Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People who want socialism don't understand the scope of that either.Socialism is where business and industry is owned (communism) or regulated by the community...
"We are all socialists now!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed...
Venezuela.I would make the exact same argument about socialism.The free market has not been allowed to thrive, .
The free market has not been allowed to thrive, .
I would make the exact same argument about socialism.
A perfect example of a country the United States has interfered with several times. We're so sure socialism will fail that we save them the time and go ahead and sabotage it before it gets a chance to.Venezuela.
The free market has not been allowed to thrive, .I would make the exact same argument about socialism.A perfect example of a country the United States has interfered with several times. We're so sure socialism will fail that we save them the time and go ahead and sabotage it before it gets a chance to.Venezuela.
Is it up to me or 30 million Venezuelans to decide ?Do you really want the government to own all methods of production and distribution?
Is it up to me or 30 million Venezuelans to decide ?Do you really want the government to own all methods of production and distribution?
If they want to kick Chevron and Halliburton out and nationalize their, dump the US dollar or whatever, we should let them. Last year we bragged about having the new largest oil reserve in west Texas, so why are we worried about their oil ?
Texas, New Mexico Oil and Gas Reserves are Largest Ever Assessed, Bringing Economic Hope, Environmental Concern | The Weather Channel
Dude...you used Venezuela as an example. Use Sweden next time or do you know anything about their socialism/capitalism system ?why focus on just oil?
And I was speaking more of your seeming desire for socialism in this country
Under a socialist government all means of production distribution and exchange for all goods and services will be owned by the government.
Do you really want that?
Dude...you used Venezuela as an example. Use Sweden next time or do you know anything about their socialism/capitalism system ?Is it up to me or 30 million Venezuelans to decide ?Do you really want the government to own all methods of production and distribution?
If they want to kick Chevron and Halliburton out and nationalize their, dump the US dollar or whatever, we should let them. Last year we bragged about having the new largest oil reserve in west Texas, so why are we worried about their oil ?
Texas, New Mexico Oil and Gas Reserves are Largest Ever Assessed, Bringing Economic Hope, Environmental Concern | The Weather Channel
why focus on just oil?
And I was speaking more of your seeming desire for socialism in this country
Under a socialist government all means of production distribution and exchange for all goods and services will be owned by the government.
Do you really want that?
The socialism of Government doesn't work that way, for a Constitutional and legal reason.How is this:using the term socialism merely to appeal to emotion instead of discussing the actual issues is nothing but right wing bigotry. rejection is not refutation. you need a superior argument for that.
Government owning the means of production will force me to be a slave. Therefore, I reject anything that gives Government the ownership of the means of production.
Now you can call what I described above whatever the fuck you want.
.
the US is still doing ok.7Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505
To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.
Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.
Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.
Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.
Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”
You copy and paste a nice line but the atock market was a very small part of the great recession which was a WORLD WIDE EVEN CAUSED BY WORLD WIDE EVENTS NOT JUST THE STOCK MARKET.Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505
To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.
Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.
Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.
Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.
Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”
WHICH WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM BUT NOT THE MAJOR MALFUNCTION.
by the way hows socialist goverments working out like Venezuela Cuba Russia Germany and so many others
Bernie will explain it to whoever's still confused.
( Bill Maher is a total pecker-head now, btw)
So, they admit that there MUST be controls on heath care choices and prices for socialist health care to work.
Which means, there is no longer an incentive to spend years in school to become a doctor. Government will kill it by paying chicken feed. The best and brightest will do something else.
It's one extreme to the other.
ALL health insurance has driven up the cost of health care, because there has been no price competition among doctors. But, now they want to take it to the other extreme, where competition doesn't drive down the cost. Government force does.
The free market has not been allowed to thrive, so the costs continue to rise, and anyone with no insurance is totally hosed.
On solution is to outlaw ALL health insurance and make providers compete for business.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We have a Command Economy. Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.Dude...you used Venezuela as an example. Use Sweden next time or do you know anything about their socialism/capitalism system ?Is it up to me or 30 million Venezuelans to decide ?Do you really want the government to own all methods of production and distribution?
If they want to kick Chevron and Halliburton out and nationalize their, dump the US dollar or whatever, we should let them. Last year we bragged about having the new largest oil reserve in west Texas, so why are we worried about their oil ?
Texas, New Mexico Oil and Gas Reserves are Largest Ever Assessed, Bringing Economic Hope, Environmental Concern | The Weather Channel
why focus on just oil?
And I was speaking more of your seeming desire for socialism in this country
Under a socialist government all means of production distribution and exchange for all goods and services will be owned by the government.
Do you really want that?
SO you too are not using the definition of socialism that is in the dictionary
Does everyone here just make up definitions for words?
The definition of socialism is as follows
socialism
noun
so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
And they get an average 1-digit approval rating for being.. Congress commands fiscal policy
We have a Command Economy not free market Capitalism.And they get an average 1-digit approval rating for being.. Congress commands fiscal policy
the least productive part of our government.
We have an annual $1.2 trillion national security boondoggle we don't need.We have a Command Economy not free market Capitalism.And they get an average 1-digit approval rating for being.. Congress commands fiscal policy
the least productive part of our government.
Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare, is the right wing way.We have an annual $1.2 trillion national security boondoggle we don't need.We have a Command Economy not free market Capitalism.And they get an average 1-digit approval rating for being.. Congress commands fiscal policy
the least productive part of our government.
Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, the NSA and dozens of other huge defense contractors are making a fortune off our spiraling national debt. This is a war economy.
In the meantime China is passing us by as the next superpower if we don't start WW3 first. (trilobites will go back to #1 if that happens)Everything for the general warfare and nothing for the general welfare, is the right wing way.
