Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
Because you're not rewarded for merit. And abolishing private property would never happen here. At least for 100 years or more.
Please help me understand why socialism is a bad thing.
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
Keep that shyt in Australia or whatever Scandinavian country your from
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
#LowerLearning
It's amazing. I've never seen so much wilful ignorance of a concept/term.
Crayola Coyote
Superstar
Another one sided system that would be controlled by whites and benefitted whites. White supremacy by another name.
Which country in history with over 330 million diverse people has successfully implemented capitalism?Which country in history with over 330 million diverse people has successfully implemented socialism/state socialism
Which country in history with over 330 million diverse people has successfully implemented capitalism?
None and I say that with the notion that America isn't a completely capitalist economy structure
This is some double speak smoke screen bullshyt. Diversity & size have nothing to do with why socialism would be problematic in America.... this old trope is just a code word for saying "only small white countries can do socialism.... we dont want to pay benefits to you minorities"Tell me a country the size and diversity in population of America that has been successful with socialism?
Socialism already exists in the US in many forms.... pretty much every public program is socialist. The rich guy paying $100K a year in taxes gets no more utility out of police and roads and shyt as Joe Sixpack.
Main problem with socialism is the govt owning the means of production. That has pretty much failed every single time it's been tried. Govts govern.... owners own. One entity controlling laws AND means of production is too much of a consolidation of power, which is why most socialist countries end up as dictatorships. Better to spread shyt around.
Abolishing private property isn't even a good idea. Its attention to a perceived aesthetic problem, not an economic one.
We have to stop calling roads and bridges "socialism"
Why
Govt owns them for public use.... taxes paid for them are progressive.... sounds pretty socialist to me
All public services that arent paid for regressively are socialist to some degree
To be honest, this debate between Capitalist and Socialists systems is mostly academic. The reality is most countries are mixed economies and there are very few countries that purely one or the other.
A purely socialist economy has its issues. I don't believe you can centralize all aspects of society. It leads to inefficiencies and does not help feed improvement and innovation. It slows it down. There is a reason why even though we have one of the most expensive health care systems in the world (bad) we also have some of the best healthcare and doctors in the world (good). While insurance companies, drug companies, and hospital administrators are most of the reason of our high health care cost, we do pay our doctors very well and due to the lack of centralization, hospitals will compete to hire the best which will in turn drive up salaries and attract better talent. As opposed to something like a salary cap set by the state and salary increases would have to be decided by the state. I've often read and hear about people, usually the wealthy, who may live in societies with socialized medicine state they are going to the United States for treatment as it relates to something serious. Also we have a lot of people who immigrate to our country to be doctors here in the U.S. as opposed to their home country because its much more financially awarding along with intellectually awarding.
Secondly, when you start to get into redistribution it becomes even more troublesome. Redistribution by a state has shown to be inefficient and leads to failure eventually. You can go back as far as the Mycenaean's who had a re-distributive economy. One of the reasons for their suspected fall was that such an economy can be thought of as a link. Once one part starts to fail, it dominoes which happened with the Mycenaean's. You can take look at recent examples such as China during the 50s or to some extent modern Greece. Giving all control to the state is too cumbersome for one entity even if they make specialized sub-departments. At the end of the day, you usually have a less diverse minded leadership making the decisions.
Pure capitalism has its faults too which I could go into but that isn't what this topic is about.
A purely socialist economy has its issues. I don't believe you can centralize all aspects of society. It leads to inefficiencies and does not help feed improvement and innovation. It slows it down. There is a reason why even though we have one of the most expensive health care systems in the world (bad) we also have some of the best healthcare and doctors in the world (good). While insurance companies, drug companies, and hospital administrators are most of the reason of our high health care cost, we do pay our doctors very well and due to the lack of centralization, hospitals will compete to hire the best which will in turn drive up salaries and attract better talent. As opposed to something like a salary cap set by the state and salary increases would have to be decided by the state. I've often read and hear about people, usually the wealthy, who may live in societies with socialized medicine state they are going to the United States for treatment as it relates to something serious. Also we have a lot of people who immigrate to our country to be doctors here in the U.S. as opposed to their home country because its much more financially awarding along with intellectually awarding.
Secondly, when you start to get into redistribution it becomes even more troublesome. Redistribution by a state has shown to be inefficient and leads to failure eventually. You can go back as far as the Mycenaean's who had a re-distributive economy. One of the reasons for their suspected fall was that such an economy can be thought of as a link. Once one part starts to fail, it dominoes which happened with the Mycenaean's. You can take look at recent examples such as China during the 50s or to some extent modern Greece. Giving all control to the state is too cumbersome for one entity even if they make specialized sub-departments. At the end of the day, you usually have a less diverse minded leadership making the decisions.
Pure capitalism has its faults too which I could go into but that isn't what this topic is about.
Last edited:
Plus giving full control to the state requires a rational, responsible, accountable state, which we don't have. We would do better to stamp out all the issues keeping our govt from even being viable for socialism (cronyism, waste, disenfranchisement) than to leap into socialism and hope all the govt problems will be solved by it. That shyt never works.
