Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[kokjo]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

they shouldn't have signed the mortgage.

then they would still be without homes.

[1714169820]

1714169820

[1714169820]

1714169820

[1714169820]

1714169820

[1714169820]

1714169820

[1714169820]

1714169820

[myrkul]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

they shouldn't have signed the mortgage.

then they would still be without homes.

Not at all. They could rent, live with friends, or parents, or get together with some other people and share a house.

[hawkeye]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

No, government and the central bank screwed over the market by messing around with interest rates which resulted in the impoverishment of many and the enrichment of a few.  Which is what always happens in any kind of central planning system.

[Mike Christ]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

No, government and the central bank screwed over the market by messing around with interest rates which resulted in the impoverishment of many and the enrichment of a few.  Which is what always happens in any kind of central planning system.

Spot on

[myrkul]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

No, government and the central bank screwed over the market by messing around with interest rates which resulted in the impoverishment of many and the enrichment of a few.  Which is what always happens in any kind of central planning system.

I don't think he was specifically speaking of the housing bubble, but the fact that in a capitalist economy, if you don't pay your bills, you're out on your ear.

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

[hawkeye]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

No, government and the central bank screwed over the market by messing around with interest rates which resulted in the impoverishment of many and the enrichment of a few.  Which is what always happens in any kind of central planning system.

I don't think he was specifically speaking of the housing bubble, but the fact that in a capitalist economy, if you don't pay your bills, you're out on your ear.

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

Maybe not.  But that's the times we live in, and I don't think things would be as harsh in a more liberal world.  I think the fact that it's centrally planned leads to the bubbles which then leads to a lot of people losing money because they have got the wrong market signals which then leads to people like him saying that people are robbed of their homes because of liberalism and the reason he thinks that is because of the general propaganda that America is a liberal free market when it's nothing of the sort.

A mouthful but hopefully you get the point.

[myrkul]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

No, government and the central bank screwed over the market by messing around with interest rates which resulted in the impoverishment of many and the enrichment of a few.  Which is what always happens in any kind of central planning system.

I don't think he was specifically speaking of the housing bubble, but the fact that in a capitalist economy, if you don't pay your bills, you're out on your ear.

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

Maybe not.  But that's the times we live in, and I don't think things would be as harsh in a more liberal world.  I think the fact that it's centrally planned leads to the bubbles which then leads to a lot of people losing money because they have got the wrong market signals which then leads to people like him saying that people are robbed of their homes because of liberalism and the reason he thinks that is because of the general propaganda that America is a liberal free market when it's nothing of the sort.

A mouthful but hopefully you get the point.

Centrally plan economy.
People malinvest.
Bubble pops, people lose money.
Blame on laissez faire.


Problem, Economy?

[kokjo]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

they shouldn't have signed the mortgage.

then they would still be without homes.

Not at all. They could rent, live with friends, or parents, or get together with some other people and share a house.

so they could not live in an empty house, because someone could potentially earn money from it, if someone was willing to buy?

i do not agree that there should be homeless people, when there are empty homes.

[kokjo]

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

and if people did not have to care about it, they would be more productive.

[Lethn]

people just need to realize that there are enough resources for all to live happily, instead of the "fuck you, this is mine" capitalistic attitude.

It's all well and good saying that but it shows a bit of naivete to be honest, I've seen people on the opposite end of the spectrum simply get jealous of people who have something they don't, does that mean they automatically get to have what the other person has? It may not necessarily be a question of the quantity of resources but the jealous side being a bit of a selfish prick.

[hawkeye]

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

and if people did not have to care about it, they would be more productive.

So who should be responsible?  No-one?  Or are we saying that's the government's job?  To be responsible for every one?

I can't imagine what a society of irresponsible people might look like.   Oh wait a sec... it's the fucked up society I'm currently living in.

[myrkul]

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

they shouldn't have signed the mortgage.

then they would still be without homes.

Not at all. They could rent, live with friends, or parents, or get together with some other people and share a house.

so they could not live in an empty house, because someone could potentially earn money from it, if someone was willing to buy?

i do not agree that there should be homeless people, when there are empty homes.

No, they should not live in an empty house because it is not theirs. Squatters typically destroy the homes they occupy.

If, however, they were to take responsibility for an abandoned - not simply empty - house, and maintain it, that's something else entirely. That's taking ownership.

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

and if people did not have to care about it, they would be more productive.

Wrong. Productivity is a direct result of responsibility.

Compare the worker who gets paid the same amount no matter how many widgets he makes a day, no matter how many get rejected by QA, to the worker who only gets paid for the widgets he makes that pass QA. The former, not responsible for his speed nor his quality of work, will only do as many, and those only as good, as needed to avoid being fired. The latter, who is held responsible for the speed and quality of his work, will attempt to make sure every piece he produces is perfect, and put out as fast as possible. If the former worker is protected from being fired, his work will suffer even more.

Rule one of economics: Incentives work.

[Geddi]

No, they should not live in an empty house because it is not theirs. Squatters typically destroy the homes they occupy.

If, however, they were to take responsibility for an abandoned - not simply empty - house, and maintain it, that's something else entirely. That's taking ownership.

True

Wrong. Productivity is a direct result of responsibility.

Compare the worker who gets paid the same amount no matter how many widgets he makes a day, no matter how many get rejected by QA, to the worker who only gets paid for the widgets he makes that pass QA. The former, not responsible for his speed nor his quality of work, will only do as many, and those only as good, as needed to avoid being fired. The latter, who is held responsible for the speed and quality of his work, will attempt to make sure every piece he produces is perfect, and put out as fast as possible. If the former worker is protected from being fired, his work will suffer even more.

No. Someone who takes responsibility doesn't care about QA or whatnot. He/she will just make as good and as much as (s)he can. Some who lacks responsibility needs QA to poke his/her ass to keep production up. The latter one being the one who will work just enough not to get fired even when QA checks his prostate every 5 minutes. The former one doesn't care about getting fired. (S)He can shit on the CEO's desk without getting into trouble. He's responsible and can find a job anywhere.

[myrkul]

Someone who takes responsibility doesn't care about QA or whatnot. He/she will just make as good and as much as (s)he can. Some who lacks responsibility needs QA to poke his/her ass to keep production up. The latter one being the one who will work just enough not to get fired even when QA checks his prostate every 5 minutes. The former one doesn't care about getting fired. (S)He can shit on the CEO's desk without getting into trouble. He's responsible and can find a job anywhere.

Semantics, but I agree. The responsible worker is productive, the irresponsible one is not.

[kokjo]

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

and if people did not have to care about it, they would be more productive.

So who should be responsible?  No-one?  Or are we saying that's the government's job?  To be responsible for every one?

I can't imagine what a society of irresponsible people might look like.   Oh wait a sec... it's the fucked up society I'm currently living in.

hey that dude likes making potatoes, lets leave him with his potatoes.
hey that other dude likes milking cows, let him milk cows.

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

there was no trade, and both parties are happy and did what they liked.

capitalism:
both dudes either needs to do both things(which they don't like), or have long and tiresome negotiations to finally exchange some potatoes for some milk.

[liberty90]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

In a small group or family, sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.

(...)

Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements (...)

[Luckybit]

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Yes, it's wikipedia, but I think it's generally accepted.

Government owns the means of production (ie, us).  It lets us keep a fraction of the fruits of our labour.

I'm sure there were many slave plantations that were managed well and didn't treat their slaves so bad.  Doesn't make it a valid system.

The American system is very socialist.  How many people work for the government?  Then how many people work indirectly for it through contracting?  How many social security and medicare benefits are there?  And people try to tell me the Americans aren't socialist?

Most Americans love and want socialism.  I believe this is actually true for anywhere because let's face it most people want free stuff (or the perception of free stuff) and they want to be looked after rather than take responsibility for their own lives.   

The free market system is what has been shown to generate the wealth, the socialist system just feeds off it and eventually consumes it whole.

The fact that Americans "fear socialism", for the most part is just something they've been ingrained to think, just like virtually the entire rest of the world likes socialism and hates the free market.  Neither group have any idea what they are talking about for the most part and it's just coincidence (due to history) that the Americans have this one right.  Not because they intellectually know it to be true.

Socialism works well when you're the government. It works less well when you're not with the government.

Most people are with the government because there isn't any alternative support infrastructure to join. I suppose they could join their local street gang instead of the military but how long would that last before the police working for the government arrest them?

[John Self]

Socialism is a nebulous concept, it can be used to signify completely contradictory ideas.

Americans have been socialist at least since the time of FDR according to European definitions. But in America, socialism is just used to signify something bad. It's a bit like the way people used to call things unchristian.

TLDR: Americans usually define socialism as something scary, they need not understand the socialist tradition.

Bill Maher did a good monologue about American socialism: http://youtu.be/8rjYuaQ1Zho

[kokjo]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

In a small group or family, sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.

(...)

Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements (...)

thats is not a limit, because we know about it, and are therefor able to work around it.

communism can scale.

[liberty90]

thats is not a limit, because we know about it, and are therefor able to work around it.

communism can scale.

Yeah, kokjo say this, so this must be true.
Country in which I, unfortunately, live; was under communist oppression for almost 45-years.


Why you're wasting your time on forum about money, anyway ?
Go to organize a commune. If below Dunbar's Number, it can be even moderately successful