Capitalism vs Socialism.

"Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy."
If everybody owned their own land, and grew food for themselves, it doesn't seem to me like market socialism. It seems more like completely free-market capitalism (which holds its own perils).

 

They didn't own their own land. The company owned the land, and distributed parcels for personal use.

 

Right now, there are 9.8 million people diagnosed with SMI (serious mental illness). I'm not sure how many were left after he cut spending, but I do know this: "He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization." - http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013...al-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/ And in my opinion, it's pretty messed up to throw someone in a prison without their consent if they haven't committed a crime.

"Like Richard Nixon, he was a product of the Southern California culture that associated psychiatry with Communism."
That is... um... Quite a claim...

I know for a fact it hasn't. I've done the math, and it has actually over-compensated, perhaps for:

I haven't done much research into this.

Social security is a messed up thing in the first place. Either A) the government takes your money via taxes, and then gives it back to you when you retire, which makes it totally useless, or B) The government takes your money via taxes, and then gives less of it back to you, in which case it's worse than useless, or C) The government takes your money via taxes, and gives more of it back than you payed in, in which case it's essentially a Ponzi scheme, and as we know, all ponzi schemes fail eventually.

Can you give examples of 'deserving candidates' being rejected? Do you have a definition for 'deserving candidate'?

Tell me, do you own a car? Do you have a house, or an apartment or condo? Do you eat regularly? If so, you're greedy, because you could be giving that wealth to someone who actually needs it, in Africa or Syria. In fact, how are you conversing with me, on an online forums, when you should have given your money to charity instead of buying a computer? It's your greed, and the greed of people like you that makes life for others so hard. We should all strive to be like Bill Gates, and reinvest our personal money into the economy, and give more than 300 million dollars per year to charity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html

 

And as the article showed, violent crime and law enforcement spending went up as a result, these things had very dramatic impacts on communities.

I suggest you check your math again, because according to real researchers, the federal minimum wage in inflation-adjusted dollars peaked in 1968: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/23/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/

It's actually a great program, because by providing an income to senior citizens, you allow them to be more independent. Otherwise, the burden shifts to their working-age children, and there's a significant loss of productivity on their part. This is yet another program that means the country gets back more than what it pays.

How about "a couple hundred thousand poor households who failed to provide proper documentation of assets in one state over two years, because the paperwork is complicated, and being poor people, they don't really understand finances very well"? http://www.governing.com/news/state/mct-pennsylvania-food-stamp-test-too-complex.html

"In the nine months before the asset test was implemented on May 1, 2012, 94,204 households had their applications for food stamps rejected for failing to provide proper paperwork, according to DPW figures analyzed by the Coalition.

In the nine months after the asset test began, 111,215 households had their applications rejected for insufficient paperwork, an increase of around 17,011, according to the analysis. Advocates believe that surplus represents people who are eligible for food stamps who might have lost their benefits because of the increased complexity of the asset test."

I hope you enjoyed knocking down that straw man, because I've never advocated for anything other than a mixed economy, and if you look back you'll even see where I said the free market does things very well under the right circumstances.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 11, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 3, 2016 ---

I glossed over this one before, because I was already dealing with enough subjects simultaneously in this thread. But now I've got some time, and as an avid student of history, this is right up my ally.

The Revolution was only tangentially about taxes. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, the Colonists continued to view themselves as patriotic members of the freest nation on Earth (which was kinda true then, which isn't saying much). This was entirely a dispute over jurisdiction. Most colonies had charters, signed by the king, which specifically established a form of government in which the crown appointed judges and governors, but legislative authority remained local, as did the makeup of trial juries. And those colonies who didn't have formal recognition of such a form of government contained in their charters set up their own legislatures anyway, and these were treated the same as the formalized ones. As members of the British Empire, the colonists recognized the power of the king and his appointed governors and judges, just as these authorities were recognized elsewhere in the realm. They even recognized the power of Parliament to regulate external trade, whether that meant between colonies, or between the Empire as a whole and foreign powers.

They did NOT recognize any power of Parliament to interfere strictly in internal matters, among them the forms of taxation. The king was legally authorized to demand taxes of the colonies, and the colonies recognized their legal responsibility to provide it. The manner of imposing such taxes was a power retained entirely by the local legislatures, and supported by historical precedent. So when Parliament said, "This is your tax, and this is how it will be collected," the collective response was, "F-U, Parliament, who do you think you are?? You're out of your jurisdiction!"

A modern day equivalent would be for the legislature of New Jersey to pass a bill to impose an income tax on the residents of Oregon.

The reason why the US fought a war for independence and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa did not, is because the British gave those colonies what the Americans already had, before it was taken away from them, and triggered a war: their own independent parliaments, and the British Parliament, except for issues which affected the Empire as a whole, dutifully minded its own damned business.

There were a great many documents written prior to the Declaration which make the case. I find this one to be clearest: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/petition_va_1764.asp

Also of note, the final appeal to the king: the Olive Branch Petition. This bit lays out their sentiments pretty well, of both loyalty to the king and outrage at Parliament (here represented as "those designing and dangerous men"):

The Olive Branch petition was largely the work of and represents common ground for Thomas Jefferson (who, as we know, wrote the Declaration of Independence) and John Dickinson (who abstained in the vote for independence and refused to sign the Declaration).

After the king received this petition, he went to the German principalities to recruit mercenaries to send to the colonies. America found out, and their attitude towards him flipped. Jefferson laid the entire fault of the conflict at the king's doorstep in the Declaration, for his failure to exercise his constitutional power to check Parliament.

 

So we throw people in prison because they have a greater propensity for crime than the average Joe?

I calculated for inflation, not purchasing power.

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment. I've always loved those.

Let's say I put 10k per year away for retirement for 40 years, and I retire.
Things are great, and I have almost half a million to retire on (idk if that's good or not, but this is for the purpose of demonstration)

Now let's say 2k of that goes to the government, and as a result, I can't invest it in the stock market or whatever. Now I'm putting away 6k for 40 years. I now have 240k to retire on, but I get a pension from the government.

Now I think I already mentioned it, but maybe not, and I don't really feel like going back to reread it all, and I'm still a little frazzled from finals, but here it goes: There are three ways this can go.

1. You receive less money than you payed, in which case you come out a loser.
2. You receive exactly how much money you put in, in which case you lose, because it isn't as much as you would have gotten from investing it.
3. You receive more than you put in, in which case the whole system falls apart (you can't get out more than you put in. That's why debt is such a bad thing.)
None of these particularly appeal to me, especially as the first two directly affect me, and the third indirectly affects me (that is, I'd have to pay just as much to take care of my 'share' of everyone's parents as I would to take care of my own; costs are costs after all).

This is something to work with, but I'd still like to know what you think a deserving candidate is.

Yes, people were denied for failing to turn in proper paperwork. Now there are a couple of factors that could contribute to an increase in rejections, but let's assume it's due entirely to a new, more complex process (designed to prevent people from illegally getting taxpayer money). Advocates (not experts, like with the inflation/minimum wage thing) but advocates, claim that it's people who would be eligible (different from deserving, mind you), instead of people who shouldn't be getting it.

And yet you believe in capitalist greed (which you are benefiting from). If you could make your position on this clear: Do you believe capitalists are greedy? Can you define 'excessive capitalist greed'? Are you a capitalist, as (I'm assuming) you live in a capitalist society?

Sounds like fun .

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 24, 2016 ---

Yup Yup Yup, and the issue that sparked the whole conflict was parliament levying a tax. Honestly, I'm not sure why you're aiming this at me, instead of llokh, as my original position was that the revolutionary war wasn't about taxes; I merely lacked the education to refute what he said (And I appreciate your info-dump, it was very informative). Anyway, good post, and I agree . (with this bit, not the stuff above it.)

 

This poll actually frightens me as to how many socialists...

 

Not everyone here is American lol.

 

Ah I see, just throwing this out there tho, socialism only works on paper. If everyone is paid the same, what incentive is there to work or get a better education?

 

Idk.

 

Lol not directed at u, just a general discussion/debate comment

 

That's not socialism, that's communism, specifically, Stalinism.

The federal minimum wage is socialism.

 

you get sent to the gulags if you dont

 

To make a long story short; Personally i prefer Socialism over Capitalism.
And i am totally against war.

 

Minimum wage should stay as is. It shouldn't be raised. Raising it would destroy and keep small businesses from rising, thus destroying the potential for more jobs. In addition to this, prices would rise as people would have to charge more to make a profit. If you can't quite visualize the concept, this youtube channel explains very well the premise behind this concept, especially this video. Yes, it is a very right-winged channel, but I believe that the message trying to get across is valid. As for war, no I am not for it, but there is not much that can be done to avoid it. All that it takes is one country to make a d*** move towards another. Not everyone is friendly, but if you roll on your back to appease people every time, they will suck you dry. That is why America is currently the most successful nation in the world; we didn't do that. The thing though that concerns me is that we are becoming like that...

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 24, 2016 ---

I am fairly certain those havent existed since the 1950's...

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2016 ---

If you would care to elaborate, I would be happy to debate. You are entitled to your own opinion on the other hand, as am I, just if you're up for a debate. Cheers!

 

I would but i don't know lots about this topic so i can't really lol

 

fair enough

 

Well you still have to account for things such as inflation and buying power (otherwise in 20 years there'll be no point).

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 24, 2016 ---

I don't think it is. Socialism is when the government (which is made up of the community) is in control of the creation/distribution etc of stuff. That is, the government employs all people, and provides all services. I don't think having a minimum wage falls under this category, because it's regulating what governmental and non-governmental entities alike can pay employees.

 

If we were to keep up with inflation, the minimum wage would be around $10.71. This rate i can agree with, but protestors are pushing for $15 minimum. That is just too much. So i guess you could say that i do agree, but to a certain extent. Anyways, minimum wage isnt supposed to be livable. If you work hard and keep a steady job, you will rise in rank and pay.

 

Yup

Yup

Certainly not for a family.

Probably.

 

glad we are on the same page with this