Does America need a bit of Socialism

[WRIF Army]

Socialism is theft, it is perpetrated by a larger mob against a smaller mob at gun point.

Socialism requires govt coercion because nobody would subscribe to its unfair and inefficient schemes under non-coercive conditions. As proof, if socialism really benefited society, why must force be used to implement it ?

Contrast the fantasy boogeyman private sector monopoly (none have ever materialized without collusion with govt) of Starbucks, WalMart, Standard Oil who never forced anyone to purchase their products by force with the govt monopoly that pervades the entire economy and maintains its monopoly on armed force with institutions like the NSA, IRS, ATF, CIA, FBI...... and denies or severely undermines free market competition.

Contrast hundreds of millions of consumers acting diligently in their own behalf with the govt bureaucrat/regulator who is almost always captured by the very firms and industries they are supposed to monitor. There is no backroom deals and bribes in the private sector because firms must satisfy consumers preferences to prosper, with govt, firms simply need to bribe a few politicians and bureaucrats to 'prosper'.

Illogically, statists justify the economy-wide coercive govt monopoly because of the fantasy of a single coercive private sector monopoly in a single sector of the economy that has never existed anyway. Seriously, how can a firm survive to gain monopoly status by losing money by lowering prices to drive out the competition, only to raise prices later which only incentives near immediate competition from startup firms always waiting in the wings in a free market economy unfettered by govt regulations designed to protect large politically connected firms.

No seriouly, you believe that it would fare better without government control?

Here's the thing: History during Standard Oil was as unregulated as it could be. After the experience with Standard Oil which made us push the Sherman Anti-Trust acts we never had any other company successfully override a single entire market on its own like they did.

Also, Standard Oil did force people to purchase their products because they were running cheaper than anyone else to drive out of competition every other oil producer in the nation.

Also, you are delusional if you think any of those agencies have any military power whatsoever.

Of course, your wrong, the coercive dictates of federal agencies is enforced at gun point by other federal agencies (law enforcement, military....)

Govt agencies are tools used by politicians to punish the opposition and reward benefactors.

[Galloism]

Forget it bub.

Those who forget history and doomed to repeat it.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Honestly, I remember things. Company stores come to mind. Paying employees in script so they were always in debt to the company and could never leave unless someone paid to get them back - like they were slaves.

Companies dumping toxic waste in abandoned fields. I remember that.

Companies forcing people to work in the extreme cold or extreme heat, to the point of death.

I remember all this. The reason we don't have this now is that the government stepped in and said "treat your people decent or we will close your ass and throw the ringleaders in prison". I'm not saying the government is always your best friend, but at least it answers to us.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Standard Oil was lowering prices throughout the 19th century, their 'crime' was lower costs, more and safer oil products to American consumers.

The motivation for anti-trust was sour grapes competitors who bribed Washington to have the 'right' to charge consumers higher prices without Standard Oil offering under cutting their inefficiency.

Bottom line, it is illogical that socialists would attack a firm for the 'heinous' act of lowering prices to consumers ?!

You do understand what they were trying to do, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_O ... ted_States

It's not about they wanting to attack a firm because they lower the price, it's because said company does it to drive others out of the market and appropriate their resources. Also, mention some of the "safer oil products" Standard Oil produced.

[WRIF Army]

Truer words have never been spoken.

Honestly, I remember things. Company stores come to mind. Paying employees in script so they were always in debt to the company and could never leave unless someone paid to get them back - like they were slaves.

Companies dumping toxic waste in abandoned fields. I remember that.

Companies forcing people to work in the extreme cold or extreme heat, to the point of death.

I remember all this. The reason we don't have this now is that the government stepped in and said "treat your people decent or we will close your ass and throw the ringleaders in prison". I'm not saying the government is always your best friend, but at least it answers to us.

Your going back over 100 years to defend the present day -- contextually misleading at best.

Nobody today is forced to work any job against their will. The only slave labor is that performed by citizens to pay the IRS. It is govt that using mob rule to extort money and labor from others against their will.

[Divair]

Honestly, I remember things. Company stores come to mind. Paying employees in script so they were always in debt to the company and could never leave unless someone paid to get them back - like they were slaves.

Companies dumping toxic waste in abandoned fields. I remember that.

Companies forcing people to work in the extreme cold or extreme heat, to the point of death.

I remember all this. The reason we don't have this now is that the government stepped in and said "treat your people decent or we will close your ass and throw the ringleaders in prison". I'm not saying the government is always your best friend, but at least it answers to us.

Your going back over 100 years to defend the present day -- contextually misleading at best.

Nobody today is forced to work any job against their will. The only slave labor is that performed by citizens to pay the IRS. It is govt that using mob rule to extort money and labor from others against their will.

How can it be against their will if they've given consent?

[WRIF Army]

Standard Oil was lowering prices throughout the 19th century, their 'crime' was lower costs, more and safer oil products to American consumers.

The motivation for anti-trust was sour grapes competitors who bribed Washington to have the 'right' to charge consumers higher prices without Standard Oil offering under cutting their inefficiency.

Bottom line, it is illogical that socialists would attack a firm for the 'heinous' act of lowering prices to consumers ?!

You do understand what they were trying to do, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_O ... ted_States

It's not about they wanting to attack a firm because they lower the price, it's because said company does it to drive others out of the market and appropriate their resources. Also, mention some of the "safer oil products" Standard Oil produced.

You can't drive out competitors in a free market. They are always free to enter the market when a boogeyman monopoly tries to exploit consumers with higher prices.

It won't happen because it requires a firm lose money to gain monopoly status by lowering prices to drive out competition, then the company loses money again when it raises prices because consumers boycott, find substitution goods and competition enters at bargain prices by purchasing the idle capital left by firms that were bankrupt earlier.

It is a fantasy told to you by socialists who benefit from a coercive govt system.

Standard oil was lowering prices and increasing product line and quality throughout the 19th century.

[Galloism]

Honestly, I remember things. Company stores come to mind. Paying employees in script so they were always in debt to the company and could never leave unless someone paid to get them back - like they were slaves.

Companies dumping toxic waste in abandoned fields. I remember that.

Companies forcing people to work in the extreme cold or extreme heat, to the point of death.

I remember all this. The reason we don't have this now is that the government stepped in and said "treat your people decent or we will close your ass and throw the ringleaders in prison". I'm not saying the government is always your best friend, but at least it answers to us.

Your going back over 100 years to defend the present day -- contextually misleading at best.

Nobody today is forced to work any job against their will.

Of course they are. I don't know why you would think the threat of starvation, homelessness, exposure, and death is not coercion.

The only slave labor is that performed by citizens to pay the IRS. It is govt that using mob rule to extort money and labor from others against their will.

Actually this is the rule of law, and it is not extortion. Extortion is illegal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Truer words have never been spoken.

Honestly, I remember things. Company stores come to mind. Paying employees in script so they were always in debt to the company and could never leave unless someone paid to get them back - like they were slaves.

Companies dumping toxic waste in abandoned fields. I remember that.

Companies forcing people to work in the extreme cold or extreme heat, to the point of death.

I remember all this. The reason we don't have this now is that the government stepped in and said "treat your people decent or we will close your ass and throw the ringleaders in prison". I'm not saying the government is always your best friend, but at least it answers to us.

I never had to see any of that myself, I studied history so I should know better than to backup unregulated markets.

Sure, our government isn't perfect and I can criticize it as much as I want on their fuck ups but regulation and management of the macroeconomy is one thing at which they have excelled internally by promoting better rights for workers and consumers' rights. They do come with some stupid ideas sometimes, but business has always been in their best interest to keep both consumers and producers happy, and they have achieved it so far.

[Galloism]

You do understand what they were trying to do, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_O ... ted_States

It's not about they wanting to attack a firm because they lower the price, it's because said company does it to drive others out of the market and appropriate their resources. Also, mention some of the "safer oil products" Standard Oil produced.

You can't drive out competitors in a free market. They are always free to enter the market when a boogeyman monopoly tries to exploit consumers with higher prices.

It won't happen because it requires a firm lose money to gain monopoly status by lowering prices to drive out competition, then the company loses money again when it raises prices because consumers boycott, find substitution goods and competition enters at bargain prices by purchasing the idle capital left by firms that were bankrupt earlier.

It is a fantasy told to you by socialists who benefit from a coercive govt system.

Then explain why my Wal-Mart has prices nearly double the Wal-Mart in St. Louis with a Target across the street.

[Escasia]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that 'socialism' has lost so much of its meaning as a word that it's not even salvageable. Give it a few years and it'll be in the thesaurus under 'nationalization'. You can't even argue about it properly these days because practically no-one has a clue what it means.

I think I'll go grumble to myself for a bit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You do understand what they were trying to do, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_O ... ted_States

It's not about they wanting to attack a firm because they lower the price, it's because said company does it to drive others out of the market and appropriate their resources. Also, mention some of the "safer oil products" Standard Oil produced.

You can't drive out competitors in a free market. They are always free to enter the market when a boogeyman monopoly tries to exploit consumers with higher prices.

It won't happen because it requires a firm lose money to gain monopoly status by lowering prices to drive out competition, then the company loses money again when it raises prices because consumers boycott, find substitution goods and competition enters at bargain prices by purchasing the idle capital left by firms that were bankrupt earlier.

It is a fantasy told to you by socialists who benefit from a coercive govt system.

No, you actually willingly refuse to acknowledge American History.

Rockefeller had only 10% of all the oil production in the States before he outran the oil producers in Cleveland and he managed to take another 10% of the oil production market, making it 20% of oil production in the U.S. while owning 80% of the official oil market. Also, it isn't as easy to enter a monopolistic market because here's the thing: It's much easier to drive a competitor out when you own most of the market than what it is to outrun your competition when the market doesn't belong to you.

[WRIF Army]

Your going back over 100 years to defend the present day -- contextually misleading at best.

Nobody today is forced to work any job against their will.

Of course they are. I don't know why you would think the threat of starvation, homelessness, exposure, and death is not coercion.

The only slave labor is that performed by citizens to pay the IRS. It is govt that using mob rule to extort money and labor from others against their will.

Actually this is the rule of law, and it is not extortion. Extortion is illegal.

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

[Divair]

Of course they are. I don't know why you would think the threat of starvation, homelessness, exposure, and death is not coercion.

Actually this is the rule of law, and it is not extortion. Extortion is illegal.

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

So you'll just ignore the poor, I take it?

[WRIF Army]

You can't drive out competitors in a free market. They are always free to enter the market when a boogeyman monopoly tries to exploit consumers with higher prices.

It won't happen because it requires a firm lose money to gain monopoly status by lowering prices to drive out competition, then the company loses money again when it raises prices because consumers boycott, find substitution goods and competition enters at bargain prices by purchasing the idle capital left by firms that were bankrupt earlier.

It is a fantasy told to you by socialists who benefit from a coercive govt system.

No, you actually willingly refuse to acknowledge American History.

Rockefeller had only 10% of all the oil production in the States before he outran the oil producers in Cleveland. Also, it isn't as easy to enter a monopolistic market because here's the thing: It's much easier to drive a competitor out when you own most of the market than what it is to outrun your competition when the market doesn't belong to you.

An important fact that socialists fail to realize is that consumers have free choice, they are not compelled by force to do anything by Standard, WalMart, Starbucks..... Also they are free to compete at the drop of a hat. It is wrong to assert that in today's nimble economy that a start up firm can't materialize in months, if not weeks, when we have entire industries created in a few years that didn't existed before.

The only coercive monopoly is govt. (and it is the biggest with all the big guns) that is the salient fact that socialists can never rationally deny.

[Nervium]

You can't drive out competitors in a free market. They are always free to enter the market when a boogeyman monopoly tries to exploit consumers with higher prices.

It won't happen because it requires a firm lose money to gain monopoly status by lowering prices to drive out competition, then the company loses money again when it raises prices because consumers boycott, find substitution goods and competition enters at bargain prices by purchasing the idle capital left by firms that were bankrupt earlier.

It is a fantasy told to you by socialists who benefit from a coercive govt system.

Then explain why my Wal-Mart has prices nearly double the Wal-Mart in St. Louis with a Target across the street.

Goverment socialism!

[Threlizdun]

Of course they are. I don't know why you would think the threat of starvation, homelessness, exposure, and death is not coercion.

Actually this is the rule of law, and it is not extortion. Extortion is illegal.

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

So you are both showing that you still don't know what socialism is and that you are prepared to deny the reality of starvation in capitalist countries. Does the third world not exist anymore?

[WRIF Army]

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

So you'll just ignore the poor, I take it?

I don't ignore the poor, I offer charity and a hand-up to those that need it. In contrast, govt exploits the poor to serve itself. Govt uses the plight of the poor as an excuse to plunder more wealth, all the while the poor (conveniently) remain poor while govt claims it needs ever more money to 'solve' the problem.

It is noteworthy that socialists tell everyone that money is needed to help the poor, yet they never give their own, they always require (demand at gun point) that other people contribute.

If socialists learned to love the poor more than they envy the rich, we might make a dent in govt created poverty.

[Galloism]

Of course they are. I don't know why you would think the threat of starvation, homelessness, exposure, and death is not coercion.

Actually this is the rule of law, and it is not extortion. Extortion is illegal.

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

Did you really just pick Hong Kong? Hong Kong, with its free public school system, 50 publicly run hospitals, social security assistance for the low income, disability system, minimum wage, and compulsory savings fund for retirement?

That Hong Kong?

[Divair]

I don't ignore the poor

Then you'd stop worshiping the free market and acknowledge that starvation is an omnipresent issue that the free market doesn't magically solve.

[Threlizdun]

No, you actually willingly refuse to acknowledge American History.

Rockefeller had only 10% of all the oil production in the States before he outran the oil producers in Cleveland. Also, it isn't as easy to enter a monopolistic market because here's the thing: It's much easier to drive a competitor out when you own most of the market than what it is to outrun your competition when the market doesn't belong to you.

An important fact that socialists fail to realize is that consumers have free choice, they are not compelled by force to do anything by Standard, WalMart, Starbucks..... Also they are free to compete at the drop of a hat. It is wrong to assert that in today's nimble economy that a start up firm can't materialize in months, if not weeks, when we have entire industries created in a few years that didn't existed before.

No, people can only purchase what they can afford. They cannot freely choose who they purchase on because they can't afford that luxury. Many have to work multiple jobs to barely afford to spend their entire paycheck at WalMart.

The only coercive monopoly is govt. (and it is the biggest with all the big guns) that is the salient fact that socialists can never rationally deny.

Bullshit. All monopolies are coercive by definition.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So you'll just ignore the poor, I take it?

I don't ignore the poor, I offer charity and a hand-up to those that need it. In contrast, govt exploits the poor to serve itself. Govt uses the plight of the poor as an excuse to plunder more wealth, all the while the poor (conveniently) remain poor while govt claims it needs ever more money to 'solve' the problem.

It is noteworthy that socialists tell everyone that money is needed to help the poor, yet they never give their own, they always require (demand at gun point) that other people contribute.

If socialists learned to love the poor more than they envy the rich, we might make a dent in govt created poverty.

Since when had socialists done that? And don't say China, the Soviets, or any of those, because they weren't and/or aren't socialists.

[WRIF Army]

The primary places were starvation occurs in socialist command economies mismanaged by coercive govt managers, see China, N. Korea, Cambodia......
In contrast, you are never going to have starvation in more free market oriented societies like Singapore, Hong Kong.... despite the fact that these nations have precious few food resources.

So you are both showing that you still don't know what socialism is and that you are prepared to deny the reality of starvation in capitalist countries. Does the third world not exist anymore?

Any starvation is because free markets and citizens can't use their talents to feed themselves. Govt rationing, price controls, protectionism.... create the conditions for starvation. Often times, govt is so destructive that politicians will intentionally allow citizens to die to increase their hold on power.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, you actually willingly refuse to acknowledge American History.

Rockefeller had only 10% of all the oil production in the States before he outran the oil producers in Cleveland. Also, it isn't as easy to enter a monopolistic market because here's the thing: It's much easier to drive a competitor out when you own most of the market than what it is to outrun your competition when the market doesn't belong to you.

An important fact that socialists fail to realize is that consumers have free choice, they are not compelled by force to do anything by Standard, WalMart, Starbucks..... Also they are free to compete at the drop of a hat. It is wrong to assert that in today's nimble economy that a start up firm can't materialize in months, if not weeks, when we have entire industries created in a few years that didn't existed before.

The only coercive monopoly is govt. (and it is the biggest with all the big guns) that is the salient fact that socialists can never rationally deny.

Congratulations in showing you lack the most basic knowledge of entrepreneurship or business.

Any service business takes at least several months into coming to be; manufacturing can take years. You also need capital, real estate, equipment, all of which is not possible to have at the drop of a hat.

You can't be serious in stating that anyone can open their own business as they wish. Even in Texas it takes several months/years of planning and building proper capital before trying to open up any sort of company legally (which includes having a DBA).

[Nervium]

I don't ignore the poor

Then you'd stop worshiping the free market and acknowledge that starvation is an omnipresent issue that the free market doesn't magically solve.

Even better, it's a direct consequence of that free market.

[WRIF Army]

An important fact that socialists fail to realize is that consumers have free choice, they are not compelled by force to do anything by Standard, WalMart, Starbucks..... Also they are free to compete at the drop of a hat. It is wrong to assert that in today's nimble economy that a start up firm can't materialize in months, if not weeks, when we have entire industries created in a few years that didn't existed before.

No, people can only purchase what they can afford. They cannot freely choose who they purchase on because they can't afford that luxury. Many have to work multiple jobs to barely afford to spend their entire paycheck at WalMart.

The only coercive monopoly is govt. (and it is the biggest with all the big guns) that is the salient fact that socialists can never rationally deny.

Bullshit. All monopolies are coercive by definition.

Name a single private sector monopoly that forced you to patronize their establishment against your will .