Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah to be honest, when I saw the thread title, I thought OP was joking or something. Most if not all of the poorer nations are Socialist, or embrace it in some way.
Also, regarding the "setting up shop with no license" thing... people do that all of the time here. Ever see kids open a lemonade/drink stand? lol
So socialism , only some 150 years old, is the cause of all these ills? Socialism did in Rome?
So socialism , only some 150 years old, is the cause of all these ills?
When some European countries adopted it, and decided to roll into people's property and take it by force, yes that does a lot to harm an economy. You are removing people who are efficiently using resources and taking them out of the economy.
When Chile elected Salvador Allende, a socialist leader, and things turned to crap quick because they took over people's farms and the copper industry (which didn't do so well after), and inflation increased directly due to their policies, yes it is socialism's fault.
I know someone who lives in Vietnam, and in their own schools they give students assignments like, "Can you be successful without public education?"
Interestingly, you will see time after time that when a Socialist government gets set up, extreme liberals find their way in, and begin to insist that the government isn't being liberal enough, and that they need to start claiming people's property or entire industries. This kind of thing is not good whatsoever for an economy, and is not conducive to growth.
It shouldn't be too hard to see that making an entire economy dependent on people in government is not a great idea.
When some European countries adopted it, and decided to roll into people's property and take it by force, yes that does a lot to harm an economy. You are removing people who are efficiently using resources and taking them out of the economy.
So removing people who are efficenly using resources is socialism?
Quote:
When Chile elected Salvador Allende, a socialist leader, and things turned to crap quick because they took over people's farms and the copper industry (which didn't do so well after), and inflation increased directly due to their policies, yes it is socialism's fault.
And this never happed without "socialism" and is socialist policy? Like for example when Democrats and Republicans run on a platform they implement their campaign promises precisely? In no way would anyone run a dictatorship, specially for the purpose of enriching themselves and their cronies, ever call themselves socialists and bleeding hearts for the people? Was say Pope John XII, who named him self after Saint John, representing his name sake when he was raping pilgrims St. Peter's Basilica ?
Quote:
I know someone who lives in Vietnam, and in their own schools they give students assignments like, "Can you be successful without public education?"
Hmm I know someone from Vietnam too and he says that they are building golf courses on arable land. Is that an efficient use of resources or not?
I would guess it depends on if you have enough money for food and want to play golf.
Quote:
Interestingly, you will see time after time that when a Socialist government gets set up, extreme liberals find their way in, and begin to insist that the government isn't being liberal enough, and that they need to start claiming people's property or entire industries. This kind of thing is not good whatsoever for an economy, and is not conducive to growth.
Interestly one see the same exact thing in "capitalist countries" like Mexico.
But then we have these "most socialist" countries.
I think the problem is what I said in another thread. There are two kinds of people, those that believe in false dichotomies, and those that don't.
Quote:
It shouldn't be too hard to see that making an entire economy dependent on people in government is not a great idea.
Nor should it be hard to see that over simplifying complex interactions in human societies is not a great idea.
I don't think you really know what government really is. Government is not the cause of any problem any more than the sum total of solutions in the disposal of nuclear waste. Government is trying to manage the problem .
Quote:
I don't know what this means
Did not figure referencing the the fall of Rome would be so obtuse. Socialism is just another attempt to dispose of the same problem that did in all the other human societies. Do you think functional socities had communist revolutions? They were already failed states .
Markets are created by force. These forces are outside the market economic system of the free exchange of goods and services and exist analogous to the old elements of, earth, fire, water and air.
Military power
Financial power
Political power
Landed power
These powers exists because people either fear and submit to force, are territorial in nature , are animals of herd instinct and are influenced by charisma and rhetoric , and covet things desired by others.
Examples of those wielding these four powers are
*Caesar and Alexander the Great (military)
*Demosthenes and Cicero (political rhetoric)
*The Patricians of Rome (land interests) Crassus( Real estate investing during a market crash. Sulla's purges made few buyers and empty houses and guess who bought them cheap. Was it a "market price")
*Thucydides, Cypriots of Rome ( the gold of Amphipolis)
These forces can be used to acquire goods and service while in effect giving none in return. Thus they are powers that government attempts to manage.
Without those four powers why would there be a government? And with them, how can there be a "free market"?
All you can have a a market system where the powers that be crate and enforce rules, just like there are rules in any sport. I cannot think of any "free sport" . They are competitive systems held together by a force.
The simplest condensation of all these points is probably this:
*Power abhors a vacuum.
*Power structures will arise whether one has an anarcho-capitalist government form (in the form of trusts, monopolies, family and individual wealth accumulation, etc...) or some sort of democratic government, or a de facto dictatorship.
*For purposes of analysis, we can exclude the de facto dictatorship on the grounds that neither Socialists nor Libertarians want an actual dictatorship (i.e. one not subject to voting recourse or objection).
*The difference is that in one government, a dollar is a vote (since all services are provided privately) and in the other, a human is a vote. Given the existence of inequality, the Anarcho-Capitalist (i.e. free market) form of government will skew towards the influences of a very small number of individuals; a de facto oligarchy. Mixed or Socialist governments, governed by democratic means, will not skew that way (or will skew less).
The question is: why is a democracy of money, which is necessarily undemocratic in practice, superior to a democracy of humans? Free market capitalism is not about freedom for all, but about restricting the functional exercise of freedom for the majority in favor of the maximal functional exercise of freedom for a minority. The most dangerous part is that the minority of the opulent believes they deserve it, and thus have little or no reason to act with beneficence.
So removing people who are efficenly using resources is socialism?
And this never happed without "socialism" and is socialist policy? Like for example when Democrats and Republicans run on a platform they implement their campaign promises precisely? In no way would anyone run a dictatorship, specially for the purpose of enriching themselves and their cronies, ever call themselves socialists and bleeding hearts for the people? Was say Pope John XII, who named him self after Saint John, representing his name sake when he was raping pilgrims St. Peter's Basilica ?
Hmm I know someone from Vietnam too and he says that they are building golf courses on arable land. Is that an efficient use of resources or not?
I would guess it depends on if you have enough money for food and want to play golf.
Interestly one see the same exact thing in "capitalist countries" like Mexico.
But then we have these "most socialist" countries.
I think the problem is what I said in another thread. There are two kinds of people, those that believe in false dichotomies, and those that don't.
Nor should it be hard to see that over simplifying complex interactions in human societies is not a great idea.
I don't think you really know what government really is. Government is not the cause of any problem any more than the sum total of solutions in the disposal of nuclear waste. Government is trying to manage the problem .
Did not figure referencing the the fall of Rome would be so obtuse. Socialism is just another attempt to dispose of the same problem that did in all the other human societies. Do you think functional socities had communist revolutions? They were already failed states .
I don't think you really understand what Socialism is, or at least, not in its more relevant meaning. That link didn't do much to help your case either for several reasons:
- It is just a blog post by an unnamed author.
- The author admits some of the countries on there are not Socialist.
- The author seems to equate a "strong" welfare state with Socialism (which isn't true).
- The author ranks how good countries are by how liberal they are (If you have a liberal bias that is ok, but that doesn't do much to convince non-liberals that your country is good).
- The author lists Sweden, but then talks about Norway the entire time.
The fact is, a lot of the countries mentioned in that post are not Socialist. Some of them may be a little further to the left than the United States, but they are not "Socialist". They have what are called "Mixed Economies". They utilize a market economy with the government having a more involved role. Usually this role is to offer some level of welfare and public service.
Socialism as it has been practiced and used by pretty much every leader and country, is an economic system that not only establishes a complete welfare state, but it also takes control of the economy with the idea that it will distribute everything among the working class - which is supposed to lead to communism. The idea is that it is immoral to allow any one individual to own the means of production. So yes, taking over industries and individual wealth is very much a Socialist policy. It has been used countless times in many different countries by different rulers.
I don't know what there is to "oversimplify", but if Human interaction is truly that complex, then I still have no idea why you would think government (made up of significantly fewer individuals than the market) is capable of doing anything about it, let alone doing a good job.
Government is the cause of problems. I really don't know you could say that from the few examples alone I mentioned in the previous post. I mean, did tanks just roll into people's property and force them out on their own? It may try to fix problems with society, but it does more harm than good. Now if you think it needs to be the problem solving tool, well it doesn't sound like I can do much more to convince you otherwise.
Markets are created by force. These forces are outside the market economic system of the free exchange of goods and services and exist analogous to the old elements of, earth, fire, water and air.
Military power
Financial power
Political power
Landed power
These powers exists because people either fear and submit to force, are territorial in nature , are animals of herd instinct and are influenced by charisma and rhetoric , and covet things desired by others.
Examples of those wielding these four powers are
*Caesar and Alexander the Great (military)
*Demosthenes and Cicero (political rhetoric)
*The Patricians of Rome (land interests) Crassus( Real estate investing during a market crash. Sulla's purges made few buyers and empty houses and guess who bought them cheap. Was it a "market price")
*Thucydides, Cypriots of Rome ( the gold of Amphipolis)
These forces can be used to acquire goods and service while in effect giving none in return. Thus they are powers that government attempts to manage.
Without those four powers why would there be a government? And with them, how can there be a "free market"?
All you can have a a market system where the powers that be crate and enforce rules, just like there are rules in any sport. I cannot think of any "free sport" . They are competitive systems held together by a force.
Well, I don't really know enough about Roman history to know what your argument is. All I can say is this:
There are "Mixed Economies" where there is a market economy, coupled with some degree of intervention. Often times, what level is appropriate is what most of what politics is about.
There is a "Minarchist Libertarianism" where the government has a specific, but somewhat minimal role in society, and Capitalism is the biggest player.
Then there is lastly, a pure Capitalism or what is called "Anarcho-Capitalism".
Some of your forces show themselves in one way or another, but understand that often times pro-market people will tell you the government shouldn't have that kind of power in the first place, which is why it needs a minimal role (or gone altogether).
Well, I don't really know enough about Roman history to know what your argument is. All I can say is this:
There are "Mixed Economies" where there is a market economy, coupled with some degree of intervention. Often times, what level is appropriate is what most of what politics is about.
There is a "Minarchist Libertarianism" where the government has a specific, but somewhat minimal role in society, and Capitalism is the biggest player.
Then there is lastly, a pure Capitalism or what is called "Anarcho-Capitalism".
Some of your forces show themselves in one way or another, but understand that often times pro-market people will tell you the government shouldn't have that kind of power in the first place, which is why it needs a minimal role (or gone altogether).
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
As in many...
That is to say lots of social intervention beyond a strict activity of the trade of the products of human labor. And yet these societies are not heaps of ash.
Free markets alone do not guarantee prosperity. Rule of law and an educated population will allow the middle class to grow. It is only when a solid middle class is established and the country has a growing tax base that you will see serious prosperity. The size of the tax base is what makes the difference between third world and first world. Without the tax base, there is no money for infrastructure and without infrastructure there is no chance of development.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
