RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Where in my post have I mentionned "Socialism"?
Second, socialism means different things. Some people use it as a synonim to communism, some use it as a synonim to a "Social-democracy", like the ones you find in Scandinavia.
I assume you mean it in the first sense, as a kind of communism, since your "nazism comes from socialism" argument makes even less sense otherwise.
Stalinism came from a distorded version of communism that almost nothing to do with Karl Marx's writing, or even Leninism. It's the equivalent of saying the military dictatorships in Latin America (Pinochet and the rest) are a direct "outgrowth of capitalism".
Nazism was a direct outgrowth of a rampant nationalism and the Versaille Treaty. It had nothing to do with communism. Cold war education ftw...
First off, I interpreted the phrase "social security" to mean "a system whereby the state obligates itself to provide social benefits to the population". That is a key component of socialism. Hence, I referred to socialism. Was I being broad? Sure. But lacking a clearly definition of what he was talking about, it was a reasonable response.
And yeah. Nazism, fascism, Communism (later Stalinism in Russia), were all outgrowths of socialist thought. Hitler and Mussolini were *both* socialists before changing the names of their movements. They did so, not because they'd abandoned the core ideologies of socialism, but because the communist revolution in Russia in 1917 caused most people calling themselves socialists in Europe to be compared to communists. Thus, socialism as a movement splintered into a dozen differen't movements, all calling themselves different things and going in their own directions, but all starting from the same basic ideology.
The core tenant of socialism is that "the people" should create a more even distribution of wealth and prosperity. But "the people" generally can't do that by themselves, so in practice every single socialist movement has relied on using state power to do these things. This in turn results in an increase in that state's power as it gains control over more aspects of the day to day lives of "the people" in order to provide those benefits (the "social security" that Paulsol was talking about). Sometimes, this doesn't cause any problems. Sometimes it does. It's incredibly unreasonable to only call
successful socialist movements "socialist" or "social liberalist" (or whatever term you're using) and insist that any such movement that results in authoritarian nastiness isn't the same thing.
Quote:
This is typical of your rethoric. Choose the definition that suits you, and nevermind if no one else is using in that way. Look up "nationalism" in a dictionnary, and then come back so we can talk about it, instead of trying to change the meaning of words.
I have. Have you? Nationalism means differen't things to different people. It can be good. It can be bad. At it's most simple it's just a construct that says that the state derives its existance from "the people", with some commonality that causes "the people" to identify themselves with the state. That could be a group of ethnocentrists relegating anyone who isn't one of them to second citizen status, or it could be a group of colonials using the oppression of a colonial power as their commmon binding cause. Nationalism by itself does not have a specific flavor and is neither good nor bad. If you are to contrast it, you should contrast it to earlier imperialist governments, or royal lineage systems (usually employing some form of fuedalism to administer the lands they control). Saying it's "bad" because some nations are bad is a bit silly.
Ghandi was a nationalist. So was Hitler. What does that mean? Nothing.
Quote:
I don't have time right this second to look up stats, but I'm reasonably certain that rates of public assistance grows in direct proportion to the value of the assistance. Over time, the "need" somehow magically always seems to keep growing. Look. Compare the rates of citizens on assistance in your own country over the last 50 years. I'll bet they've gone up.
Of course they've gone up!! Ever heard of inflation? Of rising standards of living? Do you know they calculate "poverty" through the median salary? What do you expect? That we tell poor people "Hey, by 1950s standards, you guys are not so poor!"
Seriously, thrid-grade arguments... Make an effort, please.
Reading comprehension. I said *rates*. As in "what percentage of the total economic output of a nation is consumed by its government in order to provide those social benefits to the people". Get it? Inflation is irrelevant. I specifically said "rate", not raw number.
France's government today consumes 1 trillion out of 1.8 trillion in productive output (GDP). That's 55% of the total.
By contrast, the US government consumes 2.1 trillion out of 12.6 trillion GDP. That's 17%.
See the difference? How much of the economic pie does your government use up by running these programs? That's the question you *should* be asking yourself. Also: How long can we keep doing this before we're consuming all of it? And: What could our economy have done with that money if we'd put it back into the industries that generated it instead of taking it for social services?
Holy cow! What did you guys do between 2004 and 2005? Prior to that point, France had a government revenue rate in the teens, then it suddenly jumps up to 50+%
Oh. And your debt is much higher (rate again!) then the US's. Freaking huge in fact.
Quote:
And even if there is *zero* increase over time. You still end up decreasing productivity as a result. Because the portion of the economy you consume in order to pay for those programs is that part which is most productive.
Why? How can you just say that? The portion you "consume", you spend on those prgrams, is like every other @#%^ing "portion of the economy". You can choose how you spend you money of social programmes. You can choose where the money comes from. This statement of fact is complete non-sense.
No. It's not. Because a free market (which is what happens when you allow people to keep their money instead of taking it) will generate things that a government would not think to make. Like personal computers. No one predicted them. No government would have "planned" for them. But they happened anyway. Because a free market will produce things that people wont plan for and can't predict. That's why having a government that chooses to take the money from large corportations and the wealthy (where the bulk of free market investment comes from) and then chooses where and how to use that money will *always* result in a stifling of growth in the long term.
Because no matter how "smart" your government is, and how carefully it plans, and how well intentioned it is, it will *never* find a reason to put a cell phone in everyone's pocket, or a home computer in everyone's house, or any reason at all to make TV screens that are flat. But its in the process of doing those very things that technology grows, often in ways no one can predict, and often resulting in massive increases in standard of living that a government would never come up with.
Quote:
Because the money that isn't feeding people *today* is inevitably being spent building something new that will improve people's lives tomorrow.
Or it is spent sitting in off-shore bank accounts, in hedge funds, in the bank account of some executive paid $5M/year.
Thats is once again a complete lie. You make it sound as though the money that funds sociual welfare programs would otherwise be spent onr esearch for cancer. Once again, that's a blatant lie. Increase taxes on the extremely wealthy by 0.5%. You guys have some of the lowest taxes in the developped world. So it's not liek they'd have anywhere to run anyway.
Um. Because it is? What do you think the money in those back accounts and hedge funds does? That ultra wealthy guy isn't earning interest and return on investment because the money is just sitting there! He's gaining interest (capital gains) because the money is being used to hire people, and build buildings, and develop new products (perhaps even cancer cures!). And it's worth more over time because the value of what that money does is greater then the value of the money that was put in to start it. That *only* happens in a free market environment. Government spending recieves X value for X money. Period. It does not increase the value and productive potential of any given amount of money/capital. It simply moves it from one place to another and from one form to another.
By definition, in a free market, if your investment portfolio is growing it's because the things that those you invested in spent the money on generated more value afterwards then the cost of the initial investment. That's by definition. If that wasn't true, you'd have lost money instead of made it. Thus, it's ridiculous to argue that there's no intrisic value to having that money "sit in an account". It's not just sitting. It's creating value.
Where do you think the cash for home loans, and business loans comes from? The money fairy? Banks have that money to lend because other's put that money in their accounts, and still others invested in the bank, or underwrite the loans directly. All are capital investments. All allow other people to make things with the money. The rich guy who owns the money benefits at the end in terms of capital gains, but the money first benefits other people by being available for them to use to puruse their dreams. If those dreams pan out, then everyone benefits. That's how the process works here in the US, and it works incredibly well...
Quote:
The problem is that the opportunity cost of socialism appears to be nothing because you can't see what you lost. For example, if 30 years ago the US had adopted a high degree of socialised programs, would home computers have ever been developed?
Obviously, since they wre not developed by public programs but by private companies.
Are you saying obviously they would? Or obviously they wouldn't? The point I'm making is that an ecnonomy in which 17% is being consumed by government will have a lot more capital floating around in which to research and develop things like home computers, then one in which the government consumes 55%. That should be obvious I hope.
Quote:
More to the point, if they hadn't, would we know that they could have if we hadn't spent all that money on those programs? We'd never know.
Except we do. You make it sound as though to fund social programs you need to starve people. Thats such bullsh*t. More on that later.
Didn't say "starve". Said "will not produce new things that make people's lives better". Total difference. You're arguing staples. I'm arguing "new stuff". If the only puporse of humanity is to be fed, clothed, and housed, then your argument makes sense. I tend to think that humanity should actually be doing something with our time and our intelligence. But that's just me...
Quote:
Most wealthy people try really hard to both provide those opportunities to others and encourage them to take advantage of them when they appear.
Says who? Show me some proof. As far as I can see it, most wealthy people tend to take care of themselves, and their family. It's normal, and it's human nature. Buffet and Gates made such a big noise because theya re the exception, not the rule.
I'm not talking about charities. I'm talking about what they do with their money along the way. How did Gates become so wealthy? By taking money from starving children? Or by creating a series of technological developments that improved people's lives? What I'm saying is that his money helped people *before* he put a bunch of it into a charitable foundation. Same deal with Buffet. Where did his billions come from? They came from investment. What were the fruits of those investments? They didn't exist solely to enrichen him. They enrichened him *because* they generated a value greater then their initial cost. That value provided jobs to people. It provided opportunities to people. How many other people lived better lives simply because these two men took the actions they did?
Somewhat by definition wealthy people become wealthy because they spend less then they earn. I've made this argument many times. Thus, it *cannot* be about using the wealth to take care of themselves and their families. Certainly, they want to make things better for themselves in the long run, but they live off the return of their investments. The bulk of that money is kept invested. That means that other's gain a greater benefit from their money then they do. If you gain 3% adjusted each year on your investment portfolio, that means that you get back 103% of what you have invested, right? If you live off that 3%, who benefits from the other 100%? Think about it. That money is used to build buildings, hire people, develop new technologies, etc. All the stuff that makes all our lives better.
And in most cases (actually, somewhat by definition as well), they don't actually live off the full 3% return. They live off less then that. Because if they didn't, then their wealth wont grow and if they didn't do that, they'd not have become "wealthy" in the first place.
The problem is that most people honestly don't understand how free market economies work. They assume that money gained must be taken from others, so those with a lot of money must have taken alot and therefore should be taxed heavily to balance the scales. The reality is the exact opposite. Those with the most wealth have *given* the most to others. Wealth is only generated if you spend less (often significantly less) then you earn. The remainder is handed over to other people to use to do all that stuff I keep talking about (in the hopes that the value down the line will be worth more then the cost).
That this is true is incredibly easy to prove. If you have a pen, and I need a pen, I could hand you a dollar for your pen and buy it from you, right? Who gained from that transaction? I have a pen. You gave it to me. You have a dollar. That dollar is just a measurement of what you've given me. Nothing more. It says that you gave a dollars worth of something to someone else (a pen in this case) but have not yet recieved anything of equal worth back. Your wealth is the total accumulated amount of dollars you have earned minus the total amount of dollars you have spent (things other's give you in return for your dollars). Thus, your wealth is the measurement of the total amount of goods and servies you've provided to others in excess of the goods and services you've taken from others.
By definition, during the course of accumulating wealth, you've provided more benefit to others then you've gained for yourself. It's this simple concept that most people don't get. It's what allows people to think that wealth is "bad", and that those who have it must have taken it from others. That is only true if wealth is actually accumulated via the process of taking real goods from others unfairly. But, assuming a sane capitalistic system, that's just not the case. If you construct your economic rules such that the path to generating wealth requires investment in things that benfit others (such as we have in the US), then wealth *always* measures benefits provided to others.
Long explanation. I know. But I want to make it clear that it's typically this wealth that is taxed heavily in socialist countries. Thus, it's the fruits that this wealth would generate that are removed/stifled when you adopt a high degree of socialism. And that affects your society in a myriad of ways, that IMO are more damaging over the long run then the benfits the government could have provided with the social services they would use the tax income for.
Quote:
So now **** people "choose" to be poor. Seriopusly, it's sick. Somehow, I doubt you were born into a single-mum family that had to work two jobs. I doubt you went to the worst-school of your district. I doubt you were born in a project, and that your peers dealt drugs and carried guns.
It's so @#%^ing easy to take the morale high-ground when you don't have a clue. But if youw ere born into a poor family, with a single-mum that had to work, if you went to a sh*t school that was constantly disrupted by troublesome pupils, if peer rpessure encouraged you not to take an interest in school, but rather to seek out a life of crime, then you wouldn't be spouting the self-righteous bullsh*t you are spouting today.
Sigh. Typical rhetoric response to that statement. Look. People make choices in their lives. Those choices determine how well they do in their lives. We are not mindless automatons following some programing. We are all thinking, free willed, people. You may not choose as a child to be poor, but that is definately a result of choices made by your parent(s). Did they choose to stay in school? Or deal drugs? Did they choose to get a job, work hard, develop marketable skills? Or did they choose to put forth the minimum effort needed to get by?
It's startling to me how many people seem to think that our choices have no effect on our lives. They have *every* effect on our lives. Any child born to a poor family can become successful. If they make the right choices. Now, perhaps in a system where the government decides who gets what, you might be right that choice has little effect. But that's not exactly a shining endorsement of your position, is it? In a free country, anyone can succeed. The fact that a statistical number don't, does not mean that the system is flawed, it just means that a statistical number will make poor choices that result in consequences.
I'd much rather provide those people with the means to succeed, then simply make their poverty more comfortable. And I firmly believe that a free market does that in ways that socialistic systems simply do not. Socialism does not end poverty. It increases it, but makes it more bearable. Socialism provides comfort, but at the cost of opportunity and improvement.
In life there are no guarantees. That's what makes it worth living...
Quote:
It assumes that the "Rich" have an abundance and that it exists in contrast to the poor having too little. In a sanely constructed capitalism, that's simply not the case.
Well then teh US is not a "sanely constructed capitalism". Look, even in the UK the chief executives of investemnt banks get yearly bonuses that run into the millions of pounds. Richard Desmond (Owner of "the Express" and other sh*t newspapers) pays himself £250,000/day. I call that "the rich have an abundance and that it exists in contrast to the poor having too little."
You completely misunderstood me. By "contrast", I mean that the two are mutually connected and must be in opposition. So for a rich person to be rich, a poor person must be poor. This is the ideology that socialists promote, but not one I believe is accurate. As I've explained in great detail, the process of becoming "rich" in a sane economy (like in the US) by definition generates opportunities and benefits for everyone else. Not guarantees, but opportunities. That's the "choices" I talked about earlier. It means that while not every poor person will take a job that was generated becasuse the rich guy invested in a business that's now hiring in the area, they *can* (and some will). This provides them the opportunity to become not-poor, which they would not have otherwise.
My point is that having wealthy people does not prevent the poor from working and becoming successful. In fact, quite the opposite. Wealth, when properly directed, generates jobs and opportunities. The products that are developed become available to all people at lower and lower prices. So even that poor person who didn't land that great job that lifted him up economically still benefits because he can afford something like a cell phone, which he couldn't have if that wealth had not been used in the way it was. His home, cheap as it may be, is of better quality then an equivalent cost home in past generations. His life is made better on the whole, even if his economic status does not change.
Quote:
No one is stupid enough to say take from the rich and give to the poor just like that.
Hah. Why is that stupid? Because of taking it from the rich? Because you advocated that already. Giving it to the poor? I asume you aren't talking about spending it on programs designed to help the poor, because you've advocated that as well. I'm assuming you mean actually handing the money to them directly "just like that".
Assuming that's correct, why is that stupid? I'm curious here. Is it stupid because they wouldn't spend the money in ways that would help their condition? Intersting observation time: Does the fact that we spend this money on programs in which "the poor" as recipients of the money have no choice in how it's spent therefor assume that they'd make poor choices if they had the money? Does that not support my argument that "the poor" are poor because of their own choices?
How about if we did just tax the rich and hand the money directly to the poor? If, as you argued earlier, the poor aren't poor because of their own choices, wouldn't this work? They should all be able to use that money to make better lives for themselves, right?
The funny thing is that I see this clearly, but you don't. You don't see that your own arguments are inherently contradictory. The poor deserve our help because they didn't do anything that made them poor, yet we don't trust them to actually spend the money themselves becuase we know that statisically they'd make bad choices and waste it. But they aren't poor by their own choice. Oh no! Becuase then we couldn't justify taking the money from the rich to help them with...
Accept the truth. Those programs really exist to increase the size and power of the federal government. That's it. The poor and the rich are used as excuses to do so. If you truely believed that "the poor" weren't poor by choice and are simply poor via lack of opportunity and "wealth", why wouldn't you support just handing them the money? The fact that you don't, and no one does is your first clue that there's a disconnect between why you say you do something and why you really do it (not you personally though).
Quote:
But when you look at the cost of the Iraq War, for exemple, or of this stupid anti-missile defense shield, then you see that the money is there. That if that money was used to regenerat the schools, to pay the teachers a bit better and hire more, to create a universal health care, to give equality of chances to everyone, then the world would be a better place.
You're comparing one type of governent spending to another. I'm talking about not putting that money and power in the hands of the government in the first place. Kinda off topic IMO.
It's nice that you've confimed my argument that you do indeed believe that we should take money from the rich and provide it to "the poor" in the form of programs aimed to make their poverty more comfortable.
How do those things create "equalty of chances"? I'm just curious here. If you provide a poor person with free education and health care, how does that improve his chances? Wouldn't providing more jobs do that better? Wouldn't making it easier to move economically do that better? You're not talking about chances or opportunity, you're talking about having the state simply hand people an allowance to live on. That's not the same thing. People in prison get that. I wouldn't call them "free" by any means. You cannot measure freedom in terms of what is provided for you. Freedom is measured in terms of the ability of the people to make of their lives what they want. And socialism of all forms reduces that freedom while handing out the psuedo-freedom of economic entitlement.
I'll respond to the rest later. This is long enough already.
