Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story

[mOgliE]

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

[1713885101]

1713885101

[1713885101]

1713885101

[yeosaga]

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

Health is a service offered by people. People with money will always be able to afford better health care it is that simple. I know some wealthy families that just hire a doctor full time in private practices. I don't blame a doctor for the study they put into their career to then go private to help people with money. If I worked that hard to become that good as a doctor I would want to get the most value out of it.

You are saying doctors should be slaves to the people?

[mOgliE]

You are saying doctors should be slaves to the people?

Yes, in France doctors aren't paid. And they also work where we order to. It's exactly this, doctors are slaves you're perfectly right.

Yesterday I went to the doctor and he told me "sorry master I think you aren't really sick" so I beat him to death because he didn't call me "grand master". Imagine the nerve.

[TECSHARE]

You are saying doctors should be slaves to the people?

Yes, in France doctors aren't paid. And they also work where we order to. It's exactly this, doctors are slaves you're perfectly right.

Yesterday I went to the doctor and he told me "sorry master I think you aren't really sick" so I beat him to death because he didn't call me "grand master". Imagine the nerve.

Way to use sarcasm to avoid responding to a completely valid point. You wonder why I act like such a cunt to you... because you are a cunt. Worst of all you are a cunt with no argument.

[Spendulus]

....
There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

Must be why Mick Jagger came to the USA for his surgery....

[eddie13]

Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

How about the rich guy? Is he not allowed to have that even if he can pay for it himself?

[PrimeNumber7]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

[cryptoperkele]

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

I live in Finland, as long if it's possible to provide, and necessary then yes. Also what the hell costs $100mm per person? Nothing.

How about the rich guy? Is he not allowed to have that even if he can pay for it himself?

of course not, rich have no right for healthcare! What an earth are you talking about? They are eligible for the same heatlhcare.

[eddie13]

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

I live in Finland, as long if it's possible to provide, and necessary then yes. Also what the hell costs $100mm per person? Nothing.

How necessary?
Is the rich guy allowed to buy products or services that may not meet your definition of necessary?

Like, if an Xray is recommended and will probably do, but the guy also wants a CAT scan and an MRI to be extra sure.. Can he pay extra for that? And also go to another doctor for a 2nd opinion?

[BADecker]

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

Yabut, it was the capitalists that supplied the socialists with the guns to do the killing. They made a load of money doing this.

[squatz1]

Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

How about the rich guy? Is he not allowed to have that even if he can pay for it himself?

+1 to that.

Socialism isn't a good system, and it leads to a country in disarray as we see in Venezuela. It causes the government to give and give (in the forms of welfare) and take and take and take (in the form of taxes) until there is nothing left to give and nothing more to take. It's not a system that anyone should have to live under, as it will lead to the untimely demise of your government.

[Dig Bicks]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

Capitalism has killed more people than socialism.
"The thing is most deaths of the last 600 years since neo liberalism and colonialism merged into a single destructive ideology is attributed to capitalism and the capitalist and elite political class need for profit and power. Yet its become so normalised that many wont link it to capitalism"

"Just the distribution of resources, something that is a factor to add to the Communist death toll, is disregarded when addressing Capitalism.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."

[TECSHARE]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

Capitalism has killed more people than socialism.
"The thing is most deaths of the last 600 years since neo liberalism and colonialism merged into a single destructive ideology is attributed to capitalism and the capitalist and elite political class need for profit and power. Yet its become so normalised that many wont link it to capitalism"

"Just the distribution of resources, something that is a factor to add to the Communist death toll, is disregarded when addressing Capitalism.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."

I SEE! Now every death due to starvation is now a result of Capitalism! Maybe you can expand that net even further and blame Capitalism for the fact that we are not yet immortal. It is too bad we didn't discover how evil Capitalism was back in the days that humans were hunter gatherers, it could have saved so many lives!

[coins4commies]

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661
Socialism doesn't work 7% of the time.

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

I live in Finland, as long if it's possible to provide, and necessary then yes. Also what the hell costs $100mm per person? Nothing.

How necessary?
Is the rich guy allowed to buy products or services that may not meet your definition of necessary?

Like, if an Xray is recommended and will probably do, but the guy also wants a CAT scan and an MRI to be extra sure.. Can he pay extra for that? And also go to another doctor for a 2nd opinion?

Wanting a scan is not how healthcare works.  The experts determine what is needed and get a 2nd opinion if they aren't sure and only recommend what is needed.

[TECSHARE]

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661
Socialism doesn't work 7% of the time.

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

I live in Finland, as long if it's possible to provide, and necessary then yes. Also what the hell costs $100mm per person? Nothing.

How necessary?
Is the rich guy allowed to buy products or services that may not meet your definition of necessary?

Like, if an Xray is recommended and will probably do, but the guy also wants a CAT scan and an MRI to be extra sure.. Can he pay extra for that? And also go to another doctor for a 2nd opinion?

Wanting a scan is not how healthcare works.  The experts determine what is needed and get a 2nd opinion if they aren't sure and only recommend what is needed.

By experts you mean employees of the government? So what you are saying is under socialism you don't choose what kind of health care you get, the government does? Sounds wonderful. Tell me, did you eat lots of paint chips as a kid?

[uneng]

Let me tell a secret: free healthcare system doesn't work.





Sadly, healthcare is an expensive service, who promises it for free is lying to people.
We need to be realistic and look for real solutions to solve issues. Demagogy like offering free stuff to the poors doesn't help us fixing any problems.

[PrimeNumber7]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

Capitalism has killed more people than socialism.
"The thing is most deaths of the last 600 years since neo liberalism and colonialism merged into a single destructive ideology is attributed to capitalism and the capitalist and elite political class need for profit and power. Yet its become so normalised that many wont link it to capitalism"

"Just the distribution of resources, something that is a factor to add to the Communist death toll, is disregarded when addressing Capitalism.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."

I strongly disagree with your conclusions, but I believe you are fair to make that argument.

I very strongly believe in personal responsibility, for the most part, in a capitalist society, a person's situation is the result of their own actions. Over time, a person has choices they can make with regards to their job, their earnings and what they spend their money on. If someone buys luxuries they cannot afford, and later is unable to pay for certain items they need, this is their own fault. There are many social programs, both government funded welfare and private charities that provide a safety net to those in need and those in crisis.

In the winter, I will sometimes read about some number of homeless people and some people without heat dying due to severe cold in Northern CA and in Washington state, and I have every reason to believe this happens on the east coast as well. This is obviously very unfortunate, but the percentage of deaths is very low. I found an article that claims ~1300 people die from cold exposure every year in the US, and I don't believe all of these are the result of being poor. I also found a quora article about starvation in the US, and one of the answers cites a website that claims 0.64 people per 100,000 die every year from starvation.  

Wanting a scan is not how healthcare works.  The experts determine what is needed and get a 2nd opinion if they aren't sure and only recommend what is needed.

An "expert" can give their opinion, but they have no authority to direct another person how to live their life. The decision to get treated or not get treated, and the exact treatment is ultimately the choice of the patient.

[Beerwizzard]

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

The only reason that allows some western countries to provide some socialistic policy is that everything is based on a capitalistic economy. And such policy is drowning those countries to shit, especially France.

In 20 century we had a long story of socialistic experiments that took lives of millions of people around the world and still left socialistic countries in poverty.
Maybe socialism let those poor people live in the afterlife, duno.

[cryptoperkele]

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

I live in Finland, as long if it's possible to provide, and necessary then yes. Also what the hell costs $100mm per person? Nothing.

How necessary?
Is the rich guy allowed to buy products or services that may not meet your definition of necessary?

Like, if an Xray is recommended and will probably do, but the guy also wants a CAT scan and an MRI to be extra sure.. Can he pay extra for that? And also go to another doctor for a 2nd opinion?

You can google Finnish healthcare regulations if you really are interested, but i think you are not.
I'll answer to these and after these you might want to google rest by yourself.
Doctors determine if you need a Cat scan or MRI, not you. If you need 2nd opinion you are entilted to it. And you still aren't satified you can always go to the private sector if you can afford it.

[squatz1]

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661
Socialism doesn't work 7% of the time.

Do the poor people get the absolute best health care modern technology can possibly give, as soon as possible, money no object no matter if it costs $100mm?
I highly doubt it..

I live in Finland, as long if it's possible to provide, and necessary then yes. Also what the hell costs $100mm per person? Nothing.

How necessary?
Is the rich guy allowed to buy products or services that may not meet your definition of necessary?

Like, if an Xray is recommended and will probably do, but the guy also wants a CAT scan and an MRI to be extra sure.. Can he pay extra for that? And also go to another doctor for a 2nd opinion?

Wanting a scan is not how healthcare works.  The experts determine what is needed and get a 2nd opinion if they aren't sure and only recommend what is needed.

By experts you mean employees of the government? So what you are saying is under socialism you don't choose what kind of health care you get, the government does? Sounds wonderful. Tell me, did you eat lots of paint chips as a kid?

With this in mind, how could I ensure this doctor isn't just doing this to save some time and money? Would I be able to go see another doctor shortly, or would it take me another 2 months to get another appointment? I feel like in some ways, with these restrictions on time it's going to make regular people just say 'fuck it' and accept the first doctor's recommendation as correct.

I'm not saying that all doctors are horrible people or something along those lines, I just think that there is a conflict of interest in doctors being paid by the government in which they can be forced to be very very conservative in the tests that they administer -- as they could be bullied into doing less instead of more.

[KingScorpio]

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

socialism has to be implemented correct.

[merchantofzeny]

There's no easy solution to this but considering even doctors and accountants in Cuba are side hustling as taxi drivers for tourists to make ends meet, what's clear is government is hardly efficient, whether it's capitalist or socialist. It's not their money they're spending.

I'm no economist but probably someone can find a good way to provide incentives or at least discourage bad behavior. We don't even have universal healthcare where I live but the government does provide subsidies for certain conditions and years ago an eye clinic was shutdown for doing unnecessary operations on the elderly. These people wouldn't have been able to afford these surgeries anyway but since the government is footing the bill... Of course others don't go that far but they do make you come back more often than necessary since they get paid each time anyway. Heard this is also the reason for increasing number of C-Section surgeries in the US.

socialism has to be implemented correct.

If it fails, it must be not true Socialism but something else.

[IPVPIRL]

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

In capitalism health care has quality and is available for everyone as long as the rich pay their taxes. Although, especially in the last decade, they found many ways to avoid taxes (like fake donations) creating implications for the quality of health care system as well as the whole public sector as well.
So the top of the pyramid keeps multiplying their wealth while the common folks, every working person, every employee can't possibly hide their income and is obligated to pay. This is the system and it also has even worse implementations depending on which country you live and how the people reacted. It is a fact that rich people get better health care as well as having access to better education, living standards and job prospects. It is also a fact that socialism has all these problems solved from day one. What they kept telling my people in my country was that this is the system we have and it works. They kept saying it until it stopped working. I have studied economics and understand both systems. There are errors in both, but the errors of globalized capitalism under the pretext of "freedom" is the worst possible system for any society and what it is promising is only a dystopian future.

[Naida_BR]

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

In our world inequalities exist at their best. Having said that, socialism cannot work and make a peaceful world. There are some good points in this political approach but it cannot be adopted. Maybe a mix of capitalism and socialism can solve our problems easier than we have ever thought.

[squatz1]

There's no easy solution to this but considering even doctors and accountants in Cuba are side hustling as taxi drivers for tourists to make ends meet, what's clear is government is hardly efficient, whether it's capitalist or socialist. It's not their money they're spending.

I'm no economist but probably someone can find a good way to provide incentives or at least discourage bad behavior. We don't even have universal healthcare where I live but the government does provide subsidies for certain conditions and years ago an eye clinic was shutdown for doing unnecessary operations on the elderly. These people wouldn't have been able to afford these surgeries anyway but since the government is footing the bill... Of course others don't go that far but they do make you come back more often than necessary since they get paid each time anyway. Heard this is also the reason for increasing number of C-Section surgeries in the US.

socialism has to be implemented correct.

If it fails, it must be not true Socialism but something else.

Exactly. That's the argument that these socialists use time and time again. They continue to say how it's 'not true socialism' and 'it's not true communism' and so on. They're going to lie to themselves so much, that at a certain point even THEY believe their bullshit.

I don't understand how someone can live life like that, but that's life.

[TECSHARE]

socialism has to be implemented correct.

Sorry about the hundreds of millions of bodies, our bad. We will do it correctly this time, pinky promise!

[JaredKaragen]

My only comment:

Socialism forces the individual to be a slave to someone else's desires and perspectives.  There are benefits, and drawbacks.


I appreciate my ability to work hard and be able to achieve great things equal to my effort.

Taking away the ability to do better/more than the person next to you;  eats away at the heart of invention and innovation.




Each system has its flaws.   I prefer the capitalist system; it mainly only falls apart if what backs the 'money' becomes insolvent/worthless.

imagine 10 people owned 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the earths wealth;  that's a fucked up but statistically possible scenario right?   The real question is;  would that wealth be worth the same in that distribution?

But i'm not here to debate;  just give a perspective and some hard real information and insight to the logic behind it.

[coins4commies]

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege.  

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

[TECSHARE]

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege.  

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

I guess it is just a coincidence every time Socialism and Communism are tried it results in more poor starving people while the wealthy elite remain untouched. Your ideas are not revolutionary. Communism is to real revolution as porn stars are to having real titties. They might look and feel the same at first, but after a while they get leaky, age, and become counterproductive toward their intended purpose and require blood to be drawn in order to remove them.

[coins4commies]

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

Everytime i've posted actual references, you've refused to read it and continued on with mythological talking points but maybe if I just keep reposting it over and over this time will be the time you read it.  
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

Also, all of my favorite porn stars have natural tits.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

[JaredKaragen]

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege.  

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

If you want to compare socialism to capitalism;  show the whole picture... not the small details leaving out the rest of the story as you accuse;  and maybe I will consider walking down the road to discuss it with you....
In capitalist societies, privilege is earned.  Our rights aren't privilege....  Don't mistake that.

To say that socialism a better quality of life is quite subjective on the level of acceptance/quality of life I expect;  not to mention the great numbers of historical shortfalls socialism has shown us over the years.   It's amazing how people that aren't given [what I consider to be] inalienable basic human rights; are quick to cite privilege against capitalism when they are coming from a heavily biased socialist sentiment.  Socialist policies are 100% privilege to the people whom they apply to.... using a socialist type of irrational thought process.


All I can say, is I have experienced both systems in my life.   I have also seen the good and bad parts of both systems first hand around the world.     Medically, and systemically they have taught me some important things in life.

Historically, capitalist societies flourish better, and lead to more opportunity to pursue ones own happiness in life;  not someone else's.  Who are you to tell someone how to live their life?  How is your opinion any better or greater than anyone else's?

Trust me.  I have plenty of facts.    

The main issue is people not being receptive to those facts on both sides, and accepting that both people are correct, and incorrect at the same time.    

Learn to live with it; don't force yourself on others.  That's how socialism could actually work.... but then it wouldn't be socialism; not having a standardized tiered set of control and "parameters" for people to conform to as to complete [person/entity]'s objective.

[PrimeNumber7]

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege. 

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

Capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone involved. Socialism does the opposite.

In Venezuela, people are starving, even though their income has gone way up in nominal terms (there has been years of hyperinflation). People cannot access other basic necessities such as medical care and electricity either.

In the United States, there is a raising wealth gap, but life expediency is going up. Most health problems revolve around people consuming too much food, but there is still adequate access to healthcare. There are some problems with the education system, but this is mostly due to democratic policies such as preventing charter schools in favor of continuing to receive political donations from teachers unions. The US education system is still producing an increasing number of college graduates per capita.   

[coins4commies]

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege.  

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

If you want to compare socialism to capitalism;  show the whole picture... not the small details leaving out the rest of the story as you accuse;  and maybe I will consider walking down the road to discuss it with you....
In capitalist societies, privilege is earned.  Our rights aren't privilege....  Don't mistake that.

To say that socialism a better quality of life is quite subjective on the level of acceptance/quality of life I expect;  not to mention the great numbers of historical shortfalls socialism has shown us over the years.   It's amazing how people that aren't given [what I consider to be] inalienable basic human rights; are quick to cite privilege against capitalism when they are coming from a heavily biased socialist sentiment.  Socialist policies are 100% privilege to the people whom they apply to.... using a socialist type of irrational thought process.


All I can say, is I have experienced both systems in my life.   I have also seen the good and bad parts of both systems first hand around the world.     Medically, and systemically they have taught me some important things in life.

Historically, capitalist societies flourish better, and lead to more opportunity to pursue ones own happiness in life;  not someone else's.  Who are you to tell someone how to live their life?  How is your opinion any better or greater than anyone else's?

Trust me.  I have plenty of facts.    

The main issue is people not being receptive to those facts on both sides, and accepting that both people are correct, and incorrect at the same time.    

Learn to live with it; don't force yourself on others.  That's how socialism could actually work.... but then it wouldn't be socialism; not having a standardized tiered set of control and "parameters" for people to conform to as to complete [person/entity]'s objective.

I've repeatedly cited a published paper on a study that compared the two and found socialism produced better physical quality of life 93% of the time. You've done nothing but continue to regurgitate capitalist gospel.

Most people are born into their privilege in capitalism so there is no way it can be earned.  Things are bought in capitalism, not earned.  Things can only be earned when the fruit of labor goes to the laborer.  Capitalism is literally the opposite of that. I buy shares and get the fruits of other people's labor while I lay on the beach. 

Socialism cannot be blamed for every bad thing that has ever happened in a country with socialist economic principles.

[KingScorpio]

There's no easy solution to this but considering even doctors and accountants in Cuba are side hustling as taxi drivers for tourists to make ends meet, what's clear is government is hardly efficient, whether it's capitalist or socialist. It's not their money they're spending.

I'm no economist but probably someone can find a good way to provide incentives or at least discourage bad behavior. We don't even have universal healthcare where I live but the government does provide subsidies for certain conditions and years ago an eye clinic was shutdown for doing unnecessary operations on the elderly. These people wouldn't have been able to afford these surgeries anyway but since the government is footing the bill... Of course others don't go that far but they do make you come back more often than necessary since they get paid each time anyway. Heard this is also the reason for increasing number of C-Section surgeries in the US.

socialism has to be implemented correct.

If it fails, it must be not true Socialism but something else.

look at usa, without socialism you cant keep a society together,

and look at crypto without trusted socialism they cant even run a currency, why else are they begging for regulation?

they want to fool money earning cattle.

regards

[squatz1]

No one denies the fact that capitalism is better for the wealthy.  Its far better and thats not even debatable.  Advocates of socialism are simply considering the quality of life of the typical person as opposed to just those in situations of privilege.  

Once you have the facts (and not just some parroted talking points), neither are debatable.  Perspective and morals are the only things that matter in determining preference.

If you want to compare socialism to capitalism;  show the whole picture... not the small details leaving out the rest of the story as you accuse;  and maybe I will consider walking down the road to discuss it with you....
In capitalist societies, privilege is earned.  Our rights aren't privilege....  Don't mistake that.

To say that socialism a better quality of life is quite subjective on the level of acceptance/quality of life I expect;  not to mention the great numbers of historical shortfalls socialism has shown us over the years.   It's amazing how people that aren't given [what I consider to be] inalienable basic human rights; are quick to cite privilege against capitalism when they are coming from a heavily biased socialist sentiment.  Socialist policies are 100% privilege to the people whom they apply to.... using a socialist type of irrational thought process.


All I can say, is I have experienced both systems in my life.   I have also seen the good and bad parts of both systems first hand around the world.     Medically, and systemically they have taught me some important things in life.

Historically, capitalist societies flourish better, and lead to more opportunity to pursue ones own happiness in life;  not someone else's.  Who are you to tell someone how to live their life?  How is your opinion any better or greater than anyone else's?

Trust me.  I have plenty of facts.    

The main issue is people not being receptive to those facts on both sides, and accepting that both people are correct, and incorrect at the same time.    

Learn to live with it; don't force yourself on others.  That's how socialism could actually work.... but then it wouldn't be socialism; not having a standardized tiered set of control and "parameters" for people to conform to as to complete [person/entity]'s objective.

People don't understand that while CAPITALISM does have its flaws, it is still the best system out of the ones that we've tried to this date. People who advocate for more socialism, typically live in countries where there is Capitalism and not Socialism -- you would know that if you were to live in a socialist country, you wouldn't want to be there.

That's the way it goes.

Those people in Capitalist countries don't know how well they have it.

[BitBustah]

The most ideal situation is to at least have a base floor of life for people.  Let people continue to make large amounts of wealth but I still believe the basics of life should not be in the free market.  Healthcare, shelter, education, food, these things become a nightmare when only left to the free market.

Its not right for someone to own 20 houses and let them all sit vacant, that is a major flaw in the system.

Why would companies cure illness when they can make more profit by treating the symptoms?

[mOgliE]

Haven't see one single valid point.

Seems like no one can argue with results.

[TECSHARE]

Haven't see one single valid point.

Seems like no one can argue with results.

Yep, you cant argue with results.

[JaredKaragen]

I've repeatedly cited a published paper on a study that compared the two and found socialism produced better physical quality of life 93% of the time. You've done nothing but continue to regurgitate capitalist gospel.

Most people are born into their privilege in capitalism so there is no way it can be earned.  Things are bought in capitalism, not earned.  Things can only be earned when the fruit of labor goes to the laborer.  Capitalism is literally the opposite of that. I buy shares and get the fruits of other people's labor while I lay on the beach.  

Socialism cannot be blamed for every bad thing that has ever happened in a country with socialist economic principles.

Yes, You cite a paper that knitpicks certain aspects forgoing the rest of the data and historical facts that show otherwise in many other respects beyond those few.  The aspects that arise from the systems of each are vast and complicated;  and you have to be ignorant to believe that all of them can be referenced and compared at once like that.

I have lived in, and had my life effected by both systems.

I chose capitalism because I have seen its effect in my life and others is greater and better than socialism.   Your bashing of me for retaining this principal based on my real life experiences,  changes nothing.

You say things are bought and not earned.

In Venezuela;  their food is bought just like ours.... except somehow our shelves are stocked.   Your short-sided analogies are extremely flawed.


I don't blame socialism alone for the downfall of socialist societies (as you imply);  I use it in evidence of commonalities across history to make my judgments;  on top of what I have been through first-hand.

People don't understand that while CAPITALISM does have its flaws, it is still the best system out of the ones that we've tried to this date. People who advocate for more socialism, typically live in countries where there is Capitalism and not Socialism -- you would know that if you were to live in a socialist country, you wouldn't want to be there.

That's the way it goes.

Those people in Capitalist countries don't know how well they have it.

It's kind of a double-edge sword of a analytical approach though....  because most people who truly believe in socialism to their core;  say one socialist society/scheme or the other does't "have it right" or  "isn't as it should be".....  

IMHO;  no singular perspective  will ever have it "right";  there is no equality when individual opinions are vast and unique.

[KingScorpio]

My only comment:

Socialism forces the individual to be a slave to someone else's desires and perspectives.  There are benefits, and drawbacks.


I appreciate my ability to work hard and be able to achieve great things equal to my effort.

Taking away the ability to do better/more than the person next to you;  eats away at the heart of invention and innovation.




Each system has its flaws.   I prefer the capitalist system; it mainly only falls apart if what backs the 'money' becomes insolvent/worthless.

imagine 10 people owned 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the earths wealth;  that's a fucked up but statistically possible scenario right?   The real question is;  would that wealth be worth the same in that distribution?

But i'm not here to debate;  just give a perspective and some hard real information and insight to the logic behind it.

ok then do capitalism, but dont create a currency realm, and enforce it upon others, and block others from spending a different currency there.

liberty and capitalism are also going to split as will be democracy and capitalism.

[JaredKaragen]

ok then do capitalism, but dont create a currency realm, and enforce it upon others, and block others from spending a different currency there.

liberty and capitalism are also going to split as will be democracy and capitalism.

I 100% agree.

One of the major issues I have is the fact we are not on any sort of "standard" when it comes to the value of "money".   You are literally cherishing "money" thinking that it is not worthless; simply based on the fact that you are told it is not and believe it.   This thinking is perpetuated through society; making it harder and harder to correct as time goes on.  

Lack of a "gold standard" or something of the like;  is the single biggest problem with the capitalist system of today that I can think of... aside from the fractional reserve system....

[KingScorpio]

ok then do capitalism, but dont create a currency realm, and enforce it upon others, and block others from spending a different currency there.

liberty and capitalism are also going to split as will be democracy and capitalism.

I 100% agree.

One of the major issues I have is the fact we are not on any sort of "standard" when it comes to the value of "money".   You are literally cherishing "money" thinking that it is not worthless; simply based on the fact that you are told it is not and believe it.   This thinking is perpetuated through society; making it harder and harder to correct as time goes on.  

Lack of a "gold standard" or something of the like;  is the single biggest problem with the capitalist system of today that I can think of... aside from the fractional reserve system....

thats not true, societies can have successful economies, because they dont have a gold standard, like for example germany, it is a ressource poor country and would have the strongest currency in europe and ressource rich countries cant have strong currencies.

[JaredKaragen]

ok then do capitalism, but dont create a currency realm, and enforce it upon others, and block others from spending a different currency there.

liberty and capitalism are also going to split as will be democracy and capitalism.

I 100% agree.

One of the major issues I have is the fact we are not on any sort of "standard" when it comes to the value of "money".   You are literally cherishing "money" thinking that it is not worthless; simply based on the fact that you are told it is not and believe it.   This thinking is perpetuated through society; making it harder and harder to correct as time goes on.  

Lack of a "gold standard" or something of the like;  is the single biggest problem with the capitalist system of today that I can think of... aside from the fractional reserve system....

thats not true, societies can have successful economies, because they dont have a gold standard, like for example germany, it is a ressource poor country and would have the strongest currency in europe and ressource rich countries cant have strong currencies.

There's obvious historical reasons why germany is not on the gold standard.......  and in the ~50+ years of their currency before adopting the euro; its value diminished by over 70%.   
Stable;  yea;  but stably on a downward trend... I don't consider that strong.  More of predictable and reliable.

[coins4commies]

I've repeatedly cited a published paper on a study that compared the two and found socialism produced better physical quality of life 93% of the time. You've done nothing but continue to regurgitate capitalist gospel.

Most people are born into their privilege in capitalism so there is no way it can be earned.  Things are bought in capitalism, not earned.  Things can only be earned when the fruit of labor goes to the laborer.  Capitalism is literally the opposite of that. I buy shares and get the fruits of other people's labor while I lay on the beach.  

Socialism cannot be blamed for every bad thing that has ever happened in a country with socialist economic principles.

Yes, You cite a paper that knitpicks certain aspects forgoing the rest of the data and historical facts that show otherwise in many other respects beyond those few.  The aspects that arise from the systems of each are vast and complicated;  and you have to be ignorant to believe that all of them can be referenced and compared at once like that.

I have lived in, and had my life effected by both systems.

I chose capitalism because I have seen its effect in my life and others is greater and better than socialism.   Your bashing of me for retaining this principal based on my real life experiences,  changes nothing.

You say things are bought and not earned.

In Venezuela;  their food is bought just like ours.... except somehow our shelves are stocked.   Your short-sided analogies are extremely flawed.


I don't blame socialism alone for the downfall of socialist societies (as you imply);  I use it in evidence of commonalities across history to make my judgments;  on top of what I have been through first-hand.

You talk about a paper not being comprehensive enough but the rest of this post and this entire thread are complete anecdotes.  You conclude that your perceived experience of socialism is what socialism is and that a failed economy like Venezuela is somehow proof that socialism does not work.  Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

The paper is somehow not comprehensive enough in showing that socialism produced better outcomes 93% of the time but somehow a few pictures and mentions of Venezuela is. 

People mention famines and economic crashes but never mention any that occurred under capitalism.  The problem you guys have with the paper is that it provides a side-by-side apples to apples comparison and you are interested in only focusing on bad things that have happened under alleged socialism.

[TECSHARE]

Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

[JaredKaragen]

People mention famines and economic crashes but never mention any that occurred under capitalism.  The problem you guys have with the paper is that it provides a side-by-side apples to apples comparison and you are interested in only focusing on bad things that have happened under alleged socialism.

I have had more bad than good come from socialism in my life.

what do you mean people don't mention problems that arise with capitalism?   The numerous stock market crashes, the homeless problem, the increased spreading of things like STD's, etc are heavily talked about in this day and age.


Speaking of "socialist" Germany earlier;  also didn't even brush on the fact that they haven't been a socialist nation for some time.... and they still declined.    Some can say its because of capitalism (using short thinking, I can understand how they come to this position) Germany had its steady downfall, but nobody stops to think that its a real possibility the mindset of the people and application of their government with socialist agendas and programs have caused things to follow that path?


Listen;   You can all try and argue until you are blue in the face on how one is greater than the other.



I have been on both sides of the coin;  had both systems effect my life in a serious way.


I chose capitalism.   I have a better chance, especially because if I work hard, I can earn that batter chance.  Being limited;  takes away that chance at a better life.


And "Better life" is subjective.    
For one person it could be something as simple as having running water in your house.
For some others, it's could be ability to pass the blame to someone else and continue being ignorant by simply enjoying what has been handed to you.

[KingScorpio]

ok then do capitalism, but dont create a currency realm, and enforce it upon others, and block others from spending a different currency there.

liberty and capitalism are also going to split as will be democracy and capitalism.

I 100% agree.

One of the major issues I have is the fact we are not on any sort of "standard" when it comes to the value of "money".   You are literally cherishing "money" thinking that it is not worthless; simply based on the fact that you are told it is not and believe it.   This thinking is perpetuated through society; making it harder and harder to correct as time goes on.  

Lack of a "gold standard" or something of the like;  is the single biggest problem with the capitalist system of today that I can think of... aside from the fractional reserve system....

thats not true, societies can have successful economies, because they dont have a gold standard, like for example germany, it is a ressource poor country and would have the strongest currency in europe and ressource rich countries cant have strong currencies.

There's obvious historical reasons why germany is not on the gold standard.......  and in the ~50+ years of their currency before adopting the euro; its value diminished by over 70%.   
Stable;  yea;  but stably on a downward trend... I don't consider that strong.  More of predictable and reliable.

gold standard is worthless junk, germany is on the national socialism standard

[JaredKaragen]

gold standard is worthless junk, germany is on the national socialism standard

Germany has been a republic for some time....  Check your facts before you vomit them everywhere please.

[KingScorpio]

gold standard is worthless junk, germany is on the national socialism standard

Germany has been a republic for some time....  Check your facts before you vomit them everywhere please.

national socialism means there is a banking cartel that runs an agenda.

even if its a "democratic" national socialism its still somehow like that. nation states have to run a socialism or they wont have support.

[JaredKaragen]

gold standard is worthless junk, germany is on the national socialism standard

Germany has been a republic for some time....  Check your facts before you vomit them everywhere please.

national socialism means there is a banking cartel that runs an agenda.

even if its a "democratic" national socialism its still somehow like that. nation states have to run a socialism or they wont have support.

I don't even know how to respond to that broken argument.... other than to correct you again:

national socialism is literally defined as "the polotical doctrine of the nazi party of germany"... which has been gone for some time now.... which I have already pointed out.

Again,  I will repeat:  check your facts bud.... I said it to you initially because you are making completely incorrect/illogical statements.

You do not know how to discuss things if you do not know the basic definitions of what you are speaking about.  You replies are clearly indicative of that.

[KingScorpio]

gold standard is worthless junk, germany is on the national socialism standard

Germany has been a republic for some time....  Check your facts before you vomit them everywhere please.

national socialism means there is a banking cartel that runs an agenda.

even if its a "democratic" national socialism its still somehow like that. nation states have to run a socialism or they wont have support.

I don't even know how to respond to that broken argument.... other than to correct you again:

national socialism is literally defined as "the polotical doctrine of the nazi party of germany"... which has been gone for some time now.... which I have already pointed out.

Again,  I will repeat:  check your facts bud.... I said it to you initially because you are making completely incorrect/illogical statements.

You do not know how to discuss things if you do not know the basic definitions of what you are speaking about.  You replies are clearly indicative of that.

you are wrong national socialism means a socialism based on a nation
there is also tribal socialism, religious socialism corporate socialism etc.

[merchantofzeny]

There's no easy solution to this but considering even doctors and accountants in Cuba are side hustling as taxi drivers for tourists to make ends meet, what's clear is government is hardly efficient, whether it's capitalist or socialist. It's not their money they're spending.

I'm no economist but probably someone can find a good way to provide incentives or at least discourage bad behavior. We don't even have universal healthcare where I live but the government does provide subsidies for certain conditions and years ago an eye clinic was shutdown for doing unnecessary operations on the elderly. These people wouldn't have been able to afford these surgeries anyway but since the government is footing the bill... Of course others don't go that far but they do make you come back more often than necessary since they get paid each time anyway. Heard this is also the reason for increasing number of C-Section surgeries in the US.

socialism has to be implemented correct.

If it fails, it must be not true Socialism but something else.

Exactly. That's the argument that these socialists use time and time again. They continue to say how it's 'not true socialism' and 'it's not true communism' and so on. They're going to lie to themselves so much, that at a certain point even THEY believe their bullshit.

I don't understand how someone can live life like that, but that's life.

The result speak for itself and at the end of the day, they're what matters. People flee from socialist states to capitalist ones and not the other way around. No one can convince me to move from my shithole to Havana, nah nah nah.

[TheCoinGrabber]

Let me tell a secret: free healthcare system doesn't work.





Sadly, healthcare is an expensive service, who promises it for free is lying to people.
We need to be realistic and look for real solutions to solve issues. Demagogy like offering free stuff to the poors doesn't help us fixing any problems.

Isn't this how the socialist regime in Venezuela started? Free this, free that. All was well while the oil money keeps coming but then the oil prices plunged. They nationalized their oil sector and it degraded to the point that they don't even refine oil now, they just sell crude.

[coins4commies]

Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

No it doesn't have to take away.  Socialism can start by fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward.

[PrimeNumber7]

Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

No it doesn't have to take away.  Socialism can start by fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward.

That would be taking away the means of production from those that own it. If someone previously invested in equipment that produces goods, "fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward" would reduce the value of that equipment down to zero.

[TECSHARE]

Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

No it doesn't have to take away.  Socialism can start by fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward.

That would be taking away the means of production from those that own it. If someone previously invested in equipment that produces goods, "fairly allocating everything that is produced going forward" would reduce the value of that equipment down to zero.

See Venezuela. American companies funded a large portion of their refining infrastructure, they nationalized it, then it rotted into a completely useless state because Communists are not good business managers and are totally inefficient. Now they are all starving because the nation depended on that refining capacity and Maduro is blaming the US for doing this to them. What a joke.

[btc78]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."

Absolutely.mate since poor people are dying because of being denied from basic necessities most specially in the third world countries and those who are in mountain places
They are the one whose mostly needs this services but the sad thing is they are not in priority for health services..because just like what the poster above said that doctors are aiming for higher payments than to serve poor with small income at stake

[TECSHARE]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I wonder how many people die a year from not being able to afford basic necessities."

Absolutely.mate since poor people are dying because of being denied from basic necessities most specially in the third world countries and those who are in mountain places
They are the one whose mostly needs this services but the sad thing is they are not in priority for health services..because just like what the poster above said that doctors are aiming for higher payments than to serve poor with small income at stake

Anyone can point at a problem. You aren't providing a solution, you are just saying what is, is not good enough. Socialism is not a solution, as history shows. In the end even more people end up lacking basic necessities. Way to fix it.

[gentlemand]

It was interesting to see the reaction in the UK when the US ambassador said they wanted to get their claws into the NHS as part of a trade deal.

Everyone from every end of the spectrum apart from a couple of certifiable psycho assholes went absolutely fucking ballistic at the idea.

All you have to do is look at American government spending per capita. It's the highest in the world by a very, very significant margin yet you can still die from neglect or wind up bankrupted by it. Ergo American opinions are less than worthless on this subject.

American citizens have been conned into paying vastly more tax than anywhere else and having to pay out of their own pocket too. How did the medical industry manage that trick? If nothing else America serves as a superb example to rest of the planet on how not to end up.

[TECSHARE]

It was interesting to see the reaction in the UK when the US ambassador said they wanted to get their claws into the NHS as part of a trade deal.

Everyone from every end of the spectrum apart from a couple of certifiable psycho assholes went absolutely fucking ballistic at the idea.

All you have to do is look at American government spending per capita. It's the highest in the world by a very, very significant margin yet you can still die from neglect or wind up bankrupted by it. Ergo American opinions are less than worthless on this subject.

American citizens have been conned into paying vastly more tax than anywhere else and having to pay out of their own pocket too. How did the medical industry manage that trick? If nothing else America serves as a superb example to rest of the planet on how not to end up.

At least we can pay to see a private doctor and get treated in days to weeks and not months or years as you die on a waiting list. IMO both systems are pretty broken, but Socialism is always a countdown to inevitable failure, private healthcare can be effectively managed.

[gentlemand]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

[TECSHARE]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?

[Naida_BR]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

In my opinion private Healthcare systems work better in any way.
Indeed it works better along with private insurance elements because this way the spending is balanced. But socialism is not connected with that at all...

[PrimeNumber7]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

socialist countries you cite pay less for the same service provided. They are not operating a free market.

There are also pervasive incentives for healthcare consumers in the US that are mainly caused by a third party payor system. The government gets to decide what healthcare services their citizens receive.

[CARrency]

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.

[KingScorpio]

damn socialist, because of them not all are money earning cattle to the financialists

[TimeBits]

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

It already is, I live in Canada which is suppose to have some of the best health care, I cannot fix my broken spine because I have no money. They want a large sum to fix my spine that is broken from feeding millions of my own kind from wearing a harness on my back from ages 4-31 picking fruit so people can live, from doing roofing and bricklaying and building over 50 homes. Yet I still do not own one. I can`t even get ODSP for my broken back even though the MRI`s show some seriously bad news for me. Someday`s I cannot get out of bed for hours, I can not sit in the same position for more than 20 minutes before it feels like someone is shoving 2 swords in and out my back repeatedly. The only thing that helps ease the pain for me is large does of cbd and thc, but it only mask it, They want to give me Oxycontin but that also only mask it as well, like putting a bandaid on something that need stitches, it just makes the problem worse, I refuse to take heroin and the other option cost me a arm and a leg I do not have.

[TECSHARE]

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?

Who would want this? I am from a third world country and if this will happen, it will be troublesome not only for a lot of people but also for the government since people will obviously start a rally about this. It should not always about how rich people are but how people should be treated based on their diseases or sickness. Everyone should have an equal share of being cured and being taken care of.

What people want or deserve is not a viable metric. The fact is there aren't enough resources to treat everyone equally, especially when they aren't paying into the system. Even if there were enough resources, any time you take away the cost of a product or service, corruption and inefficiency always follows, eventually resulting in reduced services for everyone.

[Cnut237]

Socialism creates disincentives to work and also to maximize productivity when working. It fails every time it has been tried and each time it has been tried, the country’s people see lower standard of living and the state has had to use violent force to compel people to participate in the socialism.

Socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people over the past 120 years.

I think the key point is that any responsible system of government needs to have checks and balances built in.
The worst excesses of communism/socialism were where it descended into a system where the man is charge is effectively a god. Stalin, etc... and what we see right now in North Korea.

Capitalism is fine so long as the companies aren't allowed free rein over everything. Their purpose is to gain profit, especially for shareholders. Unrestrained, they are vampires, and they will bleed everything dry. Strong capitalism is a system where the government is also strong, and acts as a brake on inequality and greed. The US and the UK I think are failing because they allow business to rule without any real checks on their power.

The problem in the last couple of decades especially is that companies have got too powerful. The incessant lobbying is bad, but worse is the revolving door we see so often between the higher echelons of government and those of business, where top government officials create business-friendly legislation, and then move straight out of politics and into corporate directorships.

[coins4commies]

private healthcare can be effectively managed.

The places that appear to work best for the people are state systems with a private insurance element like France, Norway or Switzerland.

Nearly 18% of US GDP goes on health spending. That doesn't sound very private to me. That's a higher figure than the commiest of commies.

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?

Everyone knows capitalism is better for the super wealthy.  That was never part of any debate. 

[TECSHARE]

Socialism is like saying a falling rock is flying. Eventually it is going to hit the Earth and come to rest. Also why is it when people need the best healthcare they come here?

Everyone knows capitalism is better for the super wealthy.  That was never part of any debate. 

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions. You might be able to keep warm for a night by setting your apartment building on fire, giving equal heat for all, but then the next day everyone has no where to sleep.

[mOgliE]

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions.

Hmm...

Then explain why socialist health care treats better everyone and costs less?
That's kind of the whole point of the study... To show that capitalist health care is costly and inneffective...

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions.

Hmm...

Then explain why socialist health care treats better everyone and costs less?
That's kind of the whole point of the study... To show that capitalist health care is costly and inneffective...

Its not a fact "socialist healthcare" "treats better and costs less". Socialism leads to shortages, doctors with less expertise, long wait lists, and government dictating what healthcare you can receive. Furthermore the costs are simply passed on via taxes, so it "costing less" is totally an illusion anyway, especially after bureaucratic bloat takes effect. Just because the study was attempting to make that point doesn't make the conclusion valid.

[mOgliE]

Its not a fact "socialist healthcare" "treats better and costs less". Socialism leads to shortages, doctors with less expertise, long wait lists, and government dictating what healthcare you can receive. Furthermore the costs are simply passed on via taxes, so it "costing less" is totally an illusion anyway, especially after bureaucratic bloat takes effect. Just because the study was attempting to make that point doesn't make the conclusion valid.

It's not a fact that people are treated better in France than in USA for a smaller amount of GDP?

Cause that's exactly what the study proves.

There is nearly no difference in how poors and rich people are treated in France hence people are treated much better in France than in USA.

There is no "long wait lists" or "shortages" or whatever in France.

It's the best health care in the world in terms of performance. The only category USA is first is on the amount of money spent per capita. Which shows how insanely innefficient it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

[Cnut237]

For those who are interested, and haven't seen it, it might be worth watching Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

"The movie compares the profiteering, non-universal U.S. system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba"

It might be 10 years old, but is still largely valid.

Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.

I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.

[mOgliE]

Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.

I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.

Funny thing is that... Same in France...

We have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the worls, absolutely all studies and associations agree on that, but no we're going full speed towards privatization.

Who gains from this?
I'm sure you can guess.

[TECSHARE]

Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.

I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.

Funny thing is that... Same in France...

We have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the worls, absolutely all studies and associations agree on that, but no we're going full speed towards privatization.

Who gains from this?
I'm sure you can guess.

You could try to argue a rock dropped, in mid air is in fact flying, but trends and time will demonstrate without a doubt it is falling. Just as cutting your own arm off to nourish yourself might work for a short period of time, eventually you run out of limbs to amputate.

"Copayment/Deductibles. 10% to 40% copayments.

Technology. The government does not reimburse new technologies very generously and because of global budgets and fee restrictions, there is little incentive to make capital investments in medical technology.

Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards Increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.

Tanner’s summary. “To sum up: the French health care system clearly works better than most national health care systems. Despite some problems, France has generally avoided the rationing inherent in other systems. However, the program is threatened by increasing costs and may be forced to resort to rationing in the future.”"

https://www.healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-france/


"Indeed, in a World Health Organisation comparison of 191 different countries, France came out at number one.

It’s important to be clear, however: Beyond legitimate questions about the WHO’s methodology, the ranking itself dates from 2000. That said, France remains on top of the list, because it was the first and last such ranking conducted by the WHO. Since then, France has occupied a number of positions in other rankings, depending on their criteria and definition of what constitutes a “good” health care system.

A July 2017 analysis by the New York–based Commonwealth Fund compared the health care systems of 11 industrialized countries. They put France at number 10, just above the United States, with the United Kingdom at number one. Yet in another ranking – published in May by The Lancet, it looked at 195 countries – the UK was ranked 26th, while France came in 15th. And in the top position, the tiny principality of Andorra. All this demonstrates just how difficult it is to interpret such rankings."

https://theconversation.com/how-healthy-is-the-french-health-system-83329

While these systems may function for a time, bureaucratic bloat uninhibited by market forces always takes over.

[Biswa7]

"Why socialism failed" and it appeared in 1995 in the Freeman,the flagship publication of the foundation for economic education.i think it was the first essay or op-ed i wrote for a general audience following graduation in 1993 from George mason university with a ph.d. in economics.note that the title of the article("failed") implied the past tense,as ig i perhaps aassumed the failures of socialism were so apparent and obvious(i called it the big lie of the 20 th century) that it would be forever considered only as a discredited system of the past,and never as a viable option going forward into the future!

[coins4commies]

None of this is "hypothetical" or "sometimes".  The graph I posted is actual spending and actual outcomes.  The trendline represents the affect spending has on outcome and the countries below that line (mainly the us) are wasting money while the countries above the line are getting health outcomes out of something besides money.  

Who knew you could get a better bang for your buck if you stopped giving trillions away to middle men?



Not so difficult to see what the other 19 countries have in common.  At least half of the money we spend is literally just being donated to the private sector.  4500 dollars per person per year being burned and thats the most conservative estimate.  Its probably more like 7,000 if you consider the average spending for our life expectancy. 

[TECSHARE]

None of this is "hypothetical" or "sometimes".  The graph I posted is actual spending and actual outcomes.  The trendline represents the affect spending has on outcome and the countries below that line (mainly the us) are wasting money while the countries above the line are getting health outcomes out of something besides money.  

Who knew you could get a better bang for your buck if you stopped giving trillions away to middle men?

Not so difficult to see what the other 19 countries have in common.  At least half of the money we spend is literally just being donated to the private sector.  4500 dollars per person per year being burned and thats the most conservative estimate.  Its probably more like 7,000 if you consider the average spending for our life expectancy. 

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.

[Mastrhiggins]

This thread is people trying to convince other people who have already made up their minds about capitalism and socialism.  


Meanwhile, no nation in the world is 100% of either.  Well, maybe North Korea.

[coins4commies]

Somalia is the only one that is 100% either.


NK was destroyed by capitalism

almost all loans in the 1960s were accepted from socialist states while loans in the 1970s included a huge amount from capitalist states.


Foreign Loans and Grants (US$ Million)

           USSR           China   Other    OECD Members   Subtotal
Before 1948   53.0   -   -   -53.0
1953-60   609.0   459.6   364.9   -   1,883.5
(Grants)   (325.0)   (287.1)   (364.9)   -   (977.0)
1961-70   558.3   157.4   159.0   9   883.7
1971-80   682.1   300.0   -   1,292.2   2,274.1
1981-90   508.4   500.0   -       -   1,008.4
Total   2,409.8   1,417.0   523.9   1,301.0   6,102.7
Source: "North Korea’s External Debts: Trend and Characteristics, Korea Focus" (KDI Review of the North Korea Economy, March 2012, published by the Korea Development Institute)

They were doing great in the 50s and 60s until capitalist loans drowned the country in debt

[TECSHARE]

America Will MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vpm63bZYuo

[BADecker]

The only socialism there is, is in prisons. People who don't like socialism move out. People die everywhere... not only in socialism.

[BADecker]

Somalia is the only one that is 100% either.


NK was destroyed by capitalism

almost all loans in the 1960s were accepted from socialist states while loans in the 1970s included a huge amount from capitalist states.


Foreign Loans and Grants (US$ Million)

           USSR           China   Other    OECD Members   Subtotal
Before 1948   53.0   -   -   -53.0
1953-60   609.0   459.6   364.9   -   1,883.5
(Grants)   (325.0)   (287.1)   (364.9)   -   (977.0)
1961-70   558.3   157.4   159.0   9   883.7
1971-80   682.1   300.0   -   1,292.2   2,274.1
1981-90   508.4   500.0   -       -   1,008.4
Total   2,409.8   1,417.0   523.9   1,301.0   6,102.7
Source: "North Korea’s External Debts: Trend and Characteristics, Korea Focus" (KDI Review of the North Korea Economy, March 2012, published by the Korea Development Institute)

They were doing great in the 50s and 60s until capitalist loans drowned the country in debt

The capitalist loans were instantly repaid.

The so-called borrower signed the promissory note, thereby giving it value. The banker across the table took the note (as a loan to the bank) and deposited it in a private bank account. Then he withdrew the same amount in cash or bank check form, and repaid the loan. But he told the dumb patsy that the repayment money was a loan from the bank, and that the patsy would have to repay the loan plus interest over the term.

Check the banks audited ledgers. This is exactly what they show.

[Naida_BR]

The only socialism there is, is in prisons. People who don't like socialism move out. People die everywhere... not only in socialism.

The fact is the way they die.
It is very sad to consider socialism an equal political way of ruling such as all the others that exist right now.
People don't have the same skills, we are different... So socialism cannot work.

[BADecker]

The Soul of Man Under Socialism, by Oscar Wilde - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XjrEOJ0C4FbRiQzb_MPgWWLq1ocPQe4v/view.

[mOgliE]

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.

You got precise figures and dates on a measured graphic. You don't need source, you need to see if you can find your own contradicting source.

But it's not like you could as you don't seem to be able to use Google.

[TECSHARE]

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.

You got precise figures and dates on a measured graphic. You don't need source, you need to see if you can find your own contradicting source.

But it's not like you could as you don't seem to be able to use Google.

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

[mOgliE]

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic?

Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them.

And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science.

[fatnet]

why argue about one political system if each of us can live in political system he likes without the monopoly of the same-state jurisdiction on the current piece of land, welcome to the panarchy

[TECSHARE]

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic?

Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them.

And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science.

Some times you guys make it so easy its not even worth responding. Its like getting into a boxing match with a baby. If you win so what, you beat up a baby, if you lose you got beat up by a baby. Just because you got a piece of paper from some institution doesn't make you educated. Considering you can't even define a source, I am not going to hold my breath on your "good one, In science." Besides you have already played the Ethos card, I know you are an engineer, and that is somewhat terrifying. Hopefully you are engineering things that won't kill people when they inevitably collapse.

[JaredKaragen]

There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.

It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic?

Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them.

And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science.

Some times you guys make it so easy its not even worth responding. Its like getting into a boxing match with a baby. If you win so what, you beat up a baby, if you lose you got beat up by a baby. Just because you got a piece of paper from some institution doesn't make you educated. Considering you can't even define a source, I am not going to hold my breath on your "good one, In science." Besides you have already played the Ethos card, I know you are an engineer, and that is somewhat terrifying. Hopefully you are engineering things that won't kill people when they inevitably collapse.

FYI its not hard to take the little bit of effort and research information given to you;   this is what you are supposed to learn in school so you can get that degree you speak of the honest way.

no offense meant, but people playing the ignorant card when it comes to rebuttals;  aren't discussing and are exacerbating the nonsense....

Likened to reading the following list in this photo;  and not accepting the information because there aren't fancy blue links to articles or names listed.


(FYI: I picked this photo specifically as a troll example)

[TECSHARE]

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

[JaredKaragen]

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

You wouldn't be researching his point for him;  he made his point.  You would be researching for your own benefit;  not his benefit.   Don't pass the buck off on others... and don't cloud that situation when it's a clear cut as this short paragraph.

This is why I specifically chose the troll I used as my example.   With minimal effort, most of those people can be identified with a basic background in general american history... but most people who read that specific one;  do nothing to verify any of it and speak against it because of their beliefs; and instantly dismiss it's message with no regard to logic and discourse. (in my own experience)

I understand its not easy to research;  but don't put someone down without verifying anything first; you have no basis to prove him wrong (by your own words).  Take the effort to be able talk to someone that way; with substantiating facts that are relevant.

Don't be so quick to dismiss things that are contrary to your beliefs.  They may be fact.  Refusing to accept statement and treating it as if it isn't fact without first having substantiated that stance..  is not a good thing.  It creates chaos.

[TECSHARE]

As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.

You wouldn't be researching his point for him;  he made his point.  You would be researching for your own benefit;  not his benefit.   Don't pass the buck off on others... and don't cloud that situation when it's a clear cut as this short paragraph.

This is why I specifically chose the troll I used as my example.   With minimal effort, most of those people can be identified with a basic background in general american history... but most people who read that specific one;  do nothing to verify any of it and speak against it because of their beliefs; and instantly dismiss it's message with no regard to logic and discourse. (in my own experience)

I understand its not easy to research;  but don't put someone down without verifying anything first; you have no basis to prove him wrong (by your own words).  Take the effort to be able talk to someone that way; with substantiating facts that are relevant.

Don't be so quick to dismiss things that are contrary to your beliefs.  They may be fact.  Refusing to accept statement and treating it as if it isn't fact without first having substantiated that stance..  is not a good thing.  It creates chaos.

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

[JaredKaragen]

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

You have been clear that you wont accept it citing: "I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him" as a basis for your stance on the "non-research and bash em for giving input" approach; not everyone in the world is college educated, and most people who come out of college don't have a real "education".  They have a certificate.
So again I will repeat:

You are not out to prove his argument for him, he made his argument.   You are dismissing it out of lazyness.  Plain and simple.  Its clearly in your replies, so own up to it.

I bet if it was a claim that was similarly unsubstantiated that supported your stance; you would be diligent to verify it; had someone said it was false or brushed off what you consider to be truth.  But this paragraph is purely speculation.

See where this is going yet?  Or am I gonna have to hear the same thing repeated again ignoring what I have pointed out more than once?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZDgz8MO1M

[TECSHARE]

If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.

You have been clear that you wont accept it citing: "I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him" as a basis for your stance on the "non-research and bash em for giving input" approach; not everyone in the world is college educated, and most people who come out of college don't have a real "education".  They have a certificate.
So again I will repeat:

You are not out to prove his argument for him, he made his argument.   You are dismissing it out of lazyness.  Plain and simple.  Its clearly in your replies, so own up to it.

I bet if it was a claim that was similarly unsubstantiated that supported your stance; you would be diligent to verify it; had someone said it was false or brushed off what you consider to be truth.  But this paragraph is purely speculation.

See where this is going yet?  Or am I gonna have to hear the same thing repeated again ignoring what I have pointed out more than once?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZDgz8MO1M

Lol. Ok. That's not a "citing", it is a graph with no citation. Sure he made an argument, a totally unsubstantiated one. You are quite confused. Sorry but you have everything ass backwards. Also I think you have problems reading because he was the one claiming to have a college degree, I think such arguments are nonsense (appeal to authority) unless it applies to the field he is arguing.

I am dismissing it because this is the standard lazy way this individual makes arguments all the time. If he doesn't care enough to show me where the information came from I don't care enough to bother to look it up because he doesn't believe in his argument enough to provide a source. I do in fact source my arguments, especially when asked. Feel free to check out my post history. Sourcing information is considered very basic levels of requirements in debate. I realize it goes no where, just like Socialism, which is why I am giving it exactly as much energy as it deserves. You have fun being confused an indignant though.

Here, have some actual citations:

https://www.techsling.com/2017/10/citationreferencing-important-education/
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/05/16/why-cite/
https://librarybestbets.fairfield.edu/c.php?g=496653&p=3399372

[JaredKaragen]

no worries whatsoever... sometimes I have to be the proponent of evil to get a little more paint on the picture so to speak.... hopefully nothing was taken personally.

Anytime I see some sort of lacking statement/statistic, I take the time to go in and attempt to verify the validity of their statements....   and it kinda rubs me wrong people dismiss things so easily... no matter how farse they can be... not unless you actually know the details about what they are obviously incorrect about.



As a prime example;  people are all up in arms right now about the citizenship questions on the national census....

You search for census forms, and all the major search engines give you results that seem to back up the claims that they weren't asked in previous years, and that its crazy and racist or whatever the #@$% that the question of citizenship is being asked....


But if you were to find the actual historical forms; you would see all the questions that are omitted from the PDF's that are commonly returned in search results [today] for lets say the year 2000....  these newly drafted 3 page PDF's are presented as original;  but they are recently created.    I actually have filled out the census form many times in the last 10+ years personally.   These questions are indeed on them, and here's the prime example of the real census forms that were sent out and filled out on 2000-2002: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/Quest00to02.pdf?# As these are the real forms.

Trying to find those actual forms... took me quite a bit of work;  which I totally feel for you because that's the exact position he was putting you in to... but it doesn't excuse the need to verify claims regardless of the citations if you are truly intent on understanding the other side and not just pushing your perspectives onto them in a one sided argument/discussion on your end.

[TECSHARE]

no worries whatsoever... sometimes I have to be the proponent of evil to get a little more paint on the picture so to speak.... hopefully nothing was taken personally.

Anytime I see some sort of lacking statement/statistic, I take the time to go in and attempt to verify the validity of their statements....   and it kinda rubs me wrong people dismiss things so easily... no matter how farse they can be... not unless you actually know the details about what they are obviously incorrect about.



As a prime example;  people are all up in arms right now about the citizenship questions on the national census....

You search for census forms, and all the major search engines give you results that seem to back up the claims that they weren't asked in previous years, and that its crazy and racist or whatever the #@$% that the question of citizenship is being asked....


But if you were to find the actual historical forms; you would see all the questions that are omitted from the PDF's that are commonly returned in search results [today] for lets say the year 2000....  these newly drafted 3 page PDF's are presented as original;  but they are recently created.    I actually have filled out the census form many times in the last 10+ years personally.   These questions are indeed on them, and here's the prime example of the real census forms that were sent out and filled out on 2000-2002: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/Quest00to02.pdf?# As these are the real forms.

Trying to find those actual forms... took me quite a bit of work;  which I totally feel for you because that's the exact position he was putting you in to... but it doesn't excuse the need to verify claims regardless of the citations if you are truly intent on understanding the other side and not just pushing your perspectives onto them in a one sided argument/discussion on your end.

I enjoy a good debate, but I am not going to put too much energy into it if it is not based in logic. You said you yourself take time to verify the validity of people's statements, but how do you do that without a source? I am not devoting more energy to his argument than he is willing to, to prove HIS point for him. If you can't explain your position in simple terms and provide sources for your claims then you probably don't actually know what you are talking about. Ignoring this fact is just a waste of time and energy. People like Coins4commies often avoid or just neglect completely to make citations, because they know I will actually read and deconstruct them, something they never bothered to do in the first place. They then pretend I am being unreasonable for demanding they support their claims with a source, declare themselves correct, and move on to the next distraction.

[TheCBF]

It's a combination that works, whether looking at enterprise (social or corporate), healthcare (private or state funded) or schools, transport, food production, etc. The observations about Venezuela in this thread are in part correct, but there was an identifiable level of corruption and over reliance on socialist (borderline communist) principles, along with poor leadership, faux concern for the populous, sanctions and other external actions that stressed the system enough so it broke. The internal issues being evident through the ongoing actions of the leadership.

People are naturally community oriented and will always strive to cooperatively support their families, community, city, nation and so on as it's inherently, perhaps even instinctually, recognised as the best thing on the micro and macro scale. If every individual was isolationist, self-focused and disregarded their place in society then society would fall apart overnight. People understand that cooperation and yes, social support and social welfare, in whatever shape it takes, is a necessity and an inherently good thing for society overall.

In a modern world it is right and proper that fundamental needs are safeguarded for the individual and community. Be that shelter, education, healthcare, food, water, security, etc., as without those there is no bedrock on which to build. Where an individual cannot support themselves, permanently or temporarily, social welfare should be available. However, being a citizen, a member of a family, community or organisation comes with responsibilities. Some of that responsibility is in not abusing the support on offer and understanding it is available only for those in dire times. The rest of the time individuals are obligated to safeguard themselves in these terms, to become educated, stay healthy, engage in free markets, creative production, building commerce and industry for example. This ensures that it isn't take take take to a point of collapse.

As with most things it requires a balance and an assumption of personal responsibility, built on effective cooperation.

CBF

[coins4commies]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

[Spendulus]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

You really should study up on proper ways to cite literature. It's not to go gung ho in a direction you are already biased on, with one study that seems to support you.

Science doesn't work that way at all.

[coins4commies]

Posts on this website are generally informal and not intended to be taken as an attempt at scientific literature. 

[TECSHARE]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

"widely accepted truths", often times known as a lot of dumb people in a room reassuring each other. It is a fact that psychology is the least scientific of the accepted sciences, because by their nature they lack empirical requirements such as controls, repeatable results, and direct observation among other things. Your sources had failed methodologies such as being based on surveys. I dismissed your surveys because they are not only a wildly unreliable source of information, but one which is easily manipulable, not just because "psychology is a farce". The point was that even if everything you presented was correct, it would still be of the lowest forms of evidence available. You don't cite anything because you don't have the capability to competently review your sources, and you know that I do. Everything I don't support is not, "deconstructive postmodernism" (its deconstructivist btw), just the vast majority of what you have to offer. Are you insinuating that Holodomor happened because of a drought now? And I am the pseudo-scientist?

[JaredKaragen]

Unless I'm talking about something new, I almost never cite sources during informal discussion.   I thought it was common knowledge that the US spends more per capita than any other country.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the US has a low life expectancy relative to other countries with similar wealth.  With that said, I admit I have a problem thinking too many things are common knowledge and don't always cite things when sometimes they should be cited.

The problem with TECSHARE is that he doesn't even believe in widely accepted truths.   When I have cited psychology literature, he writes it off because the entire field of psychology is a farce to him.   So is Science.  When you are talking to someone who has  embraces pseudo-science, and simply writes off scientific 97% of scientific citations, there really is no point in citing anything.  There is no getting anywhere really.  To him, anything that doesn't support his point is deconstructive postmodernism grounded in the same ideology that caused a drought in Ukraine almost a century ago.

"widely accepted truths", often times known as a lot of dumb people in a room reassuring each other. It is a fact that psychology is the least scientific of the accepted sciences, because by their nature they lack empirical requirements such as controls, repeatable results, and direct observation among other things. Your sources had failed methodologies such as being based on surveys. I dismissed your surveys because they are not only a wildly unreliable source of information, but one which is easily manipulable, not just because "psychology is a farce". The point was that even if everything you presented was correct, it would still be of the lowest forms of evidence available. You don't cite anything because you don't have the capability to competently review your sources, and you know that I do. Everything I don't support is not, "deconstructive postmodernism" (its deconstructivist btw), just the vast majority of what you have to offer. Are you insinuating that Holodomor happened because of a drought now? And I am the pseudo-scientist?

TECSHARE is actually extremely on-point.

I really think the subject of this thread should actually read: "Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live in poverty. Horrible true story";  because historically, and presently:  This is the truth when seen from an objective eye analyzing past and present data.  Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

For instance in California;  people actually believe the last "drought" [when it was actually just a water shortage] was caused by "climate change/global warming/etc..."  when in fact California simply ran extremely low on water reserves because they local government decided to flush all stocks of water from pretty much all of the reservoirs in the year and a half prior;  there was very heavy rains in the preceding years, and they assumed it would continue as such.  

These people are driven by the same mentality that the sea level should/will never change;  not being understanding of the fact that elevation is based on sea level, and not the other way around....   As a professional land surveyor;  I can attest to the face that the ground moves;  a LOT more than you would expect.  

Not to mention: that pumping mass amounts of water out of the ground for drinking caused the city of Palo Alto to sink pretty far below sea level, and the water district continually pumps mass amounts of water back into the ground to offset and keep it from sinking further.  Go ahead;  look it up.

But people never wish to factor in aspects that go against their perceived notions when it comes to studying a thing in the first place.   Statistics are only as good as the datum inserted and the parameters formed by the person with an objective for a particular result.

Now im not quoting or linking citations, but at least i'm being extremely clear about what is and isn't; in an extremely easy to verify way.  It is courteous to do such when speaking in such a manner.

[coins4commies]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

[TECSHARE]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

https://i.redd.it/93kjpbtearg21.jpg

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

[coins4commies]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

https://i.redd.it/93kjpbtearg21.jpg

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.

My argument is that I don't care about semantics at all and that you want to make the entire discussion one based on semantics so that the policies cannot be discussed.  If you were to get passed semantics then your go to talking points will all be null and void.  You are that meme.    I'll let you call things whatever you want but I will call you out for inconsistency.   Its either socialism and it works or its not socialism and no one is trying to create socialism.  

I'll just focus on the individual policies and those are the policies I'm advocating.  

[JaredKaragen]

*snip*
Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.
.... *snip*

Its called asking a question while giving ones own perspective for congruence and creates less useless back and forth talk.  

Please... drop the attitude... it doesn't help your case.

A simple answer goes a long way.

[TECSHARE]

Many countries that have some socialist policies that people like to mis-represent as socialist today; are actually not socialist, and haven't been for some time.

but those are the policies the people being called socialists are pushing for.

https://i.redd.it/93kjpbtearg21.jpg

So what is your argument, that because other people call these things Socialist, they must actually be Socialist? Socialists love to call the fruits of Capitalism Socialist, and the rot of Socialism Capitalist. This is why I have no respect for you, you can't manage basic levels of logic and you claim to educate people for a living. You are a fraud.

Ask me a question and then answer it yourself. Cool! Live, artisanal strawman crafting! Then ad-hominem attacks based on the weakness of the argument that you just crafted on my behalf.  You don't even need me.  You could literally do this with a tree and it would be exactly the same.

My argument is that I don't care about semantics at all and that you want to make the entire discussion one based on semantics so that the policies cannot be discussed.  If you were to get passed semantics then your go to talking points will all be null and void.  You are that meme.    I'll let you call things whatever you want but I will call you out for inconsistency.   Its either socialism and it works or its not socialism and no one is trying to create socialism.  

I'll just focus on the individual policies and those are the policies I'm advocating.  

Your total lack of self awareness and ability for projection is amazing. Either that or you are completely disingenuous. This is classic "accuse your opponent of the crimes you yourself are guilty of", is right out of the Nazi propaganda tactics as well as Saul Alinski's Rules For Radicals. Your entire argument was a semantic one with no logical basis, then you accuse me of using semantics as a defense. This may work on people with low levels of awareness and low intelligence such as yourself, but it doesn't work for everybody.

[coins4commies]

People make personal attacks to avoid having to argue with the real points.  Its a sign of someone who lacks relevant points in the actual discussion and you are doing it in almost every post.

I'll keep pushing for workers' rights, universal healthcare, education, and housing without any real concern for what its called.  You can either debate the actual issues or keep looking for a semantic debate on outdated concepts, linking them to 20th century systems of government and sprinkling in personal attacks.