-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Proof that the Democrats are Socialists
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
- Status
So maybe someone can straighten me out on this.
So lets us look at the first "idea" of this thread.
Socialism is bad.
Democrats are socialist, so they are bad.
Free market is good.
Free market requires maximizing profit above all else.
Outsourcing is bad.
Outsourcing is a product of cheaper labor for increased profit.
Maxiuming profit is free market.
Free market is good.
So here is my question, does anyone here believe that free market is good, but outsourcing is bad?
If socialism is bad, then outsourcing has to be good.
Trying to get this thread back on topic.
So lets us look at the first "idea" of this thread.
Socialism is bad.
Democrats are socialist, so they are bad.
Free market is good.
Free market requires maximizing profit above all else.
Outsourcing is bad.
Outsourcing is a product of cheaper labor for increased profit.
Maxiuming profit is free market.
Free market is good.
So here is my question, does anyone here believe that free market is good, but outsourcing is bad?
If socialism is bad, then outsourcing has to be good.
Trying to get this thread back on topic.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
A completely free market is bad, I'm sure everyone agrees with that... I don't think outsourcing is morally bad if a country can generally do things better... but a country wants to keep its jobs
My main peeve is tax outsourcing...
My main peeve is tax outsourcing...
I don't think anyone would say that a complete socialistic or free market system is a good thing.
But if you believe in maximizing profit, outsourcing as to be a good thing.
The number one cost of any company is workers and people. The biggest increase in profit would be to decrease that cost.
The freer the market, the freer the people!
Ok, prove it.
Prove to me that allowing a company to do anything for profit allows people to be free.
How does a company shipping jobs over sea, make people free?
How does a company polluting an environment, make people free?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
it worked really well for us....
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
There has never been a completely FREE market, unless you count at the founding which there was very little going on. We've never had a true lazze faire system but always some sort of hybrid with governmental influence behind the scenes. There has been however complete socialist economic systems and they failed. People have been taught to believe a true free market is bad because they "insert stupid reason here", but in reality, the faults of the free market almost always stem from Government interference, aka Socialistic policies. The Great Depression is a good example of how Government can cause the free market system to near collapse and then turn around and blame it for almost collapsing.
I'm not saying all the socialistic parts of our free market system are "bad" they may have good intentions but almost all have unintended consequences.
To say socialism does A or B is overly simplistic and misleading.
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
What are you asking him to prove? I think you need to rethink your premise:
Why do companies ship jobs overseas?
Why do companies pollute the environment?
Just what are you in favor of? Are you saying a socialist economic policy does not do what you say above?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
The Depression *from what I know* was caused by a stock market crash, some unfortunate events (the dustbowl) and the fact that unlike in the 2008-9 crash the government did sweet feck all till FDR (to be fair, I sympathise with the government of the crash, they had no idea how to react back then)
Unfortunately the controls on the Market put in place to stop it ever happening again were gradually removed... the BANG it all imploded (again)
Hopefully the governments of the world will put an end to pro cyclical policies
Unfortunately the controls on the Market put in place to stop it ever happening again were gradually removed... the BANG it all imploded (again)
Hopefully the governments of the world will put an end to pro cyclical policies
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
we merely suggest elements of socialism, more Sweden as opposed to Kerela
Once again, it is not a clear cut answer.
But to answer your questions.
1.) Profit.
2.) Profit.
3.) A hybrid system in which the main goal of business is long term plan, not one that depends on profit from quarter to quarter.
The government should only socialize those fields which are required for a healthy and open economic system, where the the open market can not or will not run with for the benefit of the whole population.
For example, power, water, school, healthcare, mass transportation, and internet access, to name a few. In every case, the open market has only produce a product that cost the individual more while burdening the rest of the market with corruption and profit driven immorality.
The open market can not and should not be allowed to control the destiny of direct competitors. If they have the ability to control access and usability of direct competitors, the field needs to be socialized.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
^^^^^
this
this
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
This is why we are where we are, people don't know their history. The reality is that Hoover did almost as much as FDR did, in fact, FDR just carried on Hoovers programs and kept making more and more and more. What happened then? Unemployment was never below 15% and frequently above 20% and the depression lasted almost 15 years. I wonder what else the government possibly could have done to "help" the market
The Business cycle IS a product of government intervention. Without writing a book simply put, when the Government interferes with anything it competes with the private sector. When it does this resources that would normally be allocated to places where the market demands it are drawn elsewhere, think of a government building a bridge where there is no road or people. A great real life example is the Government being PRO home ownership. Govt creates an artificial demand by allowing any person regardless of credit to buy a mortgage. A normal market and sensible credit practices dictate that a person put a certain percentage down on a home thus creating a steady influx of buyers with good credit, good jobs, and sizable stake in the home. Without those qualifications there is little to prevent the homeowner from walking away and putting the bank or government on the hook for the bad debt. What results is an extremely large % of people walking away from their homes when they lose their jobs and can't afford the payments. Housing prices then drop and more homeowners become upside down on their mortgages and more walk away. The cycle continues. Sound familiar?
The
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
I find it laughable that you attribute corruption with the private sector and not the Government. It is the government that has the ability to control access and usability of competitors.
Explain to me how the Government has lowered the costs or increased the quality of:
Power
Education
Transportation
Healthcare
I can wait to hear how government has helped education.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I thought Hoover tried to organise volunteer programs etc but FDR expanded on them hugely and added programsThis is why we are where we are, people don't know their history. The reality is that Hoover did almost as much as FDR did, in fact, FDR just carried on Hoovers programs and kept making more and more and more. What happened then? Unemployment was never below 15% and frequently above 20% and the depression lasted almost 15 years. I wonder what else the government possibly could have done to "help" the market
The Depression was huge because it wasn't quickly addressed (unlike the latest crash)
The Market was helped by getting people help, no?
You make some valid arguments there
The Pro home ownership issue is a nuisance common in the British Isles and US
It should be noted that a lot of this is a cultural issue as well as private lobbies
The Banks want no lending restrictions, they will lend to anyone with little care if not watched
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Power : governments provided the capital to build large dams in earlier times, and later nuclear plants
Nowadays they provide financing for Fusion and renewables
Education : governments provided the same education for all regardless of who you were
Today they still provide almost free education
Transportation : governments control the networks as its impractical for private interests to do so in many casess
They provide financing for large projects, eg metros
Healthcare : the government socialising healthcare or at least making a single universal system drive costs down while providing care for all
Governments provide funding for lots of research, eg cancer research
The government has improved education? EPIC LULZ! Have you seen the shape that inner-city schools are in?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I live in Ireland dude
Your inner city schools are likely due to the huhe social problems the US suffers from
You would prefer everyone to pay for education individually?
It is not a matter of helping or increasing quality. It is a matter of removing the ability for those systems to be exploited for profit. Socializing a system will have it draw backs, but nothing like leaving it open for exploitation for personal gain. I would love for you to explain how handing them to private industry would nothing but inequity. How you are going to provide a service for profit, that had zero margin for profit.
You honestly will tell me that those system are not ripe for abuse and corruption driven for pure profit?
Education and transportation can not be given to private industry because of access issues. Education must be provided to all sectors of the population regardless of ability to pay. If you add a profit driven system, they people that would pay more would get a vastly superior eduction to those that do not. If there is no abiblity for the people to pay for the cost and profit, there is no reason to deliver eduction. If forced to deliver eduction it would be given at bare minimum. If you add profit to eduction, you would remove the bottom 50% of the population out of the economy and create a second class citizens.
Toll roads and privation of transportation system has a long history of being nothing but one long line of abuse. Simple history has taught us that.
Power is required to have a open and free market. Power must be delivered equally and at a consistent price. It is impossible for any company to do that, in a pure free market system. Back room deals, would create a list of friends and enemies list. Charging less for friends and more for enemies.
Healthcare is required for a productive economy. The current healthcare system in which the policy is "Dont get sick" creates a social imbalance in which markets are exploited for pure profit. By removing profit out the system, you create a equal access system.
The bigger question is how would giving it to private companies make it better?
Privatization will create competition between schools to uphold a standard of excellence to attract potential students to enroll. The government can provide financial aid to students who cannot afford the tuition to ensure that everybody is educated.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
so like the Dutch healthcare model?
I'm talking about education, not healthcare.
2strokenut
Well-Known Member
A single universal system does not drive down cost it only rations thus creating an illusion of cutting costs. Everything you mentioned is done or can be done by the private sector. The only reason we think only govt can do it is because we have been conditioned to think that way.
Inner city schools have cultural issues, welfare dependent families who think they are stuck in poverty because of race and pass along that apathy to their children.
People need choices in their childrens education. A govt monopoly on education isn't a good thing.
I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you've said. What you wrote sounds good but is a total fallacy. You seem to believe that teh Govt is some magical, moral entity that ALWAYS does the best for its people. You seem to not be aware, or are ignoring the mismanagement by them.
The only thing I see you advocating for is a powerful centralized government that provides services to a helpless populous that can't make any important decision for themselves. People need to be *gasp* RESPONSIBLE for their own healthcare and their own lives. I take it you are unaware of the state of Private schools in this country and how they continually outperform public schools in every way. Healthcare is expensive in this country because no one takes responsibility for their own health. They would rather go buy a big screen TV, a second car, that new smartphone etc than pay a couple hundred bucks a month in order to cover a health issue. Healthcare itself is expensive because we rely solely on insurance. When a hospital can charge 50,000 dollars for a 1 hour knee surgery and have the insurance company pay it automatically is it any wonder why healthcare is so damn expensive?
So let me see if I understand this right, people are unable to be responsible and buy insurance and pass along costs to the taxpayer and the same time our insurance system unnecessarily raises costs for those who don't have insurance and pay cash so I HAVE to have my taxes raised and have the government take charge of my healthcare and decide what I can have done or not? This is asinine.
I would recommend studying up on Private education in this country and looking into our up and coming medicare and SS liabilities, about 100 trillion and that doesn't include healthcare.
We can't pay for everyone, you can't just say gov't can pay for it because it just doesn't work that way. It will come back and bite us in the ass.
The best way to explain how govt cannot be in charge of important things like healthcare and education is because they are the ones who make the rules. Whoever is in power can do as they see fit and enrich whomever they want. It's worse than a private company exploiting a few workers because with the Gov't its not like you can go to some board and complain and get someone fired. These people are elected and stay in office. If the majority likes getting these expensive projects in their towns or welfare etc how do you get them out of office? See where I'm going with this? In trying to avoid this boogyman of the private industry you create something more dangerous in an out of control government that seeks to only help itself.
I'm a economics major at ASU, I study this stuff every day and enjoy it a lot. I wish more people would get a basic understanding of economics as it would solve a lot of problems in our society.
- Status