Socialism Vs Capitalism

Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
Well, your contention is baseless to begin with, but if you want a more direct response, public sector unions hold taxpayers hostage and should be disbanded.

As for private sector unions, most conservatives are not against the right of collective bargaining in the private sector. They just hate public sector unions for the reason stated above.

That being said, several police unions have been supportive of Trump, and he has given them support in return.
Click to expand...

Unions are not all good or all bad. It is a mistake to hate unions.

Crushing unions has been extremely profitable for the greedy super-rich, and it has resulted in a reduction of lifestyle for workers.

Police Unions should not be allowed to force the reinstatement of bad apple officers fired for police brutality. We could make a law to fix that...
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



Unions are not all good or all bad. It is a mistake to hate unions.

Crushing unions has been extremely profitable for the greedy super-rich, and it has resulted in a reduction of lifestyle for workers.

Police Unions should not be allowed to force the reinstatement of bad apple officers fired for police brutality. We could make a law to fix that...
Click to expand...

The unions look after their members, who would otherwise be hugely worse off. In bad or union-busing times they inevitably grow corrupt, because the members are afraid to fight for control. Unions represent their members, so racist police will not produce respectable unions: that's life. The answer is to look at questions like the sources of recruitment, elimination of racism and the like.
 
iolo eto said:
You want to abolish even capitalist human rights, eh? Fits with the plans of your nazi Fuhrer, doubtless. Incidentally, the usual definition of 'socialism' in the United States is 'normal capitalism', so do stop trying to have it both ways and talk about the real thing at the same time. You live in a weird place where they all pretend to be their own weird notion of Adam Smith (whom they've never read) but differ from the rest of the world mainly in paying twice as much as anyone else for a hugely-inefficient system of medicine-for-profit and in allowing the mugs to murder others with bang-bangs. Just seem silly to most of the world, these weirdo games.
Click to expand...

What is it with Welsh people? They all seem to be leftist morons.

Read my post again. I'm against public sector unions. There's nothing capitalistic about public sector unions, because there is no competition for public services.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



You have failed to show cause and effect. Claiming that Singapore's economic and social success is because of a freer market is not supported in any links that you've posted. It is conjecture. What is widely agreed is that Singapore's success is due to it's physical positioning as a central shipping hub.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, you haven't proven that the social welfare spending they've done is the reason for their success.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



Unions are not all good or all bad. It is a mistake to hate unions.

Crushing unions has been extremely profitable for the greedy super-rich, and it has resulted in a reduction of lifestyle for workers.

Police Unions should not be allowed to force the reinstatement of bad apple officers fired for police brutality. We could make a law to fix that...
Click to expand...

Public unions are usually an issue due to the lack of competition for services.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
View attachment 17356
Click to expand...

With good reason, Scandinavians think we're a half-step from running around in loincloths.

It's NOT capitalism vs. socialism.
Norway and the United States both have private and public sectors--ergo capitalism and socialism operating in parallel.

Norway draws the lines more wisely...a more comprehensive public sector and social safety net--a more regulated [to protect consumers and workers alike] private sector.

And thus their standard of living clearly surpasses ours. It's not "rocket surgery" nor "brain science." It's intelligence.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,

You know, it's not like there can be much competition in who provides your city water.
Click to expand...

True, and that's why we sometimes have heavily regulated private companies that provide public services instead, like with electricity.

Sandy Springs, GA shows that you can successfully privatize a lot of services that are typically run by government.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
True, and that's why we sometimes have heavily regulated private companies that provide public services instead, like with electricity.

Sandy Springs, GA shows that you can successfully privatize a lot of services that are typically run by government.
Click to expand...

Just because something has worked in one instance does not mean it can always work.

I think internet S/B a public service. So should cell phone service. It is obscene how much we are paying compared to other nations like South Korea. btw, their internet is like 10X faster than ours and only costs about $20 a mo. We are getting ripped off. Same thing with phones. What a freaking gravy train for the providers. No wonder they have so much money for advertising, (which is all a waste and not needed.)

Things that everybody uses should be not for profit in the basic entry level offering. Communication, transportation, housing, utilities, health care. If people want to buy it up to a fancy level that's different. There should be competition for that. But stuff that is needed by all should have no competition factored into the cost. It would all be a lot cheaper. This would allow people to pay more tax and still end up with more money in their pocket.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,

Just because something has worked in one instance does not mean it can always work.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, and that's precisely why I don't think many of the arguments from the left involving what the Nordic countries do are relevant for here. What works in Norway won't likely work here.

PoliTalker said:
I think internet S/B a public service. So should cell phone service. It is obscene how much we are paying compared to other nations like South Korea. btw, their internet is like 10X faster than ours and only costs about $20 a mo. We are getting ripped off. Same thing with phones. What a freaking gravy train for the providers. No wonder they have so much money for advertising, (which is all a waste and not needed.)
Click to expand...

I like South Korea's system for internet too, but look closer at how it actually works. The maintenance of the internet infrastructure is managed by the government, but private ISPs manage service. The reason why South Koreans have such good internet for good prices is that they have a wide selection of private service providers. The main barrier to entry for ISPs here is the upfront cost of installing and managing infrastructure. South Korea covers those costs publicly while letting a large group of competitors access consumers. We could do the same, but this is a hybrid of public spending and private competition. If South Koreans only could get service from the government, it would be terrible.

PoliTalker said:
Things that everybody uses should be not for profit in the basic entry level offering. Communication, transportation, housing, utilities, health care. If people want to buy it up to a fancy level that's different. There should be competition for that. But stuff that is needed by all should have no competition factored into the cost. It would all be a lot cheaper. This would allow people to pay more tax and still end up with more money in their pocket.
Click to expand...

The problem with that line of thinking is that the "basic amenities" will continue to expand. Today, it's internet and cell phones. Tomorrow, it could be those plus a lot more. I don't like the idea of sliding the public more and more towards dependency on government spending.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
I can agree with that, and that's precisely why I don't think many of the arguments from the left involving what the Nordic countries do are relevant for here. What works in Norway won't likely work here.
Click to expand...

It's a good tactic, using my own words to refute my argument. But the conjecture still doesn't follow. The more logical conjecture is that what works in Norway MIGHT not work here. After all, we don't really know until we try.

Woko Haram said:
I like South Korea's system for internet too, but look closer at how it actually works. The maintenance of the internet infrastructure is managed by the government, but private ISPs manage service. The reason why South Koreans have such good internet for good prices is that they have a wide selection of private service providers. The main barrier to entry for ISPs here is the upfront cost of installing and managing infrastructure. South Korea covers those costs publicly while letting a large group of competitors access consumers. We could do the same, but this is a hybrid of public spending and private competition. If South Koreans only could get service from the government, it would be terrible.
Click to expand...

That actually sounds like a good way to do it. I could agree with doing that, especially if it gave us internet at 10x the speed for half the current price or less. It represents the inefficiency of strict capitalism where two organizations build the same thing when only one of them is needed. The public pays for building the unneeded one.

Woko Haram said:
The problem with that line of thinking is that the "basic amenities" will continue to expand. Today, it's internet and cell phones. Tomorrow, it could be those plus a lot more. I don't like the idea of sliding the public more and more towards dependency on government spending.
Click to expand...

We liberals depend on conservative anti-government thinking to reign us in. We are going to present seemingly logical arguments for more government involvement. Your role is to point out why that might not be a good idea. But it is logical that as human development expands, as more things which were initially novel become commonplace, as those things become integrated into the normal life of nearly everyone, that a central supply and delivery of those things is more efficient. Capitalism's best role is ingenuity. Socialism's best role is efficiency of mass delivery.

And you know, similar logic describes a continuation of a process that has taken place for a long period of time. The process I am thinking of is the expansion of government. There were no airplanes when our government was formed, so there was no need for an air travel regulatory agency. But after we developed a new human thing, air travel, and it became commonplace, it became necessary for the government to regulate that new thing. And so it is with much of what capitalism brings us.

I wonder how much it costs to regulate nuclear power? That can't be cheap.
 
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.
 
Woko Haram said:
What is it with Welsh people? They all seem to be leftist morons.

Read my post again. I'm against public sector unions. There's nothing capitalistic about public sector unions, because there is no competition for public services.
Click to expand...

Heil Trumpf and bugger all discussion, eh?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,

It's a good tactic, using my own words to refute my argument. But the conjecture still doesn't follow. The more logical conjecture is that what works in Norway MIGHT not work here. After all, we don't really know until we try.
Click to expand...

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

PoliTalker said:
That actually sounds like a good way to do it. I could agree with doing that, especially if it gave us internet at 10x the speed for half the current price or less. It represents the inefficiency of strict capitalism where two organizations build the same thing when only one of them is needed. The public pays for building the unneeded one.
Click to expand...

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.

PoliTalker said:
We liberals depend on conservative anti-government thinking to reign us in. We are going to present seemingly logical arguments for more government involvement. Your role is to point out why that might not be a good idea. But it is logical that as human development expands, as more things which were initially novel become commonplace, as those things become integrated into the normal life of nearly everyone, that a central supply and delivery of those things is more efficient. Capitalism's best role is ingenuity. Socialism's best role is efficiency of mass delivery.
Click to expand...

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).

PoliTalker said:
And you know, similar logic describes a continuation of a process that has taken place for a long period of time. The process I am thinking of is the expansion of government. There were no airplanes when our government was formed, so there was no need for an air travel regulatory agency. But after we developed a new human thing, air travel, and it became commonplace, it became necessary for the government to regulate that new thing. And so it is with much of what capitalism brings us.

I wonder how much it costs to regulate nuclear power? That can't be cheap.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
With good reason, Scandinavians think we're a half-step from running around in loincloths.

It's NOT capitalism vs. socialism.
Norway and the United States both have private and public sectors--ergo capitalism and socialism operating in parallel.

Norway draws the lines more wisely...a more comprehensive public sector and social safety net--a more regulated [to protect consumers and workers alike] private sector.

And thus their standard of living clearly surpasses ours. It's not "rocket surgery" nor "brain science." It's intelligence.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top