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.
The government should own the "natural" monopolies like electric power supply and distribution. It should also own all the booze and tobacco shops. Government should have sufficient regulation to prevent speculators from destroying the system as well as preventing the formation of monopolies. This would extend to the level of preventing one company or person from owning all the drug stores in a town or neighborhood. Government should set up a system to protect Free Markets and force the capitalistic businessmen to actually compete with each other instead of forming oligopolies.
Most governments, including our own, do the exact opposite. No wonder the system is breaking down for everyone but the bankers and speculators.
In France: One pays very, very high taxes for his/her entire working life, however, upon achieving 55 years of age one's "Federal Pension" matures and he/she receives a salary from the government that is (I think) equal to the weighted average of that person's income over his/her working life. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, but I don't think it would work here for a number of reasons.
The operative phrase is "seems like a pretty good deal". Another problem with socialism aside from the problems already pointed out...is that people want more than they've paid into these systems. Politicians seeking to maintain power promise these benefits where the long term costs go higher and higher over time. The politicans in office today don't care about the cost of the benefits they promise because they are not going to be in office when the full bill comes due.
The general public and politicians both think very short term. They don't think about the escalating cost of government pensions 10, 20, 30, or 50 years down the line. There are a few countries that are not corrupt where this is not the case, but they are few and far between, and the US is not one of them. This is why countries like Greece and Portugal are essentially defaulting on their debts. The citizens of those countries want their governments to make them comfortable and the politicians oblige, even when they can't afford it.
Than we come to the healthcare industry. Competition doesn't work well in this area either.
I agree with most of your post but I totally disagree with you here. We haven't had real competition in the health care industry in 50 years, which is a major reason why people can travel to the other side of the world and stay in 5 star resorts to get medical care and still pay a fraction of what they do in the US (Low labor costs can't explain all of the difference), despite the travel costs. Employer and government sponsored insurance have killed the consumer's ability to compare for price and quality and to go somewhere else if they're not happy. We're pretty much stuck with whatever employers offer us or a government plan. There hasn't been a well established market for individual health plans like there is for car insurance, life insurance, etc (at least not in any of our lifetimes).
Read Who Killed Health Care? by Regina Herzlinger for more details.
The operative phrase is "seems like a pretty good deal". Another problem with socialism aside from the problems already pointed out...is that people want more than they've paid into these systems. Politicians seeking to maintain power promise these benefits where the long term costs go higher and higher over time. The politicans in office today don't care about the cost of the benefits they promise because they are not going to be in office when the full bill comes due.
The general public and politicians both think very short term. They don't think about the escalating cost of government pensions 10, 20, 30, or 50 years down the line. There are a few countries that are not corrupt where this is not the case, but they are few and far between, and the US is not one of them. This is why countries like Greece and Portugal are essentially defaulting on their debts. The citizens of those countries want their governments to make them comfortable and the politicians oblige, even when they can't afford it.
+1, especially for the bolded portions!
It's very interesting to see people argue how they've "paid into the system" when they're taking out 3 and 4 times what they paid in, even if you include interest.
In relation to the topic of socialism, it shows how people either aren't educated enough to research the fact that they're using much of other people's money to fund their "benefits", and how in a socialist society where there are disadvantages to making money, there eventually won't be any money left to "pay in".
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
Has anyone stopped to think how what we want is shaped by the world - and that includes the economic system that supports it - that we live in? Capitalism creates more and more want and makes people want more and more personal benefits. People want low taxes but they complain that the government isn't providing. Governments don't use the money properly because it's all a business transaction to them. Socialism will only work when it begins to change people's minds to become more egalitarian instead of being so self-interested.
Has anyone stopped to think how what we want is shaped by the world - and that includes the economic system that supports it - that we live in? Capitalism creates more and more want and makes people want more and more personal benefits. People want low taxes but they complain that the government isn't providing. Governments don't use the money properly because it's all a business transaction to them. Socialism will only work when it begins to change people's minds to become more egalitarian instead of being so self-interested.
Good afternoon,
You're right that capitalism shapes peoples wants, but who are you or I to impose either of our systems on each other? What I suggest is anyone who wants socialism, should work work to implement it in their own state, and if it comes to my state, I will either move or advocate against it. I like that Vermont is implementing single-payer at the state level, even though I am personally against it in my state. People who want socialism can move to Vermont or California. Is that not better than a campaign to change the natural human ability for selfishness and greed?
Egalitarianism is NOT natural, simply look at the kind of effects both socialism-lite and pure Communist / socialist society have had on its' people and the effort it took to maintain it. For your cause, how would you deal with people who disagree with eliminating capitalism and still look out for self-interest regardless of your mind-changing campaign?
Another problem with the goal of egalitarianism is that aggression and / or force is needed to maintain it long term. I am against aggression and force, whether it helps something I agree with or not.
In regards to low taxes vs benefits, people should pay for things if they wanted it. I wish these benefit costs could be broken down to an individual taxpayer level / percentage instead of the media throwing around macro billion / trillion dollar numbers that make it all seem like it's "someone else's money" being spent.
I understand your Utopian, idealistic mentality, but human nature will always fight it since everyone has their own preferences. The best thing to do is maintain a society where people can live among those who agree with their preference at the state / local level instead of imposing it on everyone federally. Even though I have libertarian views, I would not impose them upon a nation that disagrees with those views.
What is important to differ between here is Socialism and Social Democracies. Social Democracies are still very much capitalistic countries. But there's also a general consensus that big business shouldn't be allowed to profit on the behalf of ordinary citizens, that society has a responsibility to take care of the weakest and the lazy.
But if anyone think you don't get paid more to work more in Norway, Germany and France, they are sorely mistaken, in fact you're generally paid better and more for putting in the overtime than you are in the US. You also can't be fired without a good reason and if you do good work you will move upwards.
There's no conflict between reasonable social reform and capitalism. They can coexist and they do. The idea is just that a government and societies have a responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens first and foremost, and corporate greed should not be put above that.
The problem is that anything that can be even remotely connected with the word socialism is instantly looked upon as a great evil, or so it appears if you watch main stream media and listen to who's actually speaking about it.
Having better protection for consumers for instance is not a bad thing, and in many cases, it's even good for the banks, in the long run. Big business has gotten to a place where they live from each quarterly budget to the next, with an immense pressure to always show a profit. In such an environment, some think it's important to have regulatory agencies that are able to look at the long term, both for the citizens and the banks/economy.
This is the best post I've read on City-Data in a long time....
Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism have existed anywhere. On the whole, capitalism has shown that it works better. I remember life in this country before Walmart and retail options were much more limited. Stores were smaller, choices were more limited, and there was no such a thing as 24 hour shopping.
And why do you think that 24 hour shopping is a good thing?
How about those "family values" that people like so much to talk about?
Or those "family values" are meant only for the families of the Walmart owners, and are not intended for those who have to work evening and night shifts for pennies? What happens to their "family values" when they have to work during those hours, because someone needs to rush for a next load of junk in Walmart at night? I understand that it brings additional $$$ for the owners ( god forbids - they can't lose those,) but back to the family values...
When I was in Germany for example, all those retail stores were closed by 6 or 7 PM. Same on Sundays. Because you know what? Under German socialism everyone deserves "family time," not only the rich. The next load of junk can wait until the next morning - there are more important things in life, if money-making machine doesn't become the centerpiece of it.
And why do you think that 24 hour shopping is a good thing?
How about those "family values" that people like so much to talk about?
Or those "family values" are meant only for the families of the Walmart owners, and are not intended for those who have to work evening and night shifts for pennies? What happens to their "family values" when they have to work during those hours, because someone needs to rush for a next load of junk in Walmart at night? I understand that it brings additional $$$ for the owners ( god forbids - they can't lose those,) but back to the family values...
When I was in Germany for example, all those retail stores were closed by 6 or 7 PM. Same on Sundays. Because you know what? Under German socialism everyone deserves "family time," not only the rich. The next load of junk can wait until the next morning - there are more important things in life, if money-making machine doesn't become the center-piece of it.
Good evening,
No one forces these people to work evening and night shifts at Walmart for "pennies". If jobs were assigned and people were forced to accept them, then your point would be valid. In a free society, if someone doesn't like their employer or their shift, then he or she can quit.
No one forces these people to work evening and night shifts at Walmart for "pennies". If jobs were assigned and people were forced to accept them, then your point would be valid. In a free society, if someone doesn't like their employer or their shift, then he or she can quit.
Good evening,
or rather good morning.
There is no such thing as "free society," as long as people are not born with the same amount of money in the bank accounts, same family status and so on.
Some are *free* to choose what they want to do, because their bank account allows them time and money to be picky, and some have to accept what's coming their way, because they have to eat and to pay for the roof over their heads.
If Communist party is not dictating you what to do or to think, your friendly banker will. In the Western societies ( and America in particular) the amount of your freedom equals the amount of money in your bank account.
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.
In the Western societies ( and America in particular) the amount of your freedom equals the amount of money in your bank account.
