Why Socialism is the key

[craked5]

Excellent discussion....It really demonstrates how much people understand how their own societies work within the broader global society!  If we simplify everything we're discussing here into one world, and we consider the distribution and consumption of resources, then even the lesser educated individuals could appreciate the fact that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.  Our global resources are limited, so when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

Now, none of this discussion has taken into account that "we" as a world "people" are depleting the earths resources and polluting the planet with our consumptive behaviors. We're gonna have to start looking for another planet if we keep it up.  We need to come together and start treating our planet's resources with a mutual respect....greed is killing earth!

It's complicated to make them understand basic things...

But don't even try to bring the planet side on this discussion. Americans don't even admit climate change so...
I mean they get hit every year by more natural disasters and stronger natural disasters but they keep claiming climate change is an hoax xD

Maybe once they all die they'll admit they were wrong :-/

[1714931949]

1714931949

[1714931949]

1714931949

[1714931949]

1714931949

[1714931949]

1714931949

[craked5]

that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.

So you can't read charts, and you are unfamiliar with reality.

You haven't taken inflation into account...
Are you well aware that wages go up but so do prices?

when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

I usually don't like to call people idiots.





When people are allowed freedom, everyone gets richer.  It has happened all over the world.

Yeah cause the average American is getting richer every day xD

When people are not allowed freedom, everyone gets poorer.  It has happened in every communist country.

Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea -
they were the same country, with the same language, culture, and ethnic group.
They were separated into two countries which do not trade with each other,
so it's not the South's fault that people are starving in the North. 

Wealth comes from productivity, not from poor people who have nothing.
When everyone is more productive, everyone can get wealthier.
When everyone is less productive, everyone can get poorer.

Who said the contrary?
But have you consider that if everyone get 10% more productive, the one controlling the distribution of this new wealth is the one owning the mean of production? It means that if we all get 10% more productive, the capitalist can decide to give back to us 0.05% of this new productivity and keep the rest!

We now have more wealth in the world than what existed 100 years ago.
Therefore, some of our wealth has been created recently.
Therefore, it wasn't taken away from anyone.

It seems like you don't understand it's not about people not getting richer.
It's about people not getting what they deserve.
When few people own so much, they decide what will be given to others.

[craked5]

You can say "the poor are getting poorer" as many times as you want,
but it's still the same lie every time you say it.

The poor are getting richer.

So now basic propaganda?

Bravo! Your graphs show that poor earn more $ every year! Does that make them richer?

No. Why not? Because if the wages go up, THE PRICES TOO!

OMG you just basically FORGOT INFLATION!!! How can you conclude anything if you don't take into account that things get more and more expensive???

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards

Oh and here is a small article about Wealth concentration, seems like you need some reading and education!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_concentration

Hey BARR_OFFICIAL, why didn't you answer to this? The article explains perfectly well why capitalism isn't working and where the problem of wealth distribution is.

[cjmoles]

that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.

So you can't read charts, and you are unfamiliar with reality.

when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

I usually don't like to call people idiots.





When people are allowed freedom, everyone gets richer.  It has happened all over the world.

When people are not allowed freedom, everyone gets poorer.  It has happened in every communist country.

Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea -
they were the same country, with the same language, culture, and ethnic group.
They were separated into two countries which do not trade with each other,
so it's not the South's fault that people are starving in the North.  

Wealth comes from productivity, not from poor people who have nothing.
When everyone is more productive, everyone can get wealthier.
When everyone is less productive, everyone can get poorer.

We now have more wealth in the world than what existed 100 years ago.
Therefore, some of our wealth has been created recently.
Therefore, it wasn't taken away from anyone.

I already conceded the argument with you earlier in the thread.  I cannot match your reasoning skills....There is obviously a mismatch in intelligence between you and I, so I cannot maintain a reasonable debate with you on your level.  You win!

[BARR_Official]

You haven't taken inflation into account...

Yes I have.  Poor people are still getting richer.

Yeah cause the average American is getting richer every day xD

Plenty of millionaires lose all their money.

Why don't you talk about how the rich are getting poorer?

Who said the contrary?

Several people here.

But have you consider that if everyone get 10% more productive, the one controlling the distribution of this new wealth is the one owning the mean of production?

That's not true.  Every person is free to control the distribution of his own resources, labor, and money.

It means that if we all get 10% more productive, the capitalist can decide to give back to us 0.05% of this new productivity and keep the rest!

Not really.  

Besides, prices go down when supply goes up.

It seems like you don't understand it's not about people not getting richer.

Yes, that is exactly what we've been discussing.

It's about people not getting what they deserve.

That is a childish sentiment which is impossible to define.

When few people own so much, they decide what will be given to others.

And you are greedy, you want to take what other people have,
and you want to decide what will be given to others.

If you hate the rich, why are you obsessing with becoming just like them?

[btcbug]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

[cjmoles]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!  One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth?  Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?


EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:

"Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?"

("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)

Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish.  In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep.  Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so.  If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?

Some things are just common sense.....

[btcbug]

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!

Sorry, this is not an argument

One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  

Is this supposed to be where you explain your first point? This is nonsensical. Now explain how exchanging the fruits of your labor with somebody is a zero sum outcome. I took the time in my last post to use a simple example and the best you can do is this?

By the way, a zero sum means that when one person produces it necessarily deprives the other person. In other words, they cannot both create wealth simultaneously.

I produce socks, you produce knives. We exchange them at a price agreed upon by both of us. Inherent to that transaction is that we both must value what the other person has more than we value what we have. We both profited by this transaction, but the actual wealth was not created here. It was created because we both had excess production, which we could then trade for other things of value.

Now explain how one person was deprived? You failed to explain this about my example in my previous post. Now are you just going to keep talking over top of me or actually think and respond.

[cjmoles]

Sorry, without going into the details of linear programming or going through the trouble of formatting a matrix, zero-sum mathematics dictates that wins are equal to losses.  A position in which neither person wins, nor loses, is a zero-sum matrix because wins==losses.

[MedaR]

There is nothing as "complete socialism".

Socialism is just an ideaology. The idea of a country where everyone helps those who are in need of course, but that's not the most important. Socialism is essentially about redistribution of wealth, and it's up to you to decide how far you have to go in redistribution.

This Is way is socialism powerful, redistribution of power and wealth is something that
can influence on poor people with great attraction. This is only way for majority of population on the world to avoid hunger!
This can be, and will be misused by powerful and wealthy elite to bring NWO upon us.
You only need good trigger-War.
They will repack old communism nothing more, and they will be in power.
Now this doesn't look as ideology?

[btcbug]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!  One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth?  Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?


EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:

"Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?"

("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)

Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish.  In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep.  Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so.  If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?

Some things are just common sense.....

Socialism is unnecessary to deal with scarcity of resources. In fact, it does a poor job.

If you believe in the will of the people as a reason for Democracy, than why would the will of the people change in a free market?

Take poverty and homelessness. People claim we need the welfare system otherwise the poor would starve in the streets. Politicians campaign on this lie and because people believe it, they will vote for that politician because because they desire that poor people are cared for. Remove the political bullshit and do you think people will stop caring for the poor? Of course not. If you think otherwise, than you fall into the category of assholes that think they know how to spend peoples money better than those people can. Most socialists do tend to have a holier than thou attitude, hopefully you're not one.

Demand for environmental protection and management of scarce resources does not need to be assigned to a government monopoly. If there is a demand for conservation than the market will provide it and because the ideas on how to solve this problem would be in a competitive market environment, it's a virtual guarantee that the problem would be handled much better.

People tend to not care as much about things that they don't own. Common areas are generally abused, oceans are overfished, etc. Private ownership of common areas is the solution to the economic tragedy of the commons.

[cjmoles]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!  One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth?  Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?


EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:

"Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?"

("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)

Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish.  In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep.  Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so.  If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?

Some things are just common sense.....

Socialism is unnecessary to deal with scarcity of resources. In fact, it does a poor job.

If you believe in the will of the people as a reason for Democracy, than why would the will of the people change in a free market?

Take poverty and homelessness. People claim we need the welfare system otherwise the poor would starve in the streets. Politicians campaign on this lie and because people believe it, they will vote for that politician because because they desire that poor people are cared for. Remove the political bullshit and do you think people will stop caring for the poor? Of course not. If you think otherwise, than you fall into the category of assholes that think they know how to spend peoples money better than those people can. Most socialists do tend to have a holier than thou attitude, hopefully you're not one.

Demand for environmental protection and management of scarce resources does not need to be assigned to a government monopoly. If there is a demand for conservation than the market will provide it and because the ideas on how to solve this problem would be in a competitive market environment, it's a virtual guarantee that the problem would be handled much better.

People tend to not care as much about things that they don't own. Common areas are generally abused, oceans are overfished, etc. Private ownership of common areas is the solution to the economic tragedy of the commons.

I know, I know....And, there's no such thing as global climate change, the theory of evolution is big fat lie the commies made up, give tax breaks to the rich so money trickles down to the poor, and we need to engage in war more to promote peace....Blah, Blah, Blah!  

EDIT:  I apologize for the above dismissal.

See, I'm not for big government either....and, what I don't like about our present form of socio-economic governing is that our laws are applied unequally.  Our representatives are chosen by those with deep pockets, our media is controlled by the very rich, and the poor are too ignorant to get a step up because they either have felony convictions or can't afford to go to school.  Anyway, I'd rather not have a governing body at all....give us back our guns and let's see who gets what when the smoke settles.  That's all!  I don't believe humankind has the empathy, the intelligence, nor the will power to do the right thing....As far as I'm concerned, we can all settle it on the yard!

[Hirose UK]

fighting by making democracy is not good idea. maybe we need to share money with those who need it. it won't change reality that government will still take money from society, but at least the poor will not be poorer. that's good way to fight maybe

[RealBitcoin]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Exactly.

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

No, what we need is the free market to drive costs down, and then it wont be that costly anyway.

Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

Yea lets just loot everything in our way, what the fuck are you a mongol invader?

You know the mongol invaders looted and burned everything in their way across all europe.

Aaa there is prosperous village... lets loot it and burn it down...



For fuck sake is there any other strategy for socialists other than stealing and looting? Is really theft and looting the only thing socialists can do? BANDITS!!!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

And then when you run out of money, you have to privatize it again because no leftist can produce anything, you can only steal so after you ran out of lootable objects your ideology is over.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

The only greedy folks are leftist socialists who want something for nothing.

[Laosai]

I already conceded the argument with you earlier in the thread.  I cannot match your reasoning skills....There is obviously a mismatch in intelligence between you and I, so I cannot maintain a reasonable debate with you on your level.  You win!

Not nice to mock your opponent like this ^^

[Laosai]

There is nothing as "complete socialism".

Socialism is just an ideaology. The idea of a country where everyone helps those who are in need of course, but that's not the most important. Socialism is essentially about redistribution of wealth, and it's up to you to decide how far you have to go in redistribution.

This Is way is socialism powerful, redistribution of power and wealth is something that
can influence on poor people with great attraction. This is only way for majority of population on the world to avoid hunger!
This can be, and will be misused by powerful and wealthy elite to bring NWO upon us.
You only need good trigger-War.
They will repack old communism nothing more, and they will be in power.
Now this doesn't look as ideology?

Which is why it's important to maintain a direct democracy, avoiding a small elite to take control of socialist principle and thus restauring the "good old communism" as you say

[Laosai]

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

Here is a good article explaining why taxes are important:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

I'm sorry but there is nothing to answer to people comparing socialism and Athila... You'r doomed I'm really sorry for you.

[Laosai]

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

No, what we need is the free market to drive costs down, and then it wont be that costly anyway.

WTF are you talking about it's already a free market!

Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

Yea lets just loot everything in our way, what the fuck are you a mongol invader?

You know the mongol invaders looted and burned everything in their way across all europe.

Aaa there is prosperous village... lets loot it and burn it down...



For fuck sake is there any other strategy for socialists other than stealing and looting? Is really theft and looting the only thing socialists can do? BANDITS!!!

What are you talking about? What would be the steal in taking a private company owned by 3 persons and give it back to the people?

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

And then when you run out of money, you have to privatize it again because no leftist can produce anything, you can only steal so after you ran out of lootable objects your ideology is over.

Whaou that's really an amazing reasonning. Please explain me how we could lose money with Highways? --'

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

The only greedy folks are leftist socialists who want something for nothing.

Wanting to stop corruption and wealth concentration... Yeah truly a crime...

[RealBitcoin]

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

Here is a good article explaining why taxes are important:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

I'm sorry but there is nothing to answer to people comparing socialism and Athila... You'r doomed I'm really sorry for you.

I`m not american and i dont like socialism.

What is going on over there is not capitalism it has been dominated by huge corporations for hundreds of year now.

Capitalism can only be small and medium sized, not giant corps running it.

I`m sorry I have plenty of posts here debunking socialist economy, start reading here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373.2360

I`ve posted there enough, and made socialists cry because their logic was completely debunked.

[Laosai]

See, I'm not for big government either....and, what I don't like about our present form of socio-economic governing is that our laws are applied unequally.  Our representatives are chosen by those with deep pockets, our media is controlled by the very rich, and the poor are too ignorant to get a step up because they either have felony convictions or can't afford to go to school.  Anyway, I'd rather not have a governing body at all....give us back our guns and let's see who gets what when the smoke settles.  That's all!  I don't believe humankind has the empathy, the intelligence, nor the will power to do the right thing....As far as I'm concerned, we can all settle it on the yard!

Considering the amount of stupidity in the "critics" of socialism I can only agree with you...

They just keep yelling socialism is stealing and we should all get our complete freedom...

Because of course when 1% of the country has more power than 99% the 99% are still free...