America: What's wrong with "socialism", anyway?

[Undesired Walrus]

ask anyone who lived in the USSR or North Korea.

they will tell you ALLLLLLLL about..the "glories" of Socialism.

As someone who self identifies as a social democrat, I'm surprised to hear this.

The reason the USSR and North Korea practiced/practices a bastardised version of socialism (And yes, I know I'm venturing into 'No true Scotsman' territory, but just because it's a cliche it doesn't mean it cannot be applied to some cases) is that it was/is a totalitarian dictatorship, which forgoed/forgoes democracy. To take private enterprise into the arms of the state will only be for the people if the people are able to hold the state to account. Under a dictatorship there is nothing to stop the dictator from doing what they wish with the institutions.

 

[Beerina]

You put a ceiling on individual wealth.

You put a floor on individual poverty.

Most people have a to work a little harder, and get a little less.

But nobody has too little, and nobody has too much.

What's the problem?

Nightmare Mode: provide your own definition of "socialism", and answer the question on your own terms.

The real problem, in effect, is when it goes beyond nibbling at the edges to address this or that small issue, and just starts doing things like you say, such as a "ceiling on individual wealth". That is contrary to actual concepts of freedom. "So what?" you say? Well, for one, think about that. And two, the effect is to drive hard work away since the harder people work, and are rewarded, the less and less they get from their hard work, making it less and less attractive as an effort.

This theory has been tested again and again and again. Too many people, for whatever reason (and "the poor" are a minority of this burden nowadays, keep in mind) are extracting money from the producers that they slow down. Nobody works hard to enrich other people. Or empower other peoples' "necessary programs".

One might cynically suggest that a free country, where you could pursue, oh, say, wealth and happiness (i.e. life and happiness) would raise up everybody more, and faster, than a socialized system. One might, if one were cynical. Or a scientist who pays attention to theories and outcomes analysis.


Here is a recent, huge medical study that was contrary to expectations: Red meat does not, in fact, cause cancer. It's still horrible for heart disease. But not cancer. No talking heads attacking this one. I wonder why they're so selective when a cherished belief is swatted away?

 

[mike3]

OK, so factory worker B works harder and still gets the same paycheck as factory worker A. Factory CEO doesn't make a single Thingamajing and gets paid 50 or more times as much as A or B. If you train A or B for a week, they can do Factory CEO's job.

Factory workers A and B are Teabaggers, so they are proud to accept their lot.

So why not make it so the CEO gets paid the same or less than the others?

 

[mike3]

It's easy to live without money when you have replicators and holodeks.

Yeah, I never quite got the bit about bragging about money being abolished by then. And replaced with what? Maybe the idea was to emphasize that people in the 24th century had decided to not be so greedy and just amass as much money as possible, but still going from that to having no money at all is a long step.

Eliminating money is akin to eliminating people putting value on things and that's just not going to happen.

Yeah, it just doesn't plain make any freaking sense at all. Where and how are they supposed to get the stuff they need? One can be not greedy, yet still make use of money.

 

[mike3]

I feel like we're not on the same page.

It's a complicated subject since most economies are mixed, in that there are some elements of capitalism and some aspects of other economic models, Or or vice-versa. Pure socialism, which is what Venezuela is close to, is setup to fail, largely due to human nature.

That last part is key btw.

Which therefore suggests the need for some kind of middle-ground, and if other countries use that, and some (i.e. not complete) socialism would be good, then why do we moan about it? Too much black-and-white thinking? Think it has to be all one or the other?

 

[mike3]

Also, I'm curious, why couldn't one have some kind of "half socialism" (per the "definition" given in the opening post) where there's a "base" below which you can't go, but there's no hard and fast cap on the wealth? (Note that to fund the "base" you'd need to pull some money out of the wealthier segments, but it would not create a hard & fast cap.)

 

[The Painter]

​

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

Yes. Which one was it? Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Try Goldman Sachs

 

[daenku32]

Can you expand on this? It seems to be a contradiction

It means you haven't worked in a real manufacturing environment.


Other items of real world:

You have two workers in a shop that makes bikes (motor and pedal). Person A has an comparative advantage in making pedal bikes. Person B has comparative advanatage in making motor bikes. Both people love their respective comparative advantages and the work that comes with it. But both work in an environment where both workers may build motor and pedal bikes.

Manager X tracks production on the floor. He knows everyone has an equal opportunity to choose what to build, so he tracks their production by numbers only. But because Person A builds pedal bikes which are faster to build than motor bikes, he "outperforms" person B every single day in production numbers. However, since company makes a profit off the motor bikes as well, it is only reasonable that he person B should dedicate himself to his comparative advantage and just build the motor bikes.

However, the Manager, after tracking the numbers for a month, notices that person B has been trailing person A for the entire time. And trailing significantly. So, come review time person A receives a raise and bonus, while person B is placed on "probation" and told to bring his numbers up. So, person B stops building motor bikes alltogether and concentrates on pedal bikes. Trouble ensues as motor bike orders pile up and excess capacity on pedal bike production causes reduction in person A's performance. He picks up a few motor bikes to build even though he is not very good at it.

The numbers even out and Manager X taps himself on the back for motivating person B to work 'harder'.

And yes. This is a real world observation (with the product type changed).

 

[Dancing David]

Which therefore suggests the need for some kind of middle-ground, and if other countries use that, and some (i.e. not complete) socialism would be good, then why do we moan about it? Too much black-and-white thinking? Think it has to be all one or the other?

For a long while in US politics the goal has been to brand the opposition and to make the brand seem just terrible.

Haymarket riot on forward. The populism of certain things has always sort of threatened the US way of doing things: Shay's rebellion, whiskey taxes and the like, then there came the russian revolution.

 

[Dancing David]

Also, I'm curious, why couldn't one have some kind of "half socialism" (per the "definition" given in the opening post) where there's a "base" below which you can't go, but there's no hard and fast cap on the wealth? (Note that to fund the "base" you'd need to pull some money out of the wealthier segments, but it would not create a hard & fast cap.)

I believe that is not what I would want, safe housing, equal education and medical care.

Now my defintion of safe housing might seem a wee bit draconian to some, in that I believe that heavily structured shelters and better public housing would be essential. To just cram people into a building is not really safe housing, but if you screw up out the door you go. Then the shelters would be even stricter, but currently the number of family shelters and shelters for women and their children is very very very small.

 

[Dancing David]

​

Yes. Which one was it? Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac?

BAM BAM BAM another senseless drive by posting.

 

[jimbob]

​

Yes. Which one was it? Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac?

Try Goldman Sachs

It isn't as if we haven't given this out before in this thread:

I doubt it. Seems to me that the big investors were doing rather corrupt things. Didn't some company just get caught selling funds that were designed to fail?

Haven't heard of it, but that surely does not support your point. Was this previously illegal and is now legal? That's called deregulation.

Bloomberg's link to this story (so not some left-wing source)

In a March 7, 2007, e-mail Tourre describes the U.S. subprime mortgage market as “not too brilliant” and says that “according to Sparks,” an apparent reference to Daniel Sparks who ran Goldman Sachs’s mortgage business at the time, “that business is totally dead, and the poor little subprime borrowers will not last too long!!!”

The timing of the e-mails overlaps with his work on the Abacus 2007-AC1 bond that is at the center of the SEC’s lawsuit. The Abacus deal was sold to IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and ACA Management LLC between January and April 2007.

A few months later, a June 13, 2007, e-mail shows Tourre claiming, “I’ve managed to sell a few Abacus bonds to widows and orphans that I ran into at the airport, apparently these Belgians adore synthetic ABS CDO2,” using short-hand for asset- backed collateralized debt obligations squared, or CDOs made up of tranches of CDOs containing asset-backed securities.

Sold as low-risk investments.

I would consider this as immoral, regardless of the legality.

 

[mike3]

I believe that is not what I would want, safe housing, equal education and medical care.

Now my defintion of safe housing might seem a wee bit draconian to some, in that I believe that heavily structured shelters and better public housing would be essential. To just cram people into a building is not really safe housing, but if you screw up out the door you go. Then the shelters would be even stricter, but currently the number of family shelters and shelters for women and their children is very very very small.

1. You mean you don't want people to have "equal" medical care, or at least enough to be capable of catching/curing serious disease?

2. What do you define as "screw up"?

 

[Dancing David]

1. You mean you don't want people to have "equal" medical care, or at least enough to be capable of catching/curing serious disease?

I would like UHC, but no longer think it is feasible, at least for twenty years. So I would prefer to start somewhere else.

2. What do you define as "screw up"?

There are many ways, most people who get tossed get done so for good reason, I for one would prefer to see a rent vouchers, which landlords usualy don't like.

But the lawless nature of many housing complexes and shelters is a real problem.

There needs to be a larger and better safety net than our country has, especially for juveniles. Currently if you are 14 or older you get to stay with abusive families or be homeless.
The foster care system and CPS/DCFS system is very broken and needs fixing badly. But better shelters would mean fewer peopel at risk, I do not believe in 'wet' houses, but family shelters would be a start as would very strict and avaiable safe housing for homeless individuals.

But I am not a screaming meemee either, I have worked with shelters and at shelters, they need strict guidelines and hard boundaries.

 

[MikeMangum]

Here is a recent, huge medical study that was contrary to expectations: Red meat does not, in fact, cause cancer. It's still horrible for heart disease. But not cancer. No talking heads attacking this one. I wonder why they're so selective when a cherished belief is swatted away?

Completely OT, I know...but no, red meat is not "horrible" for heart disease. In fact meat (and especially red meat) is actually very good for heart health. The "read meat is evil" meme is one of those cherished beliefs that is being fiercely defended in the face of overwhelming evidence by authoritative groups like the American Heart Association and the National Institute of Health. These are the same groups that told us to cut out fat and gave us a food pyramid with 30% or less of calories coming from fat and most of the rest coming from carbs. They told us to stop eating butter, to reduce our consumption of eggs, red meat, etc., etc.

They were wrong, and their recommendations caused a massive spike in metabolic syndrome, non alchoholic fatty liver disease, diabetes, heart disease, and osteoperosis, for a whole host of reasons, but primarily 1) carbs are bad ummkay, and 2) our primary sources of vitamin K2 are eggs, meat, and dairy, specifically fats from those items, as K2 is a fat soluble vitamin.

Increased K2 intake showed a 51% decrease in heart attack mortality and a 26% decrease in mortality from all causes - link. K2 is even showing up as having significant impacts on chances of getting various cancers and there is even evidence showing that K2 is usefull in treating (pdf) cancer. Another study showed that people with the highest average intakes of vitamin K2 were 14 per cent less likely to develop cancer, compared to people with the lowest average intakes and a 28 per cent reduction in cancer mortality was observed for people with the highest average intakes.

There are alot of other reasons why the myth of "red meat bad" is just that, but I'm not going to detail them here.

The people in charge at the NIH should be shot.

 

[BeAChooser]

All “A” students (the rich) will be taxed 2 grades.
All “B” students (the upper middle class) will be taxed 1 grade.
All “C” students (the working class) will not be taxed.
All “D” students (the lower class) will be subsidized 1 grade.
All “E” students (the poor) will be subsidized 2 grades.

Everyone gets a “C”.

Well one socialist country seems to be working towards that goal:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5993026&postcount=1

 

[BeAChooser]

Should a E student get an A grade because their parents were A students?

No, but the parents who were A students should be punished.

 

[The Painter]

Try Goldman Sachs

I really need sarcasm tags. BTW what's happening with that? Oh that's right, nothing. Goldman Sachs is embedded in the Obama administration. Nothing will happen to them.

 

[DC]

I really need sarcasm tags. BTW what's happening with that? Oh that's right, nothing. Goldman Sachs is embedded in the Obama administration. Nothing will happen to them.

aint that strange for a Socialist like Obama?