Does America need a bit of Socialism

[The Empire of Pretantia]

1) Because fuck democracy, right?

Well it is the worst form of government, besides all the others we tried, as the saying goes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why not?

Aren't you a socialist? I brought up Adam Smith because I think his ideas about the role of government are spot on.

Smith is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire. He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital.
So is defence. If our property can be stolen by a foreign power, we are no better off than if our own neighbours steal it. And Smith sees a role for education and public works too, insofar as these collective projects make it easier for trade and markets to operate.
Where tax has to be raised for these purposes, it should be raised in proportion to people’s ability to pay, it should be at set rates rather than arbitrary, it should be easy to pay, and it should aim to have minimal side effects. Governments should avoid taxing capital, which is essential to the nation’s productivity. Since most of their spending is for current consumption, they should also avoid building up large debts, with draw capital away from future production.

What Adam Smith said is fine.

What I see here is a lot of people fawning over Ayn Rand's twisted utopian model of Capitalism

[Riiser-Larsen]

Even the best of Entrepreneurs would find competing with a store like fucking Wal-Mart too burdening because it is - again - far easier to kick out competition out of a market you own than carving a market in one you don't own any resources.

Basic rule of economics: all resources are limited by the inherent nature of scarcity.

WalMart is successful because they satisfy consumer preferences in a peaceful and voluntary market, once they cease to do that, then myriad competitors will swoop down and take market share from them.

You can't name a single American who has been forced into Walmart against their will, yet you advocate the empowerment of the mother of all coercive monopolies --the federal govt. -- to combat an illusory fantasy boogeyman WalMart 'monopoly' that to date has committed the heinous act of lower prices ?!

What you don't understand is that violence is not necessary to force people into these stores, they do it because they have no other alternative.

[Galloism]

Even the best of Entrepreneurs would find competing with a store like fucking Wal-Mart too burdening because it is - again - far easier to kick out competition out of a market you own than carving a market in one you don't own any resources.

Basic rule of economics: all resources are limited by the inherent nature of scarcity.

WalMart is successful because they satisfy consumer preferences in a peaceful and voluntary market, once they cease to do that, then myriad competitors will swoop down and take market share from them.

Prove it. Source this ridiculous claim that the moment, the fucking moment Walmart exploits the monopoly it creates, it will be ground into dust by the free market fairy.

Source it. Prove it. Show us the history of overnight crushing of predatory businesses.

You can't name a single American who has been forced into Walmart against their will, yet you advocate the empowerment of the mother of all coercive monopolies --the federal govt. -- to combat an illusory fantasy boogeyman WalMart 'monopoly' that to date has committed the heinous act of lower prices ?!

I can name about 10,000.

Well, I don't know all their names, but I could get a map and draw a circle on it.

[Benuty]

Apparently having a set of unified education standard is an example of socialism *nods*.

I don't support Common Core, mostly because I think it's set up horribly, but calling it socialism is just insane. I thought the Red Panic ended years ago.

Given that it has been around since 1880 as America's bedfellow it won't be going anywhere until the U.S maturely breaks up from its irrational sexist boyfriend.

[Divair]

1) Because fuck democracy, right?

In many cases, yes. Rights come before mob rule & oppression.

2) Did you see the bold at the very end?

Yes. It doesn't prove the USSR industrialized far faster than Europe.

[Yorkopolis]

Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Is it really this hard for you to understand the poor can't choose where the shop because they can't afford it?

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

Seriously dude, where do you live to not be able to realise that, when people are poor, they don't have a choice other than Wal-Mart? When will you learn to read what is being said instead of just disregarding every single argument being made, saying "Wal-Mart is doing good business"?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Is it really this hard for you to understand the poor can't choose where the shop because they can't afford it?

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

Stop fucking asking where we live. We're not saying it's the case in our area, we're just saying it has happened.

[Galloism]

1. Yes, because Walmart has done is an unethical business practice that destroys competition and innovation.
2. Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Walmart...
3. Do you realize that when a large competition engages in those practices it's meant to eradicate competition so that consumers have no where else to go but them?
4. Do you realize that just simply isn't reality and has no historical basis behind it. I don't think you understand the term monopoly.
5. It has happened, and it will happen if we deregulate. The government isn't a monopoly. It provides free services to the public.

This, this, so much all of this!

Standard oil was great. It had the great practice of making deals with the railroad that forced its competitors to effectively pay standard oil to use the rail lines.

It was subsidized by its competitors because it cornered the market.

The free market fairy was apparently kidnapped during those years.

[Cyyro]

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.

Hey! That's nice! Hong Kong is, where? CHINA. And China has a free-market economy, nothing "socialist command" about that. Cambodia? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. North Korea? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. Also let's just plain fucking ignore those 50% of the populace that lived in starvation and poverty each day in the US from 1800-1900. Let's just plain ignore those and pretend we're all doing good, because it'll all magically go away. Yeah.

Hong Kong was owned by the British Empire for quite some time, and the British weren't exactly socialist. Even now, China hasn't gone in and enforced socialist policies on Hong Kong.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Because fuck democracy, right?

In many cases, yes. Rights come before mob rule & oppression.

2) Did you see the bold at the very end?

Yes. It doesn't prove the USSR industrialized far faster than Europe.

Were any of the other countries producing twice as much steel by 1953 that they were in 1941? And, more importantly, did any of those countries suffer the intense losses that the USSR did?

EDIT: And what right would you give, when you don't even give national sovereignty?

[Threlizdun]

1) Because fuck democracy, right?

Yeah, you're all about preserving democracy, what with supporting a coup against the popularly elected republican government established after the February Revolution, the slaughter of political opponents during the Russian Civil War, the support of Stalin's genocidal dictatorship, and the continued state capitalist autocracy that dominated Soviet Politics until its collapse that used the same interventionist techniques you just criticized. Of course, you get to criticize people for saying something that comes off as anti-democratic.

[Yorkopolis]

This, this, so much all of this!

Standard oil was great. It had the great practice of making deals with the railroad that forced its competitors to effectively pay standard oil to use the rail lines.

It was subsidized by its competitors because it cornered the market.

The free market fairy was apparently kidnapped during those years.

Of course, Standard Oil just did what was appropriate and the free market fairy even approved it with her twingly-tingly staff of free-marketism! Nothing wrong was going on at all and absolutely no fraud!

[United Marxist Nations]

Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Is it really this hard for you to understand the poor can't choose where the shop because they can't afford it?

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

A small town in West TN. The only major retailer here is Wal-Mart, it killed our other retail outlets; drove them out of business.

[Divair]

Were any of the other countries producing twice as much steel by 1953 that they were in 1941? And, more importantly, did any of those countries suffer the intense losses that the USSR did?

That's what you were supposed to prove.

EDIT: And what right would you give, when you don't even give national sovereignty?

National sovereignty is not an inherent right I believe in. Otherwise I'd be OK with, say, a country like Uganda oppressing homosexuals. But as someone who disregards borders entirely, I'm not OK with it.

[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.

Hey! That's nice! Hong Kong is, where? CHINA. And China has a free-market economy, nothing "socialist command" about that. Cambodia? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. North Korea? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. Also let's just plain fucking ignore those 50% of the populace that lived in starvation and poverty each day in the US from 1800-1900. Let's just plain ignore those and pretend we're all doing good, because it'll all magically go away. Yeah.

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.

Haha, you think we envy the rich? Why would I envy a pig-swine capitalist who unfairly earns his money over the backs of other people? Give me a single reason as to why I should be envious of someone who lives such a disgusting lifestyle? I'll be waiting!

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?

'Cause, y'know, the third world is "socialist".

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Even the best of Entrepreneurs would find competing with a store like fucking Wal-Mart too burdening because it is - again - far easier to kick out competition out of a market you own than carving a market in one you don't own any resources.

Basic rule of economics: all resources are limited by the inherent nature of scarcity.

WalMart is successful because they satisfy consumer preferences in a peaceful and voluntary market, once they cease to do that, then myriad competitors will swoop down and take market share from them.

You can't name a single American who has been forced into Walmart against their will, yet you advocate the empowerment of the mother of all coercive monopolies --the federal govt. -- to combat an illusory fantasy boogeyman WalMart 'monopoly' that to date has committed the heinous act of lower prices ?!

The thing is we already had monopolies. It is historically accurate to assume that monopolies do not work for the markets since we already had them and we were looking at how they destroyed the so-called "free market".

And no, they will not. Microsoft is another one that was close to monopolizing the market. It was the only alternative people had those days in a pre-built machine and they were kicking out their software competitors out of their program by not releasing their code. A monopoly can pull any unofficial rules they want as long as they keep a strong hold of the market, hereby making competition almost non-existent.

[Riiser-Larsen]

In many cases, yes. Rights come before mob rule & oppression.


Yes. It doesn't prove the USSR industrialized far faster than Europe.

Were any of the other countries producing twice as much steel by 1953 that they were in 1941? And, more importantly, did any of those countries suffer the intense losses that the USSR did?

EDIT: And what right would you give, when you don't even give national sovereignty?

Did any of those countries also have freakishly large tracts of land across the entirety of Asia that were not developed until the years leading up to 1953?

[Hochste Kaiserreich]

Just simply taking a look around the globe can show that state-centric economies, with leftist wages and welfare, perform better. Unfortunately, 71% of our population can not even tell where the Pacific Ocean is on a globe, so we may just have to use Google.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

The answer is simple: they weren't socialist by definition.

[Galloism]

Hey! That's nice! Hong Kong is, where? CHINA. And China has a free-market economy, nothing "socialist command" about that. Cambodia? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. North Korea? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. Also let's just plain fucking ignore those 50% of the populace that lived in starvation and poverty each day in the US from 1800-1900. Let's just plain ignore those and pretend we're all doing good, because it'll all magically go away. Yeah.


Haha, you think we envy the rich? Why would I envy a pig-swine capitalist who unfairly earns his money over the backs of other people? Give me a single reason as to why I should be envious of someone who lives such a disgusting lifestyle? I'll be waiting!


'Cause, y'know, the third world is "socialist".

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

Are you going to explain yet why Hong Kong is your symbol of free market with all its welfare policies and (mostly) state run medical industry?

[America Libertaria]

This, this, so much all of this!

Standard oil was great. It had the great practice of making deals with the railroad that forced its competitors to effectively pay standard oil to use the rail lines.

It was subsidized by its competitors because it cornered the market.

The free market fairy was apparently kidnapped during those years.

The free market fairy was still a kid who didn't master his powers yet which makes sense since the Free Market fairy wasn't born until February 6, 1911.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Because fuck democracy, right?

Yeah, you're all about preserving democracy, what with supporting a coup against the 1) popularly elected republican government established after the February Revolution, the slaughter of political opponents during the Russian Civil War, the support of Stalin's genocidal dictatorship, and the continued state capitalist autocracy that dominated Soviet Politics until its collapse 2) that used the same interventionist techniques you just criticized. Of course, you get to criticize people for saying something that comes off as anti-democratic.

1) Wasn't popular after the Kerensky offensive.
2) I agree that that was wrong, I subscribe to the Hoxhaist notion that the USSR used its power to manipulate other movements.

[WRIF Army]

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

A small town in West TN. The only major retailer here is Wal-Mart, it killed our other retail outlets; drove them out of business.

What town, I guarantee that I can find at least a half dozen competitors to WalMart.

Do you know about Amazon ?

http://www.amazon.com/

It's on the interweb or the internets

[Divair]

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

Are you going to explain yet why Hong Kong is your symbol of free market with all its welfare policies and (mostly) state run medical industry?

No. He won't address the social contract either.