|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 9, 2016 16:07:40 GMT -6
7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism John Hawkins John Hawkins|Posted: Dec 04, 2012 12:01 AM Share (7K) Tweet 7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism
Given what we know in 2012, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat. Yet, a recent Gallup poll shows that more liberals have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. This is only possible because there are so many perverse incentives that drive the promotion of socialism. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while capitalism robs you of that opportunity. If you would rather live off the dole than to work or alternately, prefer to make money off "who you know" instead of "how good a service you provide," again socialism works better for you. Now take into account the fact that there are no pure socialist or capitalist economies left and it becomes very easy to muddy the water and keep people from realizing the obvious economic superiority of capitalism. 1) Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is superior to capitalism in one primary way: It offers more security. It's almost like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you're lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It's just as
Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." 2) Capitalism encourages entrepreneurship while socialism discourages it: A government in a capitalist economy can quite easily give everyone equality of opportunity with a few basic laws and regulations, but socialism strives to create equality of results. This should frighten people who value their freedom because ultimately, as F.A. Hayek has noted, "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." You can see this happening in America as our efforts to reduce "inequality" have led to an ever expanding government and a vast regulatory tangle that is almost unexplainable despite the fact that it is certainly enforceable. Capitalism encourages people to start a business and build a better life for themselves while socialism lays in wait with IRS agents, nooses made of red tape and meddling bureaucrats looking for businesses to control and loot.
3) Capitalism leads to innovation:
Coming up with new products is often time consuming, expensive and hit or miss. Nine ideas may fail before that tenth one takes off. The less the creative people behind these ideas are allowed to benefit, the less time, money and effort they'll put into developing new concepts and inventions. Put another way, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward has to be to convince people to take it. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers makers only a parade of bureaucratic leeches who want to take advantage of their "good fortune." 4) Capitalism produces more economic growth: Capitalism produces considerably more economic growth than socialism and as John Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." A fast growing economy produces more jobs, more wealth and helps everyone. Many people assume that capitalism isn't working if there are still poor people, but that misses the point. In many parts of the world, poverty means living in a hut with a dirt floor while in America, most poor Americans have TVs, refrigerators and cell phones. The rich may take home a larger share of the pie in capitalism, but the poor also benefit tremendously from living in a growing, thriving economy.
5) Socialism is too slow to adapt: Capitalism is extremely good at allocating capital to where it's most valued. It has to be. Either you give people what they are willing to pay for or someone else will. On the other hand, socialism is slow and stupid for a variety of reasons. Because the government is spending someone else's money, it doesn’t get particularly concerned about losing money. Political concerns about appearances often trump the effectiveness of a program. Moreover, even if politicians and bureaucrats are intelligent and competent, which are big "ifs," they're simply not going to have the specific knowledge needed to make decisions that may impact thousands of different industries. This is why capitalism may have its share of troubles, but when there are really colossal economic screw-ups, you'll always find the government neck deep in the whole mess.
6) Socialism is inherently wasteful: Milton Friedman once said, "Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own.
" This is very true and it means that the more capital that is taken out of the economy and distributed, the more of it that will be wasted. The market does a considerably better job of allocating resources than the government because there are harsh penalties for failure. A company that makes products no one wants will go out of business. A poorly performing government program that wastes a hundred times more money will probably receive a bigger budget the next year. 7) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it: Ayn Rand said it well, "America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way," but Adam Smith said it better, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” A man will work much harder to take care of himself, his family and his friends than he will to make money for the state, which will then waste most of it before redistributing it to people who aren't working as hard as the man who earned it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 9, 2016 16:13:42 GMT -6
And then there is this from across the pond.
The illusion that left wing economic policies help the least well-off remains widespread and shapes many people’s political ideology. All too often I hear people dichotomize socialism and capitalism as a choice between helping the poor and helping the rich. Such a view is completely misguided and can only result from a poor understanding of economics. In this post I hope to demonstrate to you, the reader, why left wing policies in fact mean that the poorest in society will be worse off. Hopefully when you are done reading this you will agree that it is the economic right that does most for the poor.
I will stipulate at this point that by “socialist policies” I mean policies pertaining to large government attempts to redistribute wealth, for example by taxing the wealthy, and then spreading this to the less well-off. I hope I can be forgiven for being fairly semantically slack, however the terminology will suffice for the purpose of this post.
1. You can’t tax businesses, only people
As the late, great economist Milton Friedman would say, you can no more tax business than you can tax a table. Businesses are in fact people, and when you propose a higher tax on businesses really you are proposing a higher tax on people. But who’s going to be bearing the brunt of your increased tax on businesses? It’s not the CEO, nor is it the executives. Suppose you are the CEO of a large business and you see that corporation tax will increase by 5%; how will you react to ensure your business remains viable? You will look at your company’s revenue and expenditure, and preferably reduce the expenditure so that your profit does not take a hit. Now you must decide how you will reduce expenditure. You do not want to take a pay cut because you quite like your six-figure salary the way it is. What about the executives in senior positions in your company? Cutting their pay is risky since highly-skilled and highly-qualified workers are hard to come by and you do not want to lose them to your competitors. Perhaps a very small pay cut or reduction in bonuses or even getting rid of one or two is unavoidable, however nothing drastic. Now you look at the lowest paid workers in your company; those who are on the shop floors, behind tills, in the warehouses. Here is where it makes most business sense to make savings, since low-skilled workers are easy to come by, and readily replaceable. You will reduce pay across the board for these workers, you will trim any that are not absolutely necessary, you may even close down branches of your company that are not profitable enough. The CEO and management remain relatively unscathed, however the 5% increase in corporation tax has resulted in the lowest paid losing their jobs or going home with an even smaller pay-check than before.
It gets worse. You cannot make up all of the shortfall by sacking workers so you must find other ways of reducing your expenditure. You must pass on the tax-rise to the customer by increasing the prices of goods. Now your customers go home with a slightly heftier receipt. Your middle class customers can manage, they have a relatively high disposable income and can afford to pay a little more for their shopping. Your wealthier customers can certainly manage. Your poorer customers, with the smallest disposable income, will now find that the increase in corporation tax is hitting them hard. The general cost of living will be higher since prices will go up across the board as a result of the increase in corporation tax.
Finally, your shareholders must also take a hit. You can no longer afford to pay out the kind of dividends you used to pay out before the tax rise. Your projected profits also drop and the price of your shares drop as a result. In this way, shareholders, have had to pay for this tax hike instead of the intended target; the wealthy.
So we have seen how a tax on ‘business’ really means a tax on workers, customers and shareholders. Rather than being redistributive, this tax has succeeded only in making everyone’s lives harder, most of all the poorest.
2. The minimum wage benefits no one, least of all the poor
The minimum wage has a similar effect to our corporation tax above. We can use the same scenario to show how a high minimum wage is damaging to the very people it is supposed to protect. Let us suppose the minimum wage is £5/h. You advertise a shelf-stacking job in one of your stores at minimum wage. Now since jobs are hard to come by, a few people apply for the job vacancy you advertised. Sarah is willing to work for a minimum of £5/h and would not have applied had the salary been any less. However John was willing to work for £4.90/h. Although they are both fully qualified to stack shelves, Sarah has better credentials on paper, she has more GCSEs than John. So you hire Sarah. Now John is left without a job even though, in theory, his offer of working at £4.90 is more competitive than Sarah’s offer of £5, and would have been better for your business, since they were both fully capable of stacking shelves. But what has happened is the minimum wage has prevented John from being more competitive, and has now left him unemployed. What’s more, it has forced you to hire someone to do a job for more money than it is actually worth. So you’re making less profit than you could have been, and John is left unemployed. Sarah now has a job, but her better qualifications mean she had a better chance of finding a job eventually than John now has. But as long as there are Sarahs around, Johns will not be able to find jobs because they have lost the only thing that made them employable; their willingness to work for less.
The implications of this are hard to overstate. Suppose now Steve and Amy would both work for £2.50/h. For the amount of money you hired Sarah, you could have hired both Steve and Amy, who are both qualified to stack shelves. Two sets of hands means increased productivity, increased productivity means higher profits, higher profits means you can be more competitive with the price of your goods, you can expand your business and hire more people, which means more people working, and fewer unemployed. But now that you have Sarah stacking shelves, you cannot afford to be as competitive with price, and Steve, Amy and John are all unemployed. Your goods cost more, which means the poorest in society will find that they are most strained by the imposition of a £5/h minimum wage. We can see how a combination of high corporation tax and a minimum wage is an unpleasant cocktail. This time, when balancing the increase in corporation tax, you do not have the choice of lowering wages of workers on minimum wage. You must sack them outright even if you would have kept them on at £4.50/h.
Now you may be thinking; well it’s all good making up imaginary people that would work for £2.50/h, but how on Earth is that supposed to sustain anyone?. You mustn’t forget that lower wages means that the savings can be passed on to the customer in the form of more competitively priced goods. Since Steve and Amy are also customers when not stacking shelves, their £2.50 will go a lot further. Again you might be wondering; How do you know that the company will pass on profits to the customer? Surely most of these greedy businesses will keep prices the same and benefit from larger profits. However you would be missing two fundamental points about the free market. The first is that all businesses want to be as competitive as possible so that they can take larger profits. Passing the savings on to the customer is not done out of good will, but out of good business acumen. Suppose Business X decides to keep prices the same despite abolition of the minimum wage, but Business Y decides to lower its prices to reflect lower expenditure on wages. People who used to shop at Business X now see that Business Y is cheaper, and will begin shopping there instead. Business X now has higher prices, but fewer customers, whereas Business Y has lower prices but more customers. It is absolutely no use to Business X that their cans of soup are 70p more expensive if no one is buying them. Business Y’s cans of soup are flying off the shelves by comparison, and therefore Business X will be forced to lower the price of its goods in order to compete and win back some customers. This is why lower wages will always result in cheaper goods. The second point is that people will choose how much to work for based on the cost of living. Steve and Amy only exist if £2.50/h is a liveable wage. If they would not be able to afford even the basics on such a wage then they would look for jobs that are £3.00/h. With so few people looking for £2.50/h jobs, the company will have to raise the advertised wage until there are people willing to work for that wage. Therefore the free market ensures that everyone is working for the amount that they are willing to work for (not necessarily the amount they want to work for) and businesses can offer more jobs and bring more people into work. By comparison, the minimum wage has only succeeded in pricing out those who are most disadvantaged and helping out people like Sarah who could have found more highly-skilled jobs.
3. Socialism kills social mobility
This may come as a surprise to some, especially those who think of capitalism as a tool of the elite to hold onto their wealth at the expense of the lower classes. However is there any truth in this? In fact the reverse is true. The free market ensures everyone has a fair chance to rise up the social strata and create their own wealth. Government intervention in the form of taxes and welfare programs actually reduces social mobility and means that those who start with less wealth will likely remain in that position all their lives. There are two main reasons for this: 1) accumulating wealth is more difficult, and 2) welfare disincentivizes work for the poorest in society.
It is more or less true by definition that socialism makes accumulation of wealth more difficult. A graduated tax system means that the more wealth you accumulate, the more difficult it is to become wealthier. Moreover, heavy regulation on businesses means that only the big players who have the means can survive. For anyone hoping to start their own business and compete with the big fish; complicated red tape is a considerable obstacle. In other words, socialism means that large, established businesses are not under threat from smaller startup companies because of the obstacles placed on all businesses by tax and red tape. Anyone from a poorer background stands little chance of competing with larger companies, and this stifling of competition is what ensures that the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich.
Although any civilised society needs some kind of safety net, anything more than the minimum is disadvantageous to the poorest in society in the long term. If it is possible to sustain oneself solely on benefits then there will be less incentive to work. Given the choice between receiving money for doing nothing, and receiving the same or even less by working, any rational person will choose the former. Anger toward those who choose to remain on benefits rather than work is misplaced. Why should one work if it means having less to live on? Or having less time with one’s family? No. Anger should be directed towards a government that has made it easier not to work for sustenance. But with no incentive to work; often generations of the poorest families will never receive the skills and experience associated with working. Without this experience, there is practically no hope for social mobility in these poorest families. If it were made such that people had to work to top up their benefits, they would gain the right kind of experience, the right kind of attitude toward work…etc. This point of course ties in with the previous points, in that the minimum wage and high corporation tax reduce employment so that even if poorer households wanted to work, they would almost certainly be priced out of the job market. Providing jobs really is the best kind of welfare.
4. Complicated tax laws disadvantage the poorest
The case for abolishing graduated income tax and replacing it with a flat tax is an important one that has not received enough attention here in the UK. The advantages of scrapping the graduated tax are numerous, however I will focus on the reasons that a simple flat tax is fairer for the lowest income earners. As a general rule, the more complicated a country’s tax system is, the easier it is to find loopholes and avoid paying high tax rates. This in turn means the treasury loses out on substantial tax revenues. Higher income earners are able to move their assets around more flexibly, and receive income through different channels, e.g. through dividends of a company. These options are not available to lower income earners who are forced to pay their income tax fully. What was supposed to be a tax system that takes a greater percentage from the rich, actually becomes a system that encourages aggressive tax avoidance behaviour, such that top income earners end up paying much less (as a percentage of their total earnings), completely legally. A low flat rate on the other hand would be a fairer system for several reasons. It would make it much more difficult to find loopholes, since it is clear how much everyone is expected to pay, with no need for expensive administration to take everyone’s personal and employment details. It would also make hiring accountants to move your money around for you unprofitable. In other words, paying the tax is cheaper than paying the accountants. A fair threshold for paying tax is a prerequisite for such a system, so that the poorest can earn a decent wage.
The most important thing is to make sure the richest are contributing the largest amount of tax revenue in real terms. It is no good having a graduated tax system with a high top rate if the highest earners can easily avoid paying that rate either by putting their money in low tax jurisdictions or channelling their wages through gains or dividends.
In all of the above examples it is quite clear that well-meaning policies do not work in practise. The real choice between socialism and capitalism isn’t between helping the poor and helping the rich. The choice is in fact between greater inequality but better living standards across the board; or greater equality but lower living standards across the board, especially for the poorest.
It is uncontroversial that free market capitalism is good for economic growth, but inevitably, all nations that grow through laissez-faire capitalism adopt socialist policies. Why? Because as living standards increase, the gap between the richest and the poorest becomes more apparent. Entrepreneurs reach great heights off the back of capitalism, and this breeds jealousy and hatred towards the wealthy. Living standards have not become worse for the poorest, on the contrary they now enjoy the services and innovations that the free market begets. Rather, it becomes more obvious that the wealthiest are living a lavish lifestyle compared to the poor. So inevitably the country adopts socialist policies that aim to reduce this gap. But what these policies actually do is to reduce living standards, reduce freedom, reduce opportunity, especially for the poor, so that the gap is no longer so apparent. But are we to say that subjecting the poorest to an insipid lifestyle of welfare, poor living standards and little opportunity is better than giving them jobs, the incentive to work for their wealth, and the promise that hard work will be rewarded? There is little doubt, in my mind at least, that the right has got it right in this respect.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 11, 2016 12:36:36 GMT -6
A discourse most social observers disagree with 100%-
but sleep tight- boogyman all gone
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 11, 2016 16:13:51 GMT -6
What boogyman?
The polices of the left clearly show it in many ways it is socialism, parts at a time.
As the author stated you can choose one or the other but not both, and that has been the falsehood for years. That socialism will rise the lower class up to standards of others all by itself, will not happen, has not happened and those that rely on the govt for more and more will see less and less movement upward in economic standing.
The proof is in the pudding. We have 30 plus years of experience showing it simply does not work in many areas across our country.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 12, 2016 8:24:26 GMT -6
you confuse communism with socialism.
me showing you the difference, and showing you how socialism built this country, would be futile.
believe in what you believe
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 12, 2016 18:23:09 GMT -6
Socialism and communism both want public ownership of means of production. They also try to keep people in the same class and never works,in a FREE nation.
Again socialism is alive in our country and it has failed every which way. The proof is out there by the bushel baskets full.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 12, 2016 19:01:24 GMT -6
socialism has succeeded in just about every way in the United states- from the job your wife has in the schools, to the police, fire, highway dept the military, the REAs, public utilities, SS, medicare..........the list is endless.
but I understand- you are want that wants to reap the benefits, but indulges himself with rose glasses
move out to an island, or collect your mail.....................
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 12, 2016 21:29:41 GMT -6
Socialism does not mean the government ownership of many businesses etc. That is just a smoke and mirror argument by many that want the true capitalism like they have in the Middle East where you take whatever some one forgets and if you win the fight you win. Many successful nations with high level of social programs and socialism have very strong private property rights and ownership. There are also many aspects of infrastructure that I will gladly leave in the hands of government even if it is socialistic in the eyes of many, all our roads, bridges, airports etc. that allow us the independence and freedom to be mobile as a society. If we were relying heavily or totally on private infrastructure many would not be able to afford to travel much if at all in our large nation. Many just look at governments and socialism as taxes and regulation when in reality governments do much more than that in moving our citizens forward. If I don't want to provide public support to give opportunity to any and all who are willing to step up then in reality I am trying to eliminate competition and that is counter capitalism from the get go. Capitalism is based on opportunity and the ability gain a niche and or an edge. Socialism and social programs that level that field for me and others from very limited backgrounds are programs I favor heavily. I even will help subsidize the better off and the large conglomerates if they are willing to help those that want a shot but don't have the means from within.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 13, 2016 17:57:18 GMT -6
Socialism is a community idea and an idea that hurts work ethic and job growth. The incentive to proposer is gone. Those are the facts. The incentive chnages to all being in the same boat good or bad.
Socialism takes away the ability to achieve and stand out, like Hillarys plan to spend 350 Billion on FREE higher education, a single payer system for healthcare which we cannot afford without much higher taxes, which in turn kills productivity and jobs.
What is the incentive to do well if we give out everything for so called FREE?
Nowhere in history can one find where socialism has led to an economic boon. No where. In fact we look at the areas that are far more socialist in nature in the US and they have barely stayed the course.
We have choices in education Tman not everyone goes to a public school. Just like anything else there are good public schools and poor public education no amount of money has ever changed that. Even though we have tried that route. I can name a dozen off the top of my head. Also public schools are funded more and more by state and locals dollars and less and less on federal dollars in many areas in the US.
Bryce provide public support for how many and how long? What is the criteria of such? You see so much red tape involved and yet we still have programs that do not meet the target or goals. BIG govt answer is to keep throwing more money and more resources to things that need to be overhauled in a major way.
Bernie the big socialist who ran, had no chance with his ideas, the last thing people want to hear that are lower middle class and middle class is we are going to raise your taxes to provide more and more at a time when we need more jobs and more US competition in a global economy.
Tman no I want smaller federal govt and I want more people to achieve things and not have the defeated attitude and hear that BIG govt is there to take care of you.
The youngg people today are the majority that beliefs in more socialism in this country than any other age group, scary really as you keep raising taxes to pay for more and more programs, then we will end up with less productivity that is a fact, and with that comes less tax revenue across the board.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 13, 2016 19:51:57 GMT -6
I am not a fan of public support I am a huge fan of offering fair and equal opportunity. I don't support welfare like some do but I do feel we should offer public education opportunity at the cost to get that accomplished. I see you picked on the social program aspect of socialism and none of the multitude of society benefits that public involvement brings. You say that socialism and community building take away success or drive. What do you feel the military spends all of boot camp and R & D for to get a squad, platoon, company, division etc. to work as an effective cohesive unit in the time of integrity. You certainly don't want or need a bunch of rogue individualists in your group in a forward or combat situation. We were trained to count on the group for success and we strove very hard to do so. Many combat vets today after 30-60 to 70 years still meet regularly with friends and survivors from their "community" that helped accomplish their goals and keep them alive.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 14, 2016 8:48:48 GMT -6
Socialism is a community idea and an idea that hurts work ethic and job growth. The incentive to proposer is gone. Those are the facts.
I've never, ever- and that includes Trump- seen anyone with so little understanding, and discard of what facts are.
What you posted are not facts, or even close to facts- they are YOUR uninformed opinion.
if you want to bury your head in the......sand...... and ignore the socialist things you take advantage of everyday, including where your wifes paycheck a comes from, and where yours used to come from.......all I can say is "whatever"
because logic and reason and actual facts prove you to be wrong
Bryce- the pages of history are filled with how socialism is the backbone of our community, which is our country.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 15, 2016 6:58:56 GMT -6
Sociallism is the back bone of our country? Wow.
Again we are all afforded equal chance we are not all afforded equal results .
Tman so you relise what I pay in taxes each year for my wife's pay check? What other people of this state pay in?
I will give you the break down 59 percent local, 31.76 state and 10.13 federal. I am all for local control gives areas more of a voice . Well over 80 percent of my personnel propert taxes go to public education , that is not the par of socialism I am against over all, but I still like the idea if private schools as well freedoms of choice .
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 15, 2016 7:23:43 GMT -6
I know MO is a taker state- getting more in federal funds than they pay in
----------------
its impossible to have a debate, or even a dialogue if you don't understand what the meaning of socialism is.
look back at the history of our country- if you don't see out basic principles as being socialist then you are blind.
starting out from "We, the People...."
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 15, 2016 17:39:34 GMT -6
A taker state for education with 10 percent federal? I think you forget the money allocated to sates also includes those dollars for federal road ways as well, like I 70 and I29 and I 64 and many others in the KC and St Louis areas?
Would like to see the numbers minus all the interstate dollars.
We the people does not mean socialist it means United. A group can unite without being socialist. The mere definition of socialist is far different than just being in a group.
Tman here is websters definition of socialism far different than what we are
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay for work being done.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 15, 2016 17:44:32 GMT -6
No where in we the people can I stretch it to mean socialism by the definitions given in websters .
Compare socialism to capitalism and we see a vast difference in the thought process.
economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 16, 2016 7:29:49 GMT -6
a TAKER state, because the federal govt GIVES your STATE MORE in OTHER PEOPLES TAX DOLLARS than YOUR state GIVES to the FEDERAL GOV'T in TAX MONEY
your state is consider, in the federal system, a WELFARE STATE
---------------------------
I understand you want simple definitions of things. That your world, is black and white. There is no gray, there is no inbetween.
but your view, isn't my view, nor frankly the view of reasonable people.
I feel like Lucy and the football, but heres the serious answer-
The world isn't black and white- there are no distinct lines, instead there are blurred lines, interlocking connections with just about everything.
so- "There are some inherent pitfalls trying to offer simple, bite sized definitions of capitalism, socialism, communism and fascism – the first being that these are complex concepts concerning both economics and government, so short definitions will be incomplete; the second being that these concepts are not always mutually exclusive (most modern states combine elements of more than one); the third being that historical states defined the terms differently; and finally, some of the terms refer strictly to economic systems (capitalism) while others (fascism) also refer to government and economic systems (communism and fascism). "
Our country, is a mix of free market (capitalism) and community (socialism).
here is a true definition of capitalism- "In common usage, the word capitalism means an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and the investment of capital and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined mainly in a free market, rather than by the state. In capitalism, the means of production are generally operated for profit."
It goes on to say (and note this)- "In a purely capitalist economy, there would be no public schools, no state owned or maintained roads and highways, public works, welfare, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, Social Security benefits etc."
The University of MO, and any other public school or university, is a “socialist” institutions, and those who attend it or work for it are partaking in socialism, because it is owned and operated by the state of MO. The same is true of federal and state highways, federal and state parks, harbors etc.
That's just a fact. And you can add the fire, the police depts, the military, our whole defense system, the post office.
our westward expansion- homesteading, land grants, all- socialist programs.
Your wife works for the school. Her wages, are being paid in part- by MY tax dollars. And you don't call that socialism?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 16, 2016 18:43:41 GMT -6
The university of Missour is a joke and I have boycotted it and any sport watching after the debacles that have took place there over the past few years and their school attendance has taken a hit along with their sports.
So websters doesn't have a true definition then hey? Ok.
Socialism as the main theme in a free country means bad things, and I for one am sick of us getting more socialist ever election cycle.
Police, Fire,Ambualnce are needed services many things are not and I and millions of others would like to see a federal govt ran under a balanced budget dollar in and out.
I am not anti taxation, never stated such. I do not believe in lots of FREE just for the sake of being more beholden to a govt. I also vote locally for a fire protection district which did raise my taxes, not yours or others outside of the district, but only those who voted inside the district and are the only ones taxed. I like more local control of things. I weighted out the cost versus benefit and that is why I voted yes for such. If it would have been a bad deal I would have never voted yes.
I 1000 percent disagree with Hillarys idea of free higher education, bad idea and very costly. I also disagree with the idea of govt ran healthcare will not be good for our country and the taxation rates will be far too high and if you think business is leaving the US now? Wow. Again we do not tax business really, we tax people in the very end. Any additional cost will be passed on doen the line to say otherwise is not factual. Bernie was very socialist in nature just one of the reasons he had no chance, I will give him he was honest , but our country is not ready for that kind of socialism hopefully never will be.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 17, 2016 6:59:27 GMT -6
and I for one am getting sick of debating an issue where the opposition has no idea of what he is talking about.
but yet I persist
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 17, 2016 8:02:39 GMT -6
The bottomiline is one group seems determined to push more and more social programs at higher cost to the tax payers of this country and millions are not for that approach to make America great again.
We will never tax our way to prosperity that is a fact. Not in any group of people anywhere in this country.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 17, 2016 8:09:33 GMT -6
no- the bottom line is our country has prospered under social programs defined as socialism
but, like your hero The Donald- that's as close to an acknowledgement you were wrong on this, as I'll ever see
whenever you say "that's a fact" it almost 100% of the time, isn't.
but here is a fact- based on history- supply side economics doesn't work
|
|