Socialism Vs Capitalism

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There is no reason that changing our priorities so people get more of the wealth they create is bad. We are creating a plutocracy and should stop before it is too late. The wealthy do not t care about you..with a few exceptions. Trump is not one of the exceptions. Every industrialized country has a better safety net and provides universal healthcare. We give that money to the top 1 percent.

the best thing for working folks is to not send all the jobs away based on globalist dumbassery.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Saudade,

By the same logic, we could go with Singapore's approach.

We could certainly try it, but since we are not Singapore it's not going to work the same for us.

Well, one of the advantages that South Korea has that we don't is that their population density is really high throughout most of the country. America is urbanizing more over time, but we're spread out enough that, even if we went with a system like South Korea's, only certain areas could affordably have fiber optic connections for all or most consumers.

Fiber is so cheap to install with horizontal drilling technology it's a no brainer to use economies of scale to make universal internet a goal. Either that or take a ditch witch trench maker and get it done. Essentially, if we can build paved roads to dwellings we have no excuse not to be able to bring them fiber.

It's much easier to make that argument for a service that is truly life or death in its consequences, like healthcare. The logic of having government provide it doesn't hold up as well for things that already have a lot of competition (like cell phone service).

LOL! You think Cell phone service has plenty of competition? I don't. I look at the few bits and pieces that make up a phone and I see about $5 worth of materials, probably less. Phones should cost $15 to $100 tops. But we pay upwards of a $1000 for a device. Then we go to a provider and fork out $50 a month for something that is so automated it costs them very little labor to provide. My guess is that providers could still make a reasonable profit while charging customers only $10 a month. I do not see ENOUGH competition there. And as we speak, competitors are merging, going away.

I understand that some regulation is necessary, but with air travel and nuclear power, you're again talking about life or death things. Airplane failures or nuclear meltdowns can be catastrophic in their consequences, whereas there is no need to regulate things like car washes or barber shops. There are numerous occupations that are bogged down with unnecessary regulations or expensive licensures. Most of this regulation is local, rather than federal, but it's the same trend of government growing for no good reason.

I disagree, naturally. Car washes need to be regulated to ensure they are not using too much precious water, nor using harmful chemicals. Barber shops have to be clean and protect the public health. That requires regulation. Really, it's difficult to provide any service to the public which does not warrant regulation.

The overall trajectory of human development over the course of time has gone from no government being required for wandering hunter-gatherers to some form of limited basic government being required for early city-states to more and more government and regulation being required as human technology and population density has increased. That is inescapable.

Basically, humans are incredibly adept at discovering new ways to rip each other off, and disregard the concerns of the human collective on Earth. As humans find new ways to do bad things, society has to up the ante and make sure it has ways to deal with that. That means bigger governments and more regulation as time goes by.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Do you have any idea how a that stuff in Scandinavia gets paid for? I'll tell you how, it's not paid for by the "rich" it's paid for by EVERYBODY. All of Norway's citizens are paying federal taxes unlike here where half of Americans don't pay federal income tax. The left in America use the tax system to punish the rich and to soothe their base. Do you honestly think any leftist politician in America wants to go back to their home districts and inform their constituents who aren't currently paying federal income tax that they will now have to start doing so? I highly doubt it.

It reveals the stupidity of the constituents.
They're going to spend the money anyway.
They can spend it on their own and only a little bit of it goes to goods and services while the rest is pissed away on corporate profits.
OR, they can spend it on taxes and get a much bigger bang for their buck.
I have discourse with Europeans. Not one of them that I know would trade their system for ours...and just about all of them have been here.
Europeans are exponentially more cosmopolitan that typical conservative middle Americans who tend to be shockingly parochial.

 

[Saudade]

Fiber is so cheap to install with horizontal drilling technology it's a no brainer to use economies of scale to make universal internet a goal. Either that or take a ditch witch trench maker and get it done. Essentially, if we can build paved roads to dwellings we have no excuse not to be able to bring them fiber.

If that's the case, a provider would have already done it in various major cities. Currently, fiber is only available in small areas within big cities, even when the provider is the local government. I'm in a mid-size city where the situation is the same. Certain neighborhoods have fiber, but nowhere near the whole city.

LOL! You think Cell phone service has plenty of competition? I don't. I look at the few bits and pieces that make up a phone and I see about $5 worth of materials, probably less. Phones should cost $15 to $100 tops. But we pay upwards of a $1000 for a device. Then we go to a provider and fork out $50 a month for something that is so automated it costs them very little labor to provide. My guess is that providers could still make a reasonable profit while charging customers only $10 a month. I do not see ENOUGH competition there. And as we speak, competitors are merging, going away.

You seem to be conflating manufacturers of phones with service providers. There is plenty of competition in manufacturing phones, and in large cities, there is plenty of competition in service. Now, in rural areas, coverage can be limited to fewer providers, so I'll give you that, but that's a natural consequence of the market. If there are fewer people to gain as consumers in a large and/or remote geographic area, you have several limiting factors -- one of which is cell towers per area.

I disagree, naturally. Car washes need to be regulated to ensure they are not using too much precious water, nor using harmful chemicals. Barber shops have to be clean and protect the public health. That requires regulation. Really, it's difficult to provide any service to the public which does not warrant regulation.

The overall trajectory of human development over the course of time has gone from no government being required for wandering hunter-gatherers to some form of limited basic government being required for early city-states to more and more government and regulation being required as human technology and population density has increased. That is inescapable.

Basically, humans are incredibly adept at discovering new ways to rip each other off, and disregard the concerns of the human collective on Earth. As humans find new ways to do bad things, society has to up the ante and make sure it has ways to deal with that. That means bigger governments and more regulation as time goes by.

If we want to talk about ripping people off, that's what regulation largely does as it lines the pockets of politicians with fees and fines.

 

[Saudade]

It reveals the stupidity of the constituents.
They're going to spend the money anyway.
They can spend it on their own and only a little bit of it goes to goods and services while the rest is pissed away on corporate profits.
OR, they can spend it on taxes and get a much bigger bang for their buck.
I have discourse with Europeans. Not one of them that I know would trade their system for ours...and just about all of them have been here.
Europeans are exponentially more cosmopolitan that typical conservative middle Americans who tend to be shockingly parochial.

Parochial is just the word that Western snobs use against the only rural folk they're allowed to hate on (whites). They would apply the same label to various non-Westerners but are too afraid to be called racist as a result.

At this point, parochial just means you're not a pawn to globalist elites. Rural Westerners and various non-Westerners see the "cosmopolitans" for what they really are -- shameless corporatists.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Saudade,

If that's the case, a provider would have already done it in various major cities. Currently, fiber is only available in small areas within big cities, even when the provider is the local government. I'm in a mid-size city where the situation is the same. Certain neighborhoods have fiber, but nowhere near the whole city.

It simply reflects the weakness of pure capitalism which fails to provide for all. Instead, it goes for the easy profits and walks away when the going gets more challenging. No dedication to society, no purpose other than gathering great sums of wealth for a few selected individuals.

You seem to be conflating manufacturers of phones with service providers. There is plenty of competition in manufacturing phones, and in large cities, there is plenty of competition in service. Now, in rural areas, coverage can be limited to fewer providers, so I'll give you that, but that's a natural consequence of the market. If there are fewer people to gain as consumers in a large and/or remote geographic area, you have several limiting factors -- one of which is cell towers per area.

That is a failure of capitalism to serve society.

If we want to talk about ripping people off, that's what regulation largely does as it lines the pockets of politicians with fees and fines.

The super-rich certainly see it that way.

 

[Yakuda]

It reveals the stupidity of the constituents.
They're going to spend the money anyway.
They can spend it on their own and only a little bit of it goes to goods and services while the rest is pissed away on corporate profits.
OR, they can spend it on taxes and get a much bigger bang for their buck.
I have discourse with Europeans. Not one of them that I know would trade their system for ours...and just about all of them have been here.
Europeans are exponentially more cosmopolitan that typical conservative middle Americans who tend to be shockingly parochial.

Maybe but no leftist cockroach politician is ready to tell people who haven't paid to suddenly start paying. Wont fly. In America taxes are weapons used by leftists to preach economic "inequality" and perpetuate class warfare. I did t give a flying fuck what European would or wouldn't give up. Fuck them. And the corporate profit comment is just a regurgitated talking point. Come up with something original will you.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Maybe but no leftist cockroach politician is ready to tell people who haven't paid to suddenly start paying. Wont fly. In America taxes are weapons used by leftists to preach economic "inequality" and perpetuate class warfare. I did t give a flying fuck what European would or wouldn't give up. Fuck them. And the corporate profit comment is just a regurgitated talking point. Come up with something original will you.

Obviously a pointless discussion, here.
Neither facts nor reason dissuade you.
Those Europeans whom you dismiss are your moral and intellectual superiors by a massive margin. I know having conversed with you both.

 

[Yakuda]

Obviously a pointless discussion, here.
Neither facts nor reason dissuade you.
Those Europeans whom you dismiss are your moral and intellectual superiors by a massive margin. I know having conversed with you both.

You think that shit matters itn doesnt. You haven't got a coherent fucking argument and the European shit is clear evidence of it. When you have an actual argument let me know in the meantime gon fuck your dog cunt face

 

[Saudade]

Hello Saudade,

It simply reflects the weakness of pure capitalism which fails to provide for all. Instead, it goes for the easy profits and walks away when the going gets more challenging. No dedication to society, no purpose other than gathering great sums of wealth for a few selected individuals.

Look closer at what I mentioned in my previous post. Even when government is the supplier (a few cities like Chattanooga have city run ISPs), fiber is only available in a few neighborhoods and downtown areas. It's not about capitalism. It's about space and cost. The more people you can service in a small area, the more cost effective fiber can be. It is extremely expensive to provide fiber to people that live far apart. The population density in South Korea (for most of the population) is extremely high, so the distribution of fiber is much cheaper overall due to how many people can be serviced in a small area.

That is a failure of capitalism to serve society.

Cell towers aren't cheap. If you expect to provide the same level of cell service to someone living in a remote mountain town as you would someone living in the downtown of a metropolis, the cost to do so is going to be burdensome even if the government took over the whole industry.

The super-rich certainly see it that way.

The people most skeptical of regulation are usually small business owners, because they are the ones most negatively affected by taxes and regulation. Regulation overall doesn't usually hurt megacorporations the way it does small businesses, which is why the economy has grown increasingly concentrated toward big business. So, no, it's not the "super-rich" that hate regulation most.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Saudade,

Look closer at what I mentioned in my previous post. Even when government is the supplier (a few cities like Chattanooga have city run ISPs), fiber is only available in a few neighborhoods and downtown areas. It's not about capitalism. It's about space and cost. The more people you can service in a small area, the more cost effective fiber can be. It is extremely expensive to provide fiber to people that live far apart. The population density in South Korea (for most of the population) is extremely high, so the distribution of fiber is much cheaper overall due to how many people can be serviced in a small area.



Cell towers aren't cheap. If you expect to provide the same level of cell service to someone living in a remote mountain town as you would someone living in the downtown of a metropolis, the cost to do so is going to be burdensome even if the government took over the whole industry.

I view it like this. Building roads is not cheap. And it usually costs more to build them to remote areas. But we all benefit when people can move about more freely and goods can more easily be traded. It is only reasonable that the cost of setting up that infrastructure is shared by all.

The USPS is the same way. It costs a lot more to deliver mail to remote areas but the price of a stamp is the same no matter where one is. It is a good thing that capitalism is not the method we have used for the mail, ever.

The people most skeptical of regulation are usually small business owners, because they are the ones most negatively affected by taxes and regulation. Regulation overall doesn't usually hurt megacorporations the way it does small businesses, which is why the economy has grown increasingly concentrated toward big business. So, no, it's not the "super-rich" that hate regulation most.

It's not like all regulation is the same. Big corporations benefit from having small businesses pressured and motivated to oppose regulation. Big corporations use their monetary power to control what regulation gets written, and they do it for their own benefit. When we finally get serious about controlling the corruption of big money we can have more meaningful regulation.

 

[Saudade]

Hello Saudade,

I view it like this. Building roads is not cheap. And it usually costs more to build them to remote areas. But we all benefit when people can move about more freely and goods can more easily be traded. It is only reasonable that the cost of setting up that infrastructure is shared by all.

The USPS is the same way. It costs a lot more to deliver mail to remote areas but the price of a stamp is the same no matter where one is. It is a good thing that capitalism is not the method we have used for the mail, ever.

Roads are far more essential than cell service. As for the USPS, that's one of the least efficient institutions in the country. It should be dissolved or bought by a company like Amazon, so that it can be streamlined and made more efficient.

It's not like all regulation is the same. Big corporations benefit from having small businesses pressured and motivated to oppose regulation. Big corporations use their monetary power to control what regulation gets written, and they do it for their own benefit. When we finally get serious about controlling the corruption of big money we can have more meaningful regulation.

Fix that first, and maybe we can implement more regulation then.