city in Argentina) and I think he would say that Cuba is a hell of a lot better off than he found it but not perfect, just like I am sure the founding fathers would say of the US, no one is ever completely satisfied with what their system becomes I think.
Of course Che's legacy is a lot bigger than that, almost the whole South American continent is now socialist and out from under the US backed dictatorships and he was the rallying point for that which I am sure would please him a lot.
For me it's more about. This is a guy born into a rich family who becomes a doctor with amazing grades and has this very comfortable life laid out in front of him with his own practice etc. instead he decides to go to work for free in a leprosary in the poorest areas of South America, risking contracting what was at the time a disease with no cure, then he goes on to risk his life countless times and lead a nearly impossible cause to victory and sacrifice his life for it all despite the fact he had crippling asthma, I just respect that much guts and courage even though I don't agree with everything he did.
Nope, my policy on redistribution is that estates should simply pass 90% on to the public after the owner of them passes away (without any help) and the other 10% (with a maximum monetary value) to the people of their choice. As Charles pointed out (thank you Charles) I would only be content doing that with public democratic support.
Right, because the "Economic Experts" have such a great track record.
Well let me put it this way, it's better than having empty suit politicians decide our economic policy and definition-ally no one would be better at it, when i say economic experts that can be anything from economists to successful business operators.
Josak are you a socialist or a communist?
Isn't the individual the expert of his personal economy?
So you trust your nation's well-being to a few "economic experts" that tell companies what to do?
It's what companies generally do now, if a company is losing money they bring in specialists to determine if it's salvageable and what can be done to improve it, economic experts can mean anything from former successful business owners to economists.
Sorry I don't understand the question, whose money is san strings?
When the Federal government was attempting to ameliorate the product of their incursion into mortgage lending, the CEOs of several major banks were called into a room and told, in no uncertain terms, that they would take a bail out. Some, whose problems were manageable, wanted to refuse, they were told they could not.
Government money always comes with strings. It isn't about money, ever. It is about power, authority and control. This is why socialism will always degenerate into tyranny. Real liberty is a messy proposition and those vaunted economics experts must compel a predictable populace so that the numbers work. It is necessary to render the individual worthless as an entry on a ledger page so that one cog in the great machine of equality can be swapped for another.
It doesn't take reading between the lines to know that ultimately socialism, like all centrally directed economic systems, degenerates into the tools of the state putting bullets in the heads of hundred and dumping their bodies in mass graves. It is an essential part of a system designed by the Superior Man, the Soviet Man.
Rather than understanding that economics is the science of describing and understanding the natural allocation of scarcity, the liberal, leftist, socialist, communist, fascist, statist all believe that economics is about compelling a system - designed by them and forced, compelled, cajoled, cudgeled - on the individual. The 300 million Americans individuals - that would be one, integrated, self contained unit - makes hundreds of conscious and unconscious decisions every day. How can a centrally directed system ever account for all the date processed organically by all those self contained units.
The weakness of socialism is that it is unnatural and must be forced on an economy which ALWAYS results in irreparable disaster. The socialist and liberal tend to ignore the natural value of destruction and creation. It is the inexorable drive of the socialist to pursue stability - the enemy of dynamism. Socialism is inherently elitist.
Complete poppycock, i have lived in several socialist systems and it is not at all the case, socialism is simply a different economic system it has no more to do with tyranny than does capitalism which has also many many times degenerated into tyranny. For the life of the average person a socialist system should change it very little, it should mean better workplace treatment, a higher wage and a lot more available jobs but fundamentally it should give no more powers to the state than the power to run the industry of the nation (the means of production) now that is slightly more power but obviously if the governemnt wanted to impose it's power on the populace it has a massive military and police force to do so and does not need mines and factories.
Socialism should in my opinion always be accompanied by a robust democracy and constitution which is where many states have gone wrong but socialism imposes no more restrictions on the lives of it's citizens than does capitalism and in some ways fewer. ideals of the soviet man etc. are outdated and abandoned and while I agree that hardcore communist systems do present many of the risks you mention the kind of socialism being portrayed in this forum is nothing like that.
What socialist states have you lived in?
Seriously ? I am not a liberal but a conservative telling liberals that history is marching on is pretty darn ironic.
We often mock what we do not, cannot or will not understand.
Just saying that conservatism is precisely a system of looking backwards for guidance in counter to progressives who look at a potential future, it's conservatives being left behind all over the world, indeed American conservatives have been flat out left behind by the rest of the world and are regarded as a retrograde joke in many parts. Man you should have seen the faces in Australia when Rick perry made that "gays can serve in the military" jab. Hardly the party of the future, that's for sure.
Socialism does impose one more critical restriction on the individual than capitalism does: it restricts the individual's right to property. Socialism takes money from a richer man (by force) and gives it to a poorer man. This is defined as "theft."
Except that is not the case at all, obviously you as I thought don't know what socialism is, first off private property of all but the "means of production" remains sacred, those are bought out (the mines factories etc.) and nationalized, some socialists call for redistribution, just like some capitalists support letting people starve if they can't work but it is not the majority opinion. The pre eminent opinion in the socialist community at the moment is that after essentials (house car and such) the rest should be inherited by the public after the death of the owner with the essentials or 10% of his total wealth passing on to those of his choice.
Any "redistribution" would simply be taxation anyhow which we do now, ie. there would be a 90% tax on inheritance.
They're a lost cause undermyhat, Josak doesn't see that the only way that the state could seize control of the "means of production" and prevent any free market competition is through violence.
Josak remember that the Arab Spring was caused by the state prohibiting a man from freely engaging in commerce.
Also their self righteousness paves the way for the genocide of "capitalist roaders".
Soviet, Cambodian, Chinese genocide of their own people, millions of refugees from Cuba, and Vietnam, East Germany, etc.
Yet they're still deluded that this time will be different, that they will have "real communism", and achieve their fairy tail utopia
Attributed to Einstein is the quote, "Insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results."
The expected retort to this by liberals will be - you mean like tax cuts, capitalism, blah, blah, blah.
What they cannot understand is that price regulated free markets are not a thing one does. It is not a designed and engineered system of models intent on creating the New Man, but rather a dynamic thing in the natural world where opportunity cost, relative value, supply and demand occur everyday with animals in the wild, as well as humans in society.
They think economics is engineering rather than biology. The engineer seeks to alter his world to fit his idea of a better one. The biologist ever strives to better understand what is occurring in the natural world. He may conduct experiments but he also counts populations, studies mating habits, diet, migratory behavior - to what end? Merely to better understand the natural world and his own place in it, not to genetically engineer the perfectly equal New Man.
Engineering is all well and good when it addresses an actual need in the economy by individuals acting in concert - like a flock of geese. But it isn't about manufacturing the perfect flock. The liberal fantasy of perfectibility doesn't even comport with ideas about good engineering. The engineer does not EVER say, "Ah, I will achieve perfection." Instead he says, "I can do that better."
Perhaps the liberal isn't an engineer after all - that sounds more like an entrepreneur. Perhaps the liberal is the tyrant like a Pharaoh, aware of his divinity and seeking to build his heavenly kingdom among the silly, abstract people who are after all just equal. Just equal. Time to hand out the Olympic Medals - they should all be dross. Dross is all equal while gold shines.
I laughed the whole way through, did you know Einstein was a socialist?
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
Apparently Feynman was always explaining Einstein.
I have nothing against competition or a free market within reason, nothing against small business either so long as it is regulated.
More to the point this argument is bull for a simple reason. I grew up in an Argentina under a capitalist dictatorship, most of my family, my friends, my relatives were murdered, tortured, gang raped and "disappeared" (with US help i might add) to stop free elections that would have led to a socialist governemnt, so I could say look this is what capitalism does and you would quite rightly say no, that is wrong and it is not capitalism and I would entirely agree (because I have intellectual honesty) capitalist, fascist, communist and socialist states have done terrible things but that has nothing to do with their economic systems it is a function of tyranny and a lack of democracy. (On a side note Argentina has had it's free elections, voted in a socialist governemnt and kept it there for over a decade of strong economic growth)
I strongly support democracy, I strongly support individual liberties be they gun rights, free speech etc. unlike most here I fought for them, put my life on the line unpaid for them because I believed in them but that has nothing to do with economic systems, there is nothing in socialism that need restrict those freedoms.
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences. Very interesting! I would like to add that the US has frequently - and often violently - opposed democratically-elected governments throughout Central and South America whenever there was a hint of land reform or anything that would give additional powers to the people. I used to work with a guy from Guatemala. I asked him why he left (this was in the middle of winter) and he said he left when "your government overthrew mine," Referring to when Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown. He said the US-backed gov't was "crazy."
The US loves to tout democracy as the end all be all. The problem is that we have problems respecting their rights so we place a friendly face in place.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Th … ators.html
Democracies have always failed throughout history. It is the majority taking the rights away from the minority.
Amazing how when soldiers are needed to defend the wealth the wealthy say "wer are all in this together" - and the poor fight to defend the property they do not own.
What are these "rights" that belong only to the minority?
Love Carlin and that last line... So true, the other day my neighbor had a priest trough to bless his gun collection... from the supposed follower of a man who said turn the other cheek...
Too many people are forgetting real history, better yet, as I see here, are ignoring it. socialism in any form, is a bane to human existence, plain and simple. How many have to die buy the sword of socialism to appease the nay sayers. One is too many. There is no perfect socialism, not even one hidden in a democracy. You cannot combine it with another social structure as it will eventually devour it, as they always have. Though some of these arguments are a worthy romp in fantasy remember one thing, On our worst day, in any time in our history, the United States of America is better off with its system than any other in the world. Yes, we have faults and have had mistakes, but we are free and we try to do better. I agree we have of late, lost our way, but with our form of government we can fix it. This has happened before and we saw how a guy like Hitler and Stalin could take it to extremes. But we do not force people to remember or to learn history and the socialist, to which socialism is not for them, are again beating a drum to the ignorant masses and the pompous elites for a better way, to which there is none.
For someone who talks about history so much you never mentioned a single socialist country in that "history" lesson. Not surprising.
Also a complete lack of evidence or fact, if there was I could dispel it but since there isn't I will settle for smiling instead.
Twosheds1 - and Sweden is a mixed economy
Almost all countries now can be classified as how many percent capitalist and percent socialist, no pure capitalist and pure socialist.
And I think the more socialist a country is the better it will be governed, with people still have degrees of freedom which can be compromised a bit because the reality is that you live in a society.
Something tells me that JSChams isn't familiar with the history of South America or the repression by the Argentine government in the 20th century.
You have hippies and wannabe hippies wearing him on shirts.
Now he had some good points before he went and inadvertently got Communism installed in Cuba.
Maybe there should be another lees violent image of him......
He is idolized throughout South America simply because it was pretty much the fist time someone from the upper class bothered to help the poor and fight for them because his reading programs taught millions to read because he led by example, when he was minister of agriculture he would spend all night doing the paperwork and all day cutting sugar cane with the laborers often not sleeping for three or four days he earned respect and that respect spread around the world.
It's kind of a dumb question isn't it let's put it this way. Before the Revolution the US had the third best quality of life in the world and Cuba had a quality of life around the 130 mark now Cuba is 53rd and the US is 31st so moving to the US means a better quality of life for now because improvement takes time.
The Founding Fathers did not agree with each other on many many issues. The American Constitution and early amendments were a fudge.
Like many Constitutions, it was a compromise.
I couldn't agree more with you....Undermyhat , revolution will come , mark my words ! But it will be of as Ben Frankin said ........messy , just like idealisms ! Right ....Left .....get your head out of your arses and think for yourself ! Your media .....and your congress and senate ......are playing you like fools!
Thank you Wizard. I do believe you are correct in deducing that pictures will be more effective with this student.
Trolls, again, no argument nor a real thought.
There's a thought there, Brother Shannon; it does require, however, the capacity for reflection in order to recognize it. And you also need to read the words; don't simply look at the pictures.
Besides, you have yet to acknowledge my very thorough reply to your tome from two hours or so ago. My, my, you also have the fault of negligence to add to your list of cerebral flaws. It's a very sad day in the land of scholars today.
I am so sorry that you feel the need to snipe and insult instead of using your mind for more worth while endeavors, This will be my last post to anything you or your friend wizard comment on as I have stated before that you have no argument just rhetoric. I will not insult you, just express my sorrow for your lack of civility and I do see what you and your friend have done on Hub pages, and I am sad you let any potential you may have slip away with such drivel. I am not following this so you can pontificate to your audience till your head explodes. I just don't want to play your game anymore.
Too late for that , Brother Shannon. It is you who displayed the lack of civility. (Does "you make me sick" sound like a civil comment?) Wiz and I were simply calling you out on your claim to have superior knowledge to ours. There is no gain in pretending to be something you aren't. Who you are will always rise to the surface when sufficient pressure is applied.
No hard feelings, I'm sure you are a good person. Just be yourself and everything will be okay.
Brother Shannon has been registered here for all of fifteen hours and he claims to know what I'm all about.
Methinks it takes a troll to recognize one and I wonder which reactionary cowboy-hatted hater he really is?
Don't worry, Wizard, your reputation is intact. Brother Shannon's powers of perception are noticeably frail. I think the next time we see him he'll be a Sock Puppet under another name. We'll know it's him when his idea tank runs empty and he starts moaning, "Troll!"
You missed the rest of the Jesus quote where he said empower Caesar to take the property of your neighbor and award it to you. Do not concern yourself with gathering your meal from the fields, Caesar will make your neighbor feed you. And if you decide to keep the product of your own work then Caesar should send his soldiers to compel your compliance.
What do liberals say through their actions? It is okay, I don't expect an liberal to understand. All liberal social justice is rooted in the force.
Social injustice? Usually poverty, ignorance, hunger, etc...are rooted in inaction by individuals. the most successful way to eliminate these things is to act personally, indvidually, in the first person. I will not be poor, hungry or ignorant. And the second most effective is in the second person - I will do what I can to help you not be hungry, poor or ignorant. Then third person, then first person plural and so forth. Introducing government into real social justice is to remove the social and the justice.
Actually this is a nice thought - unfortunately history clearly proves that only government has ever stopped wholesale abuse of human beings by others. It would be nice if those apparent philanthropists that you appear to be so enamoured with gave away the trivial amounts of excess they earn off poor wages and child labour in foreign countries for good reasons rather than to promote their own egos and attempt to pay the ferryman.
Crime, violence, invasion, forced starvation have been both caused and prevented by governments. Wholesale abuse gains its highest expression among governments - death camps, Slavery, forced relocation, genocide, mass starvation as a means of control have been used by governments to compel compliance. What business or individual has that kind of reach and scope?
Admittedly, when government works properly it prevents abuse, when it doesn't it exemplifies it.
I am not talking about philanthropy, I am talking about personal, moral action - it does not require vast sums. When one sees a hungry and homeless man on the street a spare blanket, a hot meal and the fulfillment of Christ's teachings does far more than some nameless, faceless, distant and dispassionate government bureaucracy. More people turn their lives around as a consequence of personal contact with a compassionate individual than with a number cruncher behind a desk.
History does not agree with you - these were all the normal means of controlling workers and slaves for a couple thousand years at least - not least in your South not much more than one hundred years ago, private privelaged citizens all.
Again nice thought but I am afraid the number of people doing that is miniscule while governments prevent this situation wholesale through benefit and other social schemes (that the right want to stop).
Helping people is not fulfilling christ's teachings, it is done by people of all kinds and religious brands and just as many with no religion at all, in fact for right wing religion this kind of christ like help appears to be anathema.
Slavery cannot exist without governemnt complicity, millions have slaved for governments like Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany? The Roman Empire,etc...? (more than half this nations age ago and a terrible price was paid by private citizens to end it)
Governments have a vested interest in not ending it but softening it so that people become comfortable in the government's care. To ascribe to government, a mere mechanism, some moral sensibility is to misplace one's faith.
The individual is better served by others and better serves when serving others - personally, individually. What incentive, example or encouragement exists to exit the governments preserve? All that exists in a personal charitable relationship is incentive, example and encouragement.
I meant to post the image with this comment . . .
Utter ideological nonsense rooted in resentment and contempt for the poor and government that aims at economic justice.
Here is empirical information that if you are poor, ignorant and hungry you can't even find a place to live unless you work at more than two jobs . . .
Maybe that is why recent illegal immigration is so vigorous. Most illegals come here to work as much as they can, crowd into housing but do not languish(typically) for multiple generations on the public dole. Liberals should fear illegal immigration more tha conservatives. The second and third generations of illegals tend to be much more conservative because they have seen their parents work.
Oh no! Working two jobs is so bad. Hardship and hard work do not build character but languishing in the government preserve is so much better. Really, personally serving the poor is ideological - I bet all those catholic nuns in Calcutta would like to hear that. Bet they didn't even know they were Republicans.
What is economic justice? Is that redistributionist ideology? There are plenty of people who work 80 hours a week - it is good for the spirit to earn one's way it is decaying to the spirit to expect others to give you a living.
It would be great if you could find a bumpersticker for that.
"The Rich Say The Poor should Work Harder"
or even "The Poor Should Work Harder"
How is letting people keep their propertty giving them money? The government takes from the "rich" (what ever that means) theeir property and the product of their toil. Government gives "the poor" property for which they have not toiled. Do you see the difference? (that is rhetorical - I don't expect you do)
That's the Con-Job narrative that you want to believe, Hat, but the reality, you seem incapable of seeing, is that the government gives much more to the "rich" these days than to the "poor."
Again, corporations are not tax payers they are tax collectors. I like your sources - partisan feel tanks. By the way - I am trying to think the last time I watched Fox News. i think I caught "The Five" about 3 weeks ago.
In what modern industrial/post-industrial nation do the poor exemplify the work ethic and drive for self improvement? Poverty becomes a symptom of a flawed character once a significant enough surplus exists. If one avails oneself of all the opportunities a modern society presents than what causes poverty that isn't a product of stupid or poor choices - unless one simply does not have the faculty necessary for prosperity.
Wizard, do you know why workers have to work so much to afford an apartment in those states? It is actually because of government regulation that tried to help poor people out. Rent pricing controls instituted by states like NY and California caused scarce availability of apartments and therefore high prices for rent. (In case you are unaware, rent controls are when government puts a price ceiling on rent. They only do this for some apartments, not all or even most, so the poor will supposedly have somewhere affordable to live.)
Even though the short term effect of those regulations were good for the poor (prices couldn't rise too high,) the long-term effects were disastrous. Because it would be expensive for someone to move out of a rent-controlled apartment, they would not move into another one (even one that is closer to work) because the people in the closer-to-work apartment would not want to move out of their rent-controlled apartment either. So the market stagnates.
Furthermore, the owners of those apartments invest less in them because they yield less profit. When they invest less the quality of rooms decline. Eventually, apartment complexes close because no one is buying new apartments and the rent that owners are currently receiving is so low that they cannot sustain some of the apartments that they already have.
So the supply of all apartments (even non-rent controlled) goes down. And when supply goes down and demand goes up, you guessed it, prices skyrocket. Do some research about those states on the map that have the most expensive apartments, you'll find that many either have rent control or have only recently rid themselves of it.
I would love an economists study or some other independent verification of that, I am skeptical of the effect and it's extent, besides you will note that the results are hopeless across the country not just in areas with rent control.
Sorry Josak. Always remember to cite your sources is one of my own creeds! Here you go:
2. Mankiw, Gregory. Principles of Economics. 4th ed. p. 31.
3. Sowell, Thomas. 2008. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-00349-4.
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opini … ffair.html
The fourth source is only an opinion article. But I thought I should include it since the author is actually a liberal economist (just to show that both sides of the aisle agree on rent control.)
The problem with the Idealism in Ghandi's opine? if you are only divisive or opposed for the sake of being opposed that makes you a fool ! And that is the plague that spreads across our culture today! No? ........Maybe Ghandi was only testing liberal thought !.........Quote by Ahorseback....:-}
More and more I see your posts as nothing more than glorified talking points.
Well how about this the GOP just finished blocking a measure that would have saved thousands of miners lives by granting them additional protection from black lung the incidence of which is increasing, Wizard is right the GOP obviously cares not at all for the American worker. Heartland American miners who keep this country running, literally: "Drop dead" regards: The GOP
Well let me tell you this.....
Almost every time that happens you will find a rider has been attached to that bill which the Democrats know will trigger an action by the GOP.
Gotta make em look like monsters you know.
Even though there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the two parties.
I know I have been around both of them.
They specifically blocked a measure all of which was focused on preventing black lung and suggested no alternative according to the relative bodies it will kill thousands over the next few years, simple as that. It's all ways been this way, i used to be a coal miner myself and the GOP is always claiming to be pro coal but they are quite happy to kill miners to save a few dollars.
No lame excuses, it's lives for dollars. The lives of hard working Americans who often have little else in the way of employment in their towns. it's despicable pure and simple.
You would, wouldn't you and I suspect it's because you can't make an accurate and cogent refutation of the facts.
That's as opposed to sensationalistic pictures which regurgitate those talking points?
That's all you ever do.
I and many others have tried to get you to see reason and logic, but it seems that no one can pierce your unreasonable bias and cynical self-interest.
You aren't worth having a discussion with and so I use what gets under your skin instantly—if these images didn't, you would never be as upset by them as you evidently are. The truth doesn't bother people . . . unless of course it should!
My rule of thumb . . .
There's an old adage about their being only two certainties in life: death and taxes.
It has recently been updated.
And haters gonna hate.
I don't want to believe that MM, it makes life hopeless. I want to believe Eckhart Tolle's advice—that is, these folks are not to be blamed for their thinking because they are not truly conscious of their behavior.
You don't discuss anything. You just post insipid posters and insult people's intelligence.
I am glad to see things haven't changed too radically on these forums... Firstly, greeting to all of you, and I would like to jump right in the convo if you all don't mind.
To my dear right leaning hubbers, I would like to let you know that I was using about four weeks of paid vacation time, to which I was legally entitled to by the 'socialist' system of this country i.e. France. It helped me blow off some steam and get back to work with enthusiasm and vigor.
Now, since I also employ others I can state that if an employee is denied vacation time, the company will pay a penalty and will have to give the said employee that vacation time anyhow. If an employee chooses not to use his/her vacation days, they accrue as time progresses.
This is an example of a system in which the government and unions determine the maximum number of work hours per week, minimum wage, and a whole bunch of other socialist policies meant to protect the workers from exploitation.
And yet, France is only slightly less productive than the US and this is only if the measure of productivity does not take into account the number of hours worked per week. If the workweek is part of the calculation, France has a higher labor productivity than the US.
I would much rather work, plan, and build a family in this system which enables me to have free time, healthcare, a pension etc. So you think people having these things is bad or what?
Of course it isn't. But you have to define socialism, as it truly is, to the brain washed minions. And, you'll need a higher PR ranking than Faux. to get the message out there.
Oh and I almost forgot... here's what young people on this side of the pond would like to see happen: http://europeansocialistalternative.blogspot.com/
Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers!
Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they? Who cares?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us?
Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us?
Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us?
Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us with her "knowledge"?
1. One post would have sufficed.
2. I didn't draw the cartoon, I just received it in my email from a friend and thought it might be controversial so reposted here on HP. It seems to be attracting a decent number of posts, so I guess my instincts were correct.
3. Painting? I don't no nothin' 'bout no painting.
But the artwork is reminiscent of the title character in a string of horror movie spoofs.
Munch on that, maxomam!
50% right. Did your friend sent you the reference? How can one know an artist without its title?
Oh for goodness' sake.
Can't leave off the or the slow learners in the crowd will not recognize the sarcasm.
Along with the Mona Lisa and American Gothic, that painting is in the top three most recognizable in the world.
Ok... So it takes 85 hours a week in AZ to be able to afford a 2-bedroom apartment?
That's $33,800/year, $2800/month.
You can get a 2-bedroom apartment in Phoenix for as low as $400/month. Lots of options at $600/month.
You have got to be very bad at budgeting to need $2800/month to afford an apartment at $600, let alone $400.
Minimum wage increases unemployment, especially among young and unskilled workers. Raising it would only increase that unemployment more.
Some people arn't that great at budgeting though. Some people, do not budget for stolen bus passes and enough food to feed their children. For example, there was a poster on hubpages who had their bus pass stolen, but had not budgeted for an incident like this. They had to starve their child for a whole week to get to work.
So, it's the job of the government to force businesses to pay more money to individuals who can't budget?
I don't know, you tell me. I can budget and I've never starved my child. I'm all ears when it comes to another perspective.
Ok, I'll tell you. It's not the government's job to set price floors or ceilings. Minimum wage is a price floor. All it does is exclude jobs that would exist if the price floor weren't there.
Budgeting should be taught by parents, and in school. It's a simple thing to learn, and could have saved a lot of heartache during the housing crash.
So what happened with you and your parents then, when you starved your daughter?
? This again?
I do credit my parents for teaching me about financial responsibility. I'm glad to never have gone without food, and now I'm lucky enough to be starting my own business.
Hollie, life is rough. Nobody is saying that it isn't tragic that the parent in the poster couldn't feed her child. But what we're saying is that it isn't the job of the wealthy to pay for that child's food, it is still the mother's no matter whether her pass got stolen or not. If the mother is getting money from the rich for her own needs, isn't she doing (although indirectly and not intentionally or maliciously) the same thing as the thief who took her bus pass for his own needs?
I wasn't talking about the parent in the poster. I was addressing a man who is pontificating about budgeting, blaming the poor for their lot, and who, starved their own child because his bus pass was stolen. Did he not tell you about this?. But he doesn't want to talk about that now. I'm calling out hypocracy..
Yeah, you claimed this before. Apparently I starved my daughter before she was born...
When you can't actually make an argument about the topic, result to anything else.
No, that's what not what you told Melissa B and myself, shall I find the thread? You're daughter had definitely been born, according to you. Did you also starve her before she was born?
I never told you or Melissa any such thing.
My daughter is less than 3 months old, and has always had plenty.
Ok, you do remember though don't you, that it wasn't just Melissa and myself that were involved in that thread?
Why not, why don't we as a country have a responsibility to care for our fellow citizen, after all we pay taxes so that everyone can be protected by say the police, so why should we not care for people more directly.
"It's greed that ails us and a good example is the case of the child, if a child is nurtured, loved, well fed and educated he will usually grow to become an asset to his community, to help them and to obey the law of the people. Starve a child, expose him to violence and poor education and leave him in want and he will usually grow to prey on his community, he will turn to violence crime and bring misery to all. Caring for a child of our community is not only a moral right it's a sound investment in our own prosperity."
Robert Tressel 1901
It's weird to me that people don't seem to realize that we tried that and it was so bad that we changed it, not just here but all throughout the developed world, people wee being paid nothing at all, barely enough to eat and the situation was untenable which is why all those states and their people passed minimum wage laws.
There are laws that existed in the past that aren't needed anymore. With globalization of information, we have nationwide and worldwide competition in the free market. Only something like 1% of jobs are minimum wage, the rest are all set by the market.
~25% of young adults are unemployed. They don't have experience, they don't have jobs. It would be better to allow them to work at $5/hr than say they can't work at all. At least that way they could earn money and gain experience for a better future.
5% of employees are minimum wage or below.
More to the point as you well know, minimum wage sets a base wage and many many employers pay just a bit above minimum wage to avoid the stigma of it being a minimum wage job.
I am all for dispensations for lower wage for first time jobs and jobs below 21 which i believe exist in several states but it's simply not correct to not pay an adult many of whom are trying to support a family any less than the current minimum wage (which is low as it is).
What about employers that can't afford higher paying jobs?
Price floors and price ceilings are not a good thing. They always have negative consequences.
Look at the energy sector, for example. The government has set price ceilings on energy costs through public energy, and our infrastructure needs billions and billions of dollars worth of updating, because they haven't been charging what it costs to provide the energy.
Those who promote government interference with the economy always fail to consider long term consequences...oh, except for Keynes infamous "In the long term, we'll all be dead."
Not at all, I was taught how to consider long term economic repercussions as an economist and my economist buddies are very (in line with national economists surveys) split on the issue about 50, 50 about half believe it's better to have it and increase it and the other half think we are better off without it in the macro economic sense.
And even if companies don't need to hire any more people, their products will be cheaper for everyone (including those who can't currently pay for food.)
that's the falsest logic one can imagine.
Look at this.
For food especially labor is a tiny part of the cost of production, the BLS consumer expenditure survey found that total farm labor costs, cost each household $38 a year which means we could give every farm worker in the country a 33.3% wage raise for an extra $12.66 a year per household. On the other hand people who can't afford food would be very well represented in the minimum wage bracket if we raise their wages by just $2.50 (about a third) for example then multiply that by a full time job we get ($2.50X40) X 52 = $5200 extra for them yearly at the cost of $12.66 in food costs per household yearly.
Basically wages play a very small part in food prices but minimum wage plays a very large part in people not being able to afford food. Now read this comment because it took me work to put it together
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 … ld-workers
Josak, in the future, use more periods. But I did read your comment and I also read the New York Times article on which it is based. True, with minimum wage we are raising the wages of the farm worker. That much is true. And I am not saying that every minimum wage worker would be able to suddenly feed themselves because of a 5 cent decrease in the price of carrots.
But once again, you are only considering immediate, short-term effects.
Let's say you're a farmer. You want to grow as much as you can to earn enough profit as possible. You have plenty of land, all you need is someone to cultivate it for you. You have to hire some workers, but you can't hire enough. The money you are making doesn't allow you to hire very many people because the minimum wage is too high. Therefore, you need to scale back production. Instead of producing 100 pounds of carrots an hour, now you're only producing 80.
Because of this drop in production, supply is low. Demand for carrots stays constant. Now carrot prices really begin to rise.
In addition to that unintended effect, here's another: farmers hire immigrants to secretly work for less than minimum wage. Jobs, essentially, are being outsourced. Farmers have been forced to resort to an alternative market, or the "black market" if you will. (Btw-I don't think immigration is a big deal.)
Now, you're not a farmer anymore. You're a citizen who cannot find work as a farmhand but still must pay taxes. You would rather work for 5 bucks an hour than for nothing at all, but the government won't let you. The government won't let you make a trade that you want to make, your labor for an employers money.
That is what minimum wage legislation comes down to.
As I made clear wages are a tiny fraction of the costs for farmers to lower them would not make farmers lives much easier but would make workers lives much harder, when you are struggling to pay rent and buy food as most minimum wage workers do, making 2.50 less (tho bring wages down to 5) is very tough. That is what would happen, may farmers would drop their wages which would actually put minimum wage full time workers in to the poverty quintile.
The fact of the matter is that farmers are struggling to find workers as it is willing to work for the wage they pay (except illegals) so there really isn't any room to drop the wages anyhow. That is shown by what happened after the tough immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia were passed, tens of millions of dollars of produce rotted unharvested because there were not enough workers.
I acknowledged your point about wages not directly effecting prices, but you ignored by point about how, indirectly, they most certainly do. And I find it hard to believe that farmers can't find workers if the unemployment rate is 8.2%. (That is the unemployment rate of America as a whole, but the unemployment rates in the south and where most crops are grown is typically higher.)
south and west where most crops are grown*
You're suggesting that people would rather sit around unemployed (earning nothing) than work for what you say is less than they can sustain on. Wouldn't anyone rather work for 5 dollars an hour than zero? The reason that farmers can't find workers is not because people don't want to work for them. It is because farmers can't afford to hire them at the high price that the government requires. So the farmers beg for, as they say in a couple of those articles, specifically immigrant labor. If farmers need workers so bad, why is the unemployment rate so high? It is because minimum wage is too high. Farmers don't want to pay that much for legal farmhands. The unemployment rate would be lower if the farmer could afford to hire more legal citizens, but he can't because minimum wage forces the unemployed to ask too much for their labor.
Think that the cost of wages is insignificant to the farmer? Think he could afford to hire more? The information you provided me about farmers needing more labor proves otherwise. If he could, he clearly would. But he can't, and he's begging for cheaper labor.
Thanks for citing all of my sources for me.
No... They have crops rotting in the fields because there are not enough people interested in their wages, because those wages are not living wages. They were desperately looking for people at minimum wage to harvest and found none. Immigrants can afford to accept those lower wages because the money is worth more across the border, not so for people who live here all year round or who are not sending it back.
The evidence says exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting not that they couldn't afford to pay people but that there was no one willing to accept the minimum wage job.
Your conclusion is baffling.
No most people are not willing to work in the sun all day for less than 60 bucks, well atleast not many are.
First of all, living expenses are not necessarily cheaper across the border. I don't know where you go that information.
But more importantly, your conclusion is much more baffling than mine. I'm saying that people would rather make less than minimum wage than make nothing at all, being unemployed. You're saying they would rather sit on their couch, rejecting the farmer's proposed wages. I thought that the poor of America were hardworking, just unfortunate? Aren't you suggesting with your conclusion that they're just lazy? And if they are just lazy, why am I paying their unemployment check?
Ah, maybe that's why they don't want to work, and all those crops are going to waste. Their unemployment check is too comfortable of a crutch.
I just would like to point out that a good percentage of the unemployed might be physically unable to work a full-time farm laborer job. A middle-aged out-of-shape man or woman would have a hard time. Part-time might be more feasible, but most farm laborer jobs are located a good distance away from where people live, with no transit available to get there, meaning that much of the wages would be eaten up in gas getting to and from work. That applies to full-time work, too.
Right Wing Billionaires Shudder as PolitiFact Confirms Bernie
It's a fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders has seen his statements about wealth inequality come under vicious attack from the right. Today, PolitiFact confirmed that Sen. Sanders’ statement about the Walton family having more wealth than the bottom 40% is true.
A little over a week ago Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted that, “Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.” Sanders also made this statement during his recent congressional testimony on Citizens United.
Even though Sen. Sanders has been discussing the issues of wealth inequality and fighting for middle class and working Americans for years, it was his recent report about the impact of Citizens United and the 26 billionaires who are trying to buy the 2012 election that has raised the ire of the right.
The Vermont senator’s recent statements about the Walton family caught the attention of PolitiFact, and the Pulitzer Prize winner fact checkers analyzed Sanders’ tweet.
PolitiFact concluded that, “The statistic correctly compares the combined net worth of the bottom 41.5 percent of American families with the six Walton family members. We think the additional points — that many people with a negative net worth are not necessarily poor and that percentages about wealth distribution can be deceiving — are important and interesting. Nevertheless, Sanders’ claim is solid. We rate it True.”
The right has been trying various tactics to undermine the message of Sen. Sanders. Their favorite one seems to be to complain that Sanders only goes after conservative billionaires. They frequently ask why Sanders doesn’t go after the liberal billionaires who are buying elections. The answer to that question is that liberal billionaires aren’t holding secret conferences to fundraise and strategize about how to purchase our elections.
The answer is that left isn’t engaging in the same behavior to the same degree that the right is. There is a reason why Democrats support efforts to overturn Citizens United, and Republicans are opposed. The conservative billionaires have become the lifeblood of the Republican Party. They pick the candidates. The right wing billionaires buy the ads, and when their candidates are elected, they pass the legislation. Conservative billionaires own and operate the Republican Party.
Bernie Sanders is dangerous to the interests of these billionaires, because as PolitiFact confirmed, he is telling the truth about their activities. In a political system where incumbents have been terrorized into silence by Citizens United empowered billionaires, Sen. Bernie Sanders stands alone.
The only way that the billionaires will be defeated is if the American people stand together against wealth inequality, and demand their country back. Sen. Sanders has the message that can put the tools of our representative democracy back into the people’s hands.
Why would they work for minimum wage or less, if their government will give them even more in exchange for votes?
well first off don't look at me about welfare, I don't believe in welfare checks and if it was up to me I would change things to get rid of them entirely except for the disabled etc. you won't find me supporting paying people to do nothing. I believe in the dignity and reward of labor but equally you won't find me blaming people for not wanting to work in a field all day for a pittance, they deserve a better wage (not to mention treatment as most have no health insurance etc with their job).
I don't in general think the poor are lazy doubtless there are lazy individuals. The point is both here are a problem, welfare checks without the knowledge of whether someone can't find work or won't work and a wage that is insufficient for people to want to work.
My son did some harvesting work a few years back about a quarter of his wages went to fuel right off the bat, working a full time job for $250 a week is not an attractive prospect.
As for things being cheaper in Mexico I know because I have been to Mexico one can easily live a week for less than $20 (groceries wise) minimum wage in Mexico is about $4 so things have to be cheaper to be affordable.
Which leads to the interesting question "Why can't the farmers afford to pay even the minimum wage to agricultural workers?"
Is it because the farmers are growing more crops than the market wants? What Marx described as cyclical overproduction or we normally call "boom and bust"?
by Charles James5 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by Eddie2 weeks ago
How childish to act like a third grade drama queen in a debate , did he nail Pence on one thing , no , did he win the debate , No ! He sounded like an absolute twit ! ...
by Josak3 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by Mtbailz4 years ago
Why is socialism such a dirty word in the United States. Is socialism always a bad thing?
by Charles James4 years ago
Rarely do I get involved with Politics -especially American. However, recently, I came across several photos depicted the US President with the likeness of one A. Hitler. I really do not see the comparison. Good and...
by Jimbo'daNimbo4 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/28/y … h-earners/France has sent their tax rate to 75%. On the wealthy of course. Fine.So let's all....and I do mean all...take a break for about five years and leave them alone...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.