Government waste at an all time high.... - Page 2

Eric5273 · #1 07-08-2007, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

See? I told you so.

Yes, socialism would fix most problems for most people in this country, except for about 0.1% of the population who would see their vast fortunes stop growing and would no longer be able to live in $100 million homes and own 85 cars. Over a period of time, much of their money would end up finding its way into the hands of the middle & lower class families in the form of lower taxes and more government services.

MrLabGuy · #2 07-09-2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes, socialism would fix most problems for most people in this country, except for about 0.1% of the population who would see their vast fortunes stop growing and would no longer be able to live in $100 million homes and own 85 cars. Over a period of time, much of their money would end up finding its way into the hands of the middle & lower class families in the form of lower taxes and more government services.

Hey...It sure worked for the Soviet Union. Everyone on welfare and no incentive for those who produce to create jobs.

Sounds like a solid plan....Not.

Eric5273 · #3 07-09-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Hey...It sure worked for the Soviet Union. Everyone on welfare and no incentive for those who produce to create jobs.

Karl Marx even wrote that back in 1948 that soclialism was meant for industrialized wealthy countries, and was meant for the next system AFTER capitalism.

So how about you give me some examples of wealthy industrialized countries that changed to socialism and tell me how it worked out for them.

Or are the only examples you want to look at all poor third world countries that changed to communism straight from feudalism? In that case, why don't you tell me how well capitalism has worked in Mexico, Nigeria or the Sudan?

Or why don't we look at some countries that were communist and changed over the capitalist:

Here are 3. If they all continue to do very well, they may reach their 1989 Communist GDP levels within the next decade. So it may only take them 20 years of capitalism to reach the point of productivity they already were at with communism. And of course with capitalism, the money won't be as evenly distributed. So for the middle class in these countries to be equal to what they were under communism, the GDP has to be much higher.

And 3 more:

And here is a graph of Russia's oil production and consumption. I guess privatizing the oil industry really did wonders for their productivity....

motordavid · #4 07-09-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes, socialism would fix most problems for most people in this country, except for about 0.1% of the population who would see their vast fortunes stop growing and would no longer be able to live in $100 million homes and own 85 cars. Over a period of time, much of their money would end up finding its way into the hands of the middle & lower class families in the form of lower taxes and more government services.

Eric, at the avoidable risk of getting into a PoliSci arm wrestle,
I am curious as to what "socialism would fix most problems for most people"...eg,
yours truly: how would "socialism" make my life better or, fix my problems.
(I really don't have any problems that I know of...)

I do have my share of material goods and a fair sized retirement portfolio,
(that the CEO & I worked our fannies for), and jes' wondered if your plan calls for
me to give most of my "stuff"/portfolio away or, to "the system" and what does that
do to fix my non-existent 'problems'?

I am not looking for C&P arts. on the philosophy of life, communisim, socialism, etc.
I am curious, when you make those statements, how you think they would help me.
I really don't care how they might help the middle class, the great unwashed, JoeSixPack, et al.
and I don't care about the idea that it might "help"; I've read most of that.

How would it help me, or the "average poster" here, whom by the bye, is undoubtedly not
"average" in income, intelligence, etc.

Eric5273 · #5 07-09-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motordavid

Eric, at the avoidable risk of getting into a PoliSci arm wrestle,
I am curious as to what "socialism would fix most problems for most people"...eg,
yours truly: how would "socialism" make my life better or, fix my problems.
(I really don't have any problems that I know of...)

I do have my share of material goods and a fair sized retirement portfolio,
(that the CEO & I worked our fannies for), and jes' wondered if your plan calls for
me to give most of my "stuff"/portfolio away or, to "the system" and what does that
do to fix my non-existent 'problems'?

I am not looking for C&P arts. on the philosophy of life, communisim, socialism, etc.
I am curious, when you make those statements, how you think they would help me.
I really don't care how they might help the middle class, the great unwashed, JoeSixPack, et al.
and I don't care about the idea that it might "help"; I've read most of that.

How would it help me, or the "average poster" here, whom by the bye, is undoubtedly not
"average" in income, intelligence, etc.

I'm not really certain of your net wealth, but from reading your posts, I get the impression that you are well off, but not rediculously wealthy, just someone who saved up a nice healthy retirement and now can afford the nicer things in life.

If that is indeed the case, then socialism would most likely not affect you one bit. Years ago when you were in the work force, your taxes would have been lower, and the government would have provided you with services that you normally had to pay seperately for, or that your employer paid for, such as health care, the college education of your kids, various types of insurance, and lower prices for certain goods & services like gasoline, electricity, telephone, etc. On the down side, you most likely would not earn as much money either. In the long run, your bottom line would most likely be very similar to what it is now.

The largest "positive" difference would be made on the lower and middle class. And the largest "negative" difference would be made on the very wealthy (i.e. those with net worth north of 9 figures).

I know everyone has a tendency to look at China & Russia as examples of communism, but you have to realize that those 2 countries were extremely poor when they turned communist. So the result of communism was that everyone was equally poor together.

Here in the US, we are by far the richest country in the world. If we were to share all the wealth equally, the result would be that the average person would be better off than what most people consider by today's standards to be upper-middle class.

Other ways in which you would be affected is that you would live in a society with less crime/violence and better infrastructure. As I'm sure you realize, much of the crime and violence we have is a result of poverty. You don't see high crime rates in the good neighborhoods.

As I said before, 99.9% of the population would be better off. But that 0.1% has spent billions of dollars on anti-socialist PR over the years to scare the hell out of you. And it has been very effective. Most Americans don't even know what communism is, except that it is bad. Many people, like somoene who actually posted in another thread this morning, think it has something to do with democracy vs. dictatorship. It is purely an economic system and nothing else. Changing to a socialist system does not mean that democracy disappears. If anything, it means that we will have more democracy, as the "special interests" (big corporations) will no longer control our politicians with their big campaign donations.

And just so you realize, I am not some poor person that wants to collect entitlements from the "welfare state". I make a pretty decent living, I own my own business, and of course I drive a new X5. And I am sure that I would be better off with such a system.

I am not suggesting a system of 100% Communism like Russia or China. I am suggesting a system of socialism like they have in Norway, Sweden, or New Zealand. A system in which major heavy industry is nationalized, things like health care and education are an entitlement of all citizens, and a system in which we take care of those who are less fortunate or not capable of taking care of themselves.

rebound · #6 07-08-2007, 11:26 PM

Me = choir
You = preaching

Wagner · #7 07-09-2007, 04:43 PM

no MD you would lose everything you've worked for, you're cool w/that right?

rebound · #8 07-09-2007, 10:32 PM

You do realize that everyone's taxes would have to skyrocket to pay for this workers' paradise, right?

What makes me laugh most is your firmly held belief that there will be no incentives for anyone to screw the system to their own benefit. Laughable.

Eric5273 · #9 07-09-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

You do realize that everyone's taxes would have to skyrocket to pay for this workers' paradise, right?

Ummm.....wrong. Taxes would be much lower. The government would raise most of the tax money from the profits from most major industry which would be nationalized, thus subsidizing and making taxes lower.

Last I checked, just the oil industry alone profited $500+ million last year. Add that together with steel and a couple of other major industries, and you have most of your annual budget without ever collecting a dime from the taxpayers.

Eric5273 · #10 07-10-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

What makes me laugh most is your firmly held belief that there will be no incentives for anyone to screw the system to their own benefit. Laughable.

There is no perfect system. But 99% of the corruption in government today is in the form of bloated government contracts being given out by politicians to their financial supporters -- and this is LEGAL in our current system.

So if there is no more financial support (i.e. publicly funded elections), and very few government contracts handed out to private industry at all, then the amount of corruption will decrease.

But I'll humor you for the moment. Give a specific example of some other kind of government corruption that is legal, or would be legal in a socialist system. I can't think of any, but you say that is "laughable", so surely you must have many such examples to share.