Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

[Quantum Windbag]

And yet the most successful and prosperous countries today all have many more elements of socialism than we do here in the U.S. Why is that?

Most successful and prosperous compared to what?

To each other.

I get it, they are successful compared to the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For years you say?

So we had socialism happening in this country before Obama was president?

When did it start? During Bush? Reagan?

Let's see you back pedal now, turnip.

Barney Frank wasn't born until Obama was elected?

Let's see you backpedal now, genius.

Barney Frank introduced Socialism in the U.S.?

I am pretty sure he didn't. You, however, are trying to argue that there is no socialism in the US, you are the one with some 'splaning to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

because you idiots cant even get that right. we've been saying that all along. why are you mind-phucking yourself into trying to make it appear like an inconsistenciy on the part of the Right?

we/ve been telling you idiots forever your failures lead to more of what you portend to to be against

So we've had socialism for years here, but we're just not good at socialism. This is what we're going with?

It is a mistake to think in terms of "socialism" as a dominant political system in America. And it's a worse mistake to believe laissez-faire (unrestrained) capitalism is a good economic system for America.

The best system for America is what we had until "Reaganomics" was imposed on us. That was a capitalist system which was kept in control by certain socialist regulations. That well regulated system give rise to the American Middle Class and prevailed over the most prosperous and productive decades in our history -- from the 40s to the 80s. From there it declined. Reaganomics.

We do not want socialism or communism, so don't pay attention to that fanatical nonsense. What we want, and need, is a capitalist system with the same socialist regulations in place that protected us from the 40s to the 80s. Those regulations were removed by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, and they must be replaced!

You cannot provide a single example of a free market economy that actually does any of the things you insist ever single time we have a free market economy, while I can point to numerous examples of socialist economies that end up exactly the way I say they do. Yet, for some reason, I am the crazy guy that ignores facts.

 

[RDD_1210]

Most successful and prosperous compared to what?

To each other.

I get it, they are successful compared to the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela.

At least you get it. For once.

 

[Antares]

No one here understands Capitalism. Don't even bother trying to explain Socialism. Capitalism comes before Socialism BTW.

The fact that you do not understand something is not proof that no one else does.

Paint is just one more troll who thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, he knows everything.....just ask him.

 

[RDD_1210]

Barney Frank wasn't born until Obama was elected?

Let's see you backpedal now, genius.

Barney Frank introduced Socialism in the U.S.?

I am pretty sure he didn't. You, however, are trying to argue that there is no socialism in the US, you are the one with some 'splaning to do.

I never said there is "no socialism". Feel free to quote me though.

I said, Detroit was not ruined by socialism and we are nowhere near as socialist as pretty much every other successful country in the world. Feel free to argue what I actually said, or keep bringing up Barney Frank, up to you.

 

[RDD_1210]

So we've had socialism for years here, but we're just not good at socialism. This is what we're going with?

It is a mistake to think in terms of "socialism" as a dominant political system in America. And it's a worse mistake to believe laissez-faire (unrestrained) capitalism is a good economic system for America.

The best system for America is what we had until "Reaganomics" was imposed on us. That was a capitalist system which was kept in control by certain socialist regulations. That well regulated system give rise to the American Middle Class and prevailed over the most prosperous and productive decades in our history -- from the 40s to the 80s. From there it declined. Reaganomics.

We do not want socialism or communism, so don't pay attention to that fanatical nonsense. What we want, and need, is a capitalist system with the same socialist regulations in place that protected us from the 40s to the 80s. Those regulations were removed by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, and they must be replaced!

You cannot provide a single example of a free market economy that actually does any of the things you insist ever single time we have a free market economy, while I can point to numerous examples of socialist economies that end up exactly the way I say they do. Yet, for some reason, I am the crazy guy that ignores facts.

There is no purely free economy today. There's a reason for that. All systems need some sort of "socialism" to be effective. Name any country you think is a success and there is plenty of "socialism" to point to. Go ahead, give it a try.

 

[Toro]

Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.
—The Editors

"Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is."

Why Socialism?

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals."

So?

 

[Meathead]

It doesn't take someone with Einstein's exceptional reasoning ability to understand how the excessive accumulation of a nation's wealth resource will inevitably upset its economic balance and result in all sorts of social and political problems. Yet there is no shortage of those who probably don't have a pot to piss in but who hasten to present empty, nonsensical arguments and hurl insults at those who criticize the effects of inequitable distribution of a nation's wealth.

The only possible reason for taking such an illogical position is the pathology of greed -- which affects even those who have little more than their gluttonous dreams of acquiring excess wealth.

my my; it must be terribly confusing to you to be confronted with the REALITY that under Progressive rule the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. the inequality gap is growing. no wonder the Left spends so much time pretending they arent in charge

Reaganomics is not Progressive. It is regressive.

You do know what Reaganomics is, don't you? If not, read some of Milton Friedman's ideas, the same ones he imparted to Pinochet and brought down the Chilean economy.

Then try reading some James Maynard Keynes and learn why so-called "trickle down" economics is and has been siphoning up America's wealth resource to One Percent of the population.

Please, Reagan and Pinochet ushered in eras of great economic achievement in their respect countries. Trying to pin the realities of inevitable globalization to administrations and policies of over 30 years ago is a fools errand.

Those that lost badly, then and now, were what we would call progressives today. Papandreou in Greece and hosts of other left wing tax&spend and other socialist idiots set their countries back decades from which they are still trying to recover.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Barney Frank introduced Socialism in the U.S.?

I am pretty sure he didn't. You, however, are trying to argue that there is no socialism in the US, you are the one with some 'splaning to do.

I never said there is "no socialism". Feel free to quote me though.

I said, Detroit was not ruined by socialism and we are nowhere near as socialist as pretty much every other successful country in the world. Feel free to argue what I actually said, or keep bringing up Barney Frank, up to you.

You still haven't shown me a successful socialist country. Once you do, I will be happy to argue with you about your definition of success.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is a mistake to think in terms of "socialism" as a dominant political system in America. And it's a worse mistake to believe laissez-faire (unrestrained) capitalism is a good economic system for America.

The best system for America is what we had until "Reaganomics" was imposed on us. That was a capitalist system which was kept in control by certain socialist regulations. That well regulated system give rise to the American Middle Class and prevailed over the most prosperous and productive decades in our history -- from the 40s to the 80s. From there it declined. Reaganomics.

We do not want socialism or communism, so don't pay attention to that fanatical nonsense. What we want, and need, is a capitalist system with the same socialist regulations in place that protected us from the 40s to the 80s. Those regulations were removed by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, and they must be replaced!

You cannot provide a single example of a free market economy that actually does any of the things you insist ever single time we have a free market economy, while I can point to numerous examples of socialist economies that end up exactly the way I say they do. Yet, for some reason, I am the crazy guy that ignores facts.

There is no purely free economy today. There's a reason for that. All systems need some sort of "socialism" to be effective. Name any country you think is a success and there is plenty of "socialism" to point to. Go ahead, give it a try.

That would be a very good argument, if I couldn't point to a market that is completely free from government regulation.

 

[MikeK]

what is "excessive wealth" anyway left-wng losers?

In accordance with rational values, any personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars is excessive. Because that amount of wealth will enable one to lead a luxuriously comfortable and healthy life. Any wealth in excess of that amount is useful as political power and is therefore menacing to social stability.

who gets to decide what is "excessive"? You?

Only if a substantial number of Americans agree with me.

obama?

Obama is a tool of the finance industry. You don't want him deciding anything where our national economy is concerned. He is not to be trusted.

Democrats?

Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird. Let's not think in partisan terms but pay attention to what seems most sensible in terms of our Country's future.

who dreams of "excessive wealth" when you cant even define it/

Excessive wealth is very easy to define. It is that level beyond how much a reasonable individual needs to lead a healthy, rationally luxurious, comfortable and secure life.

who dreams of "excessive wealth"?

Those who are greedy by their very nature.

dont you dream of having wealth?

Whether you choose to believe it or not I am quite content with my situation. I have a comfortable home and I'm financially secure with a generous civil service pension, Social Security, and a nice stack of U.S. Savings Bonds.

My parents suffered through the Great Depression and as the result of their teaching about rational values and the Hierarchy Of Human Needs (an important book) neither my brother nor I are poisoned by the pathology of greed. We know when to leave the table.

dont in fact many on the Left have "excessive wealth"?

is there wealth any less excussive than others?

That really is an inane question and you do yourself a disservice by thinking in partisan terms. Greed is a sickness that crosses all lines. Think about that, not political affiliation.

why does evey post by left-wing morons say so little and only exposes the mind-phuck they use on themselves as they wallow in contradictions, projection, and hypocrisy?

Learn how to think and you won't be troubled by such nonsensical notions.

 

[georgephillip]

Had Einstein seem what Socialism did to Detroit he say, "Socialism? What the fuck was I thinking???!"

Detroit had nothing to do with socialism,had and has everything to do with the idiots running it...I don't mean democrats or republicans..I mean the fact they had a majority black system for 40+ years.Shit look at Africa...anything the empires built there hasn't lasted because of the people now taking care of things. South Africa and Rhodesia are GREAT examples.

It's hard to blame socialists or Blacks for the outsourcing of thousands of middle class jobs in the Detroit area since NAFTA took effect; that blame goes to lily-white capitalists.

 

[georgephillip]

That happened in 1994. 20 years ago, Detroit was already a shithole.

""While the world focuses on the latest turn in the saga of this once-great manufacturing city, it turns out that the causes of the city’s decline have been well-recognized for nearly 65 years.

"In fact, Detroit’s leaders commissioned studies investigating the city’s financial woes as far back ago as the end of World War II.

"Study after study delivered the same results, which were largely ignored."

How Detroit Leaders Ignored Causes of Bankruptcy for 65 Years | Making Sen$e | PBS NewsHour

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That happened in 1994. 20 years ago, Detroit was already a shithole.

""While the world focuses on the latest turn in the saga of this once-great manufacturing city, it turns out that the causes of the city’s decline have been well-recognized for nearly 65 years.

"In fact, Detroit’s leaders commissioned studies investigating the city’s financial woes as far back ago as the end of World War II.

"Study after study delivered the same results, which were largely ignored."

How Detroit Leaders Ignored Causes of Bankruptcy for 65 Years | Making Sen$e | PBS NewsHour

You just posted an article that blamed high taxes for Detroit's bankruptcy, are you sick?

 

[SAYIT]

That happened in 1994. 20 years ago, Detroit was already a shithole.

""While the world focuses on the latest turn in the saga of this once-great manufacturing city, it turns out that the causes of the city’s decline have been well-recognized for nearly 65 years.

"In fact, Detroit’s leaders commissioned studies investigating the city’s financial woes as far back ago as the end of World War II.

"Study after study delivered the same results, which were largely ignored."

How Detroit Leaders Ignored Causes of Bankruptcy for 65 Years | Making Sen$e | PBS NewsHour

You just posted an article that blamed high taxes for Detroit's bankruptcy, are you sick?

Woo. According to those studies (spanning decades), typical business concerns - taxes, wages, productivity, and quality of life - combined to chase jobs and the tax base from Detroit. In effect, those responsible for city and state policies killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. All that's left for them to do is turn off the lights ... assuming Detroit can afford to keep them on at all.

 

[bripat9643]

It is a mistake to think in terms of "socialism" as a dominant political system in America. And it's a worse mistake to believe laissez-faire (unrestrained) capitalism is a good economic system for America.

The best system for America is what we had until "Reaganomics" was imposed on us. That was a capitalist system which was kept in control by certain socialist regulations. That well regulated system give rise to the American Middle Class and prevailed over the most prosperous and productive decades in our history -- from the 40s to the 80s. From there it declined. Reaganomics.

We do not want socialism or communism, so don't pay attention to that fanatical nonsense. What we want, and need, is a capitalist system with the same socialist regulations in place that protected us from the 40s to the 80s. Those regulations were removed by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, and they must be replaced!

You cannot provide a single example of a free market economy that actually does any of the things you insist ever single time we have a free market economy, while I can point to numerous examples of socialist economies that end up exactly the way I say they do. Yet, for some reason, I am the crazy guy that ignores facts.

There is no purely free economy today. There's a reason for that. All systems need some sort of "socialism" to be effective. Name any country you think is a success and there is plenty of "socialism" to point to. Go ahead, give it a try.

All dogs have fleas. Does that mean dogs can't live without fleas? Socialism is nothing more than a parasite. it exists in every society because men would rather live at the expense of others than do productive work to support themselves.

Capitalism doesn't need socialism any more than a dog needs flea. Socialism doesn't make capitalism "effective." It sucks the life out of capitalism, and the bigger it grows, the weaker society gets.

 

[RDD_1210]

I see lots of "socialism" on that list. Which country do you want to look at?

The less socialism they have, the better they do.

Heritage Index of Economic Freedom

rank country overall change

1 Hong Kong 90.1 +0.8
2 Singapore 89.4 +1.4
3 Australia 82.0 -0.6
4 Switzerland 81.6 +0.6
5 New Zealand 81.2 -0.2
6 Canada 80.2 +0.8
7 Chile 78.7 -0.3
8 Mauritius 76.5 -0.4
9 Ireland 76.2 +0.5
10 Denmark 76.1 0.0
11 Estonia 75.9 +0.6
12 United States 75.5 -0.5
13 Bahrain 75.1 -0.4
14 United Kingdom 74.9 +0.1
15 The Netherlands 74.2 +0.7
16 Luxembourg 74.2 0.0
17 Taiwan 73.9 +1.2
18 Germany 73.4 +0.6
19 Finland 73.4 -0.6
20 Sweden 73.1 +0.2
21 Lithuania 73.0 +0.9
22 Georgia 72.6 +0.4
23 Iceland 72.4 +0.3
24 Austria 72.4 +0.6
25 Japan 72.4 +0.6
26 Czech Republic 72.2 +1.3
27 Botswana 72.0 +1.4
28 United Arab Emirates 71.4 +0.3
29 Macau 71.3 -0.4
30 Qatar 71.2 -0.1
31 South Korea 71.2 +0.9
32 Norway 70.9 +0.4
33 Saint Lucia 70.7 +0.3

The higher the rank, the less socialism.

The higher the rank, the less the socialism? Really? LOL. Now you've painted yourself in to a fun corner. Can't wait to watch the contortionist act you use to try and get out of this one.

Ok. So Canada, Australia and Denmark are less Socialist than the U.S.?

Which policies would you adopt from those less socialist countries that in your opinion are better than our more socialist policies we have here.

This should be good for a laugh.

Bripat, why are you continuing to avoid responding to this post? What's the problem?

I'm just glad everyone can see the bitch you are on full display.

 

[bripat9643]

The less socialism they have, the better they do.

Heritage Index of Economic Freedom

rank country overall change

1 Hong Kong 90.1 +0.8
2 Singapore 89.4 +1.4
3 Australia 82.0 -0.6
4 Switzerland 81.6 +0.6
5 New Zealand 81.2 -0.2
6 Canada 80.2 +0.8
7 Chile 78.7 -0.3
8 Mauritius 76.5 -0.4
9 Ireland 76.2 +0.5
10 Denmark 76.1 0.0
11 Estonia 75.9 +0.6
12 United States 75.5 -0.5
13 Bahrain 75.1 -0.4
14 United Kingdom 74.9 +0.1
15 The Netherlands 74.2 +0.7
16 Luxembourg 74.2 0.0
17 Taiwan 73.9 +1.2
18 Germany 73.4 +0.6
19 Finland 73.4 -0.6
20 Sweden 73.1 +0.2
21 Lithuania 73.0 +0.9
22 Georgia 72.6 +0.4
23 Iceland 72.4 +0.3
24 Austria 72.4 +0.6
25 Japan 72.4 +0.6
26 Czech Republic 72.2 +1.3
27 Botswana 72.0 +1.4
28 United Arab Emirates 71.4 +0.3
29 Macau 71.3 -0.4
30 Qatar 71.2 -0.1
31 South Korea 71.2 +0.9
32 Norway 70.9 +0.4
33 Saint Lucia 70.7 +0.3

The higher the rank, the less socialism.

The higher the rank, the less the socialism? Really? LOL. Now you've painted yourself in to a fun corner. Can't wait to watch the contortionist act you use to try and get out of this one.

Ok. So Canada, Australia and Denmark are less Socialist than the U.S.?

Which policies would you adopt from those less socialist countries that in your opinion are better than our more socialist policies we have here.

This should be good for a laugh.

Bripat, why are you continuing to avoid responding to this post? What's the problem?

I'm just glad everyone can see the bitch you are on full display.

I don't know which policies Heritage used to make their determinations. I trust their judgement. You can learn what you want to know at their website.

Of course, we all know you just want to use the same tactic you used when I said Singapore was a good example of a market economy and you tried to claim that meant I supported its healthcare system.

Try your sleazy tactics on someone who is willing to play those games.

I'll throw you a bone and post one thing Heritage says about Australia:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/australia

Australia has a 1.8 percent average tariff rate. The government has reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers both unilaterally and through negotiated trade agreements. Foreign investment in a few “sensitive sectors” is limited. The open financial sector is highly competitive and well-developed. All banks are privately owned, and prudent regulations have allowed them to withstand the global financial turmoil with little disruption.

You can read the rest at the link posted.

 

[RDD_1210]

The higher the rank, the less the socialism? Really? LOL. Now you've painted yourself in to a fun corner. Can't wait to watch the contortionist act you use to try and get out of this one.

Ok. So Canada, Australia and Denmark are less Socialist than the U.S.?

Which policies would you adopt from those less socialist countries that in your opinion are better than our more socialist policies we have here.

This should be good for a laugh.

Bripat, why are you continuing to avoid responding to this post? What's the problem?

I'm just glad everyone can see the bitch you are on full display.

I don't know which policies Heritage used to make their determinations. I trust their judgement. You can learn what you want to know at their website.

Of course, we all know you just want to use the same tactic you used when I said Singapore was a good example of a market economy and you tried to claim that meant I supported its healthcare system.

Try your sleazy tactics on someone who is willing to play those games.

I'll throw you a bone and post one thing Heritage says about Australia:

Australia Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI, Corruption

Australia has a 1.8 percent average tariff rate. The government has reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers both unilaterally and through negotiated trade agreements. Foreign investment in a few “sensitive sectors” is limited. The open financial sector is highly competitive and well-developed. All banks are privately owned, and prudent regulations have allowed them to withstand the global financial turmoil with little disruption.

You can read the rest at the link posted.

Oh good, the bitch comes crawling back.

So you "don't know which policies Heritage uses to make their determinations" but you do know that "the higher up on the list, the less socialism". How do you know that? Does Heritage say that anywhere? Or perhaps, you got caught talking directly out of your ass like you always do?

So you picked Australia as being "less socialist" than our country. Let's take a look. This is all taken from your source, that way you can't go bashing my data.

Taxes - Australia’s top individual tax rate is 45 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 30 percent. Other taxes include a value-added-tax (VAT) and a capital gains tax. The carbon tax has been abandoned for a cap-and-trade system. The overall tax burden has fallen to 25.6 percent of GDP.

Energy - A carbon pricing scheme encourages consumers to use alternative energy sources that otherwise would not be economically viable.

Those sound "less socialist" than what we have here? Do you advocate we adopt those "freer" policies in the U.S.?

And finally, you mention the tariff rate, Australia and the U.S. have very comparable tariff rates so I don't know what you think you were proving by posting that. Actually, yes I do. You read each of the bullet points on the Heritage site about why Australia is "freer" than the U.S. and realized that none of them supported your asinine statement that the higher on the list, the less the socialism, so you went with the only one you possibly could post without looking like the complete uneducated asshole that we both know that you are.

So maybe it's time for you to admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and have literally no clue what socialism means.