@sonhouse saidlived in Thailand for several years and saw the people were in the main happy.
Ibut you didn't criticize the government or you go to jail. I hear it is the same there today. So It sounds like life in Viet Nam is similar, mostly happy people but isn't it the same as in Thailand, bitch about the government you go to jail?
What about protests? Did you see people massing in some numbers to bitch about the government or some company say dumping toxins in a stream?
The worst shortage in Thailand is water. Thailand is currently facing its worst drought in possibly four decades, with many reservoirs at dangerously low levels and saltwater intrusion affecting drinking water supplies. This drought is impacting agriculture, particularly rice, sugar, and rubber production, and is expected to have significant economic consequences.
Sincerely, AvJoe's granny
@shavixmir saidAs to debt, it is a necessary tool.
If you have so much wealth, why do you have so much debt and so much poverty?
AI Overview
While high national debt is generally viewed negatively, there are arguments that it can be beneficial for the U.S. in certain contexts. Debt can be a tool for economic stimulus, particularly during recessions, by funding infrastructure projects and providing financial assistance to businesses. Additionally, the U.S. national debt, in the form of Treasury bonds, is a safe and liquid asset that is attractive to investors, contributing to global financial stability. However, excessive debt can lead to higher interest rates, inflation, and reduced government spending on crucial programs.
Poverty is caused by many things, of which we are all aware. It exists in all countries, That could lead to a Sonhouse-type discussion. Help!!!!
If i want to buy a rental property, I go to the bank and create a debt by borrowing money to buy it. That is a good thing, you see. It is good for my business, and it is good for your son who is marrying and wants to rent it and raise a family. It follows that he will contribute to society and.......make america wealthy.
@KingDavid403 saidMaybe if you had a point you would have made it. Just saying it is stupid is pointless. Why not explain.
Stupidest post I've read in a long time.
🙄
uncontrolled socialism.
🙄
Socialism promotes idea that the means of production (land, factories, resources) should be owned or controlled by society as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. There are countries that have tried this and these are failed economies Eg Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea. China did it and had decades of poverty, but changed their system and now are prosperous.
The more you remove the means of production from the hands of private owners, the greater the likelihood of poverty. So uncontrolled socialism tries to privatize as many industries as it can.
@AverageJoe1 saidWe all know why tax breaks were formulated. And it wasn't to "provide more goods and services"! 😆 😆 😆
Typical short sighted view point of a person who does not give ONE THOUGHT to just why tax breaks exist, why they were formulated. Look it up. Investors provide goods and services to you and Sue and everyone else. Take away the incentives like tax breaks, etc, and those services just miiiiiiiiiigght shrink up. No more rental properties??
Ha, did you see where Mamdani said that on should not own their homes?
@AverageJoe1 saidIt is called 'regulatory capture.' When gummint is made up partly or mostly of rich people (often landlords), they skew the tax code in favor of ... you guessed it - landlords! 😆
Not when you give each the word its proper definition when applied to the situation. Llke, if I buy a house for $100k and it rises in market value (market value..) 6% a year, it is always gaining in value. There is never a'loss. But when IRS dreams up a formula for tax purposes, they somehow decided to use the word loss in the paragraph about depreciation. We better stop, this will be too much for certain posters here!
Surprise! 😆
@AverageJoe1 said@AverageJoe1 the Socialist stipulates that Socialism is Good and Necessary. 😆
We can all stipulate that there are about 50M people who just cannot get along in our society, and I would resolve that by paying every bit of the money that we need to, to support them. But even that is not socialism.
My work is done here. 😆
He is misguided and doesn't understand words, but deep down, perhaps he gets it on some level.
@AverageJoe1 saidThat's fine. Might even be a good idea. 😆
If i want to buy a rental property, I go to the bank and create a debt by borrowing money to buy it. That is a good thing, you see. It is good for my business, and it is good for your son who is marrying and wants to rent it and raise a family. It follows that he will contribute to society and.......make america wealthy.
Just don't claim a tax break when you do it! 😆
Just because I say socialism is the bedrock of our society (true) doesn't mean that capitalism is bad. Capitalism GROWS once socialism has created a free and equal society.
Capitalism cannot function without rights protection. If there are contract violations, theft, and general lawlessness, capitalism dies a sudden death. This has always been the case.
Socialism is about equality and protecting rights. Capitalism is about making money by serving customers. We create a truly great society when the two systems do not interfere with one another. 😆
@shavixmir saidBecause we charge interest on education loans and have a for-profit, monopolistic healthcare system which charges ridiculously high prices that no other nation does. 😆
If you have so much wealth, why do you have so much debt and so much poverty?
@spruce112358 saidDo your own research. Socialism and communism has the same basic principles about ownership of the means of production. The difference is that socialism is a gradual process, while in communism more drastic methods are used to acheive the same goals.
Wrong. That's communism, not socialism. 😆
From Google;
Socialism and communism are both economic and political ideologies that advocate for social ownership of the means of production, but they differ in their approaches and ultimate goals. Socialism generally involves a more gradual transition towards social ownership, often through democratic means, and may allow for some degree of private property and market activity. Communism, on the other hand, envisions a more radical transformation, aiming for a stateless, classless society with complete social ownership of all resources and the abolition of private property.
@Rajk999 saidSocialism is the basis of Western democracy because it stresses the equality and dignity of each individual. The idea that ALL individuals should vote (not just wealthy men) is socialist. Buying votes is a capitalist idea because capitalism is about buying and selling. Socialism bans that in the name of equality. 😆
There is nothing inherently good about socialism
A wealthy capitalist violates laws, assuming that he can buy his way out of trouble. Socialists mandate a justice system that treats wealthy and poor alike.
To the capitalist, every thing is a profit center - including things which are actually owned by the public like timber, oil, waterways, and minerals. Capitalists advocate privatizing "rights of way" like roads to that they can put up toll booths and the public airwaves so that they can sell advertising.
Socialists regulate all these capitalist desires and don't allow "robber barons" to enrich themselves without bound.
Capitalists also don't care about those who cannot do for themselves because they only care about making money. "Those who don't work, don't eat" is their motto. However, socialists know that the "right to life" outweighs the "right to property" and so force capitalists to share so that everyone has enough to survive. Socialism recognizes the value in protecting property rights SECONDARY to everyone having a place to live and enough to eat. 😆
@Rajk999 saidI've heard that sort of thing before from anarchists: "making government smaller is just a step towards having NO government at all!"
Do your own research. Socialism and communism has the same basic principles about ownership of the means of production. The difference is that socialism is a gradual process, while in communism more drastic methods are used to acheive the same goals.
From Google;
Socialism and communism are both economic and political ideologies that advocate for social ownership of ...[text shortened]... society with complete social ownership of all resources and the abolition of private property.
Rubbish. Wrong. And nope. 😆
2 edits
@Rajk999
'Social ownership' is usually a feature of authoritarian nationalism, for example when a dictator orders seizure of key industries and turns them into state enterprises. Communism and authoritarianism are closely linked.
Paying taxes for schools and roads has been wrongly labeled 'socialism' since the 1870's when capitalists tried to make people hate 'socialism' by trying to make it a close ally of communism. It is not, despite what propagandists would have you believe.
Socialism has nothing to do with state ownership. Socialism has everything to do with equality and is closely linked to democracy. 😆
EDIT: Futher point - communists and fascists often try to claim the 'socialist' label, and capitalists in the West (who naively think socialism restricts their profits; it doesn't. It protects them) are happy to oblige. The Nazis claimed to be socialists, and many dictators like Chavez etc. have also claimed to be socialists. They weren't. They were just co-opting the name.
'Democratic socialist' is a way to try to claw the name back to its proper concept.
@spruce112358 saidI dont have the time neither desire to analyse all your rantings and changing of these standard definitions. These words, socialism, communism, capitalism, mixed systems etc and all the variations have standard meanings. You are not agreeing with them so I really cannot comment.
@Rajk999
'Social ownership' is usually a feature of authoritarian nationalism, for example when a dictator orders seizure of key industries and turns them into state enterprises. Communism and authoritarianism are closely linked.
Paying taxes for schools and roads has been wrongly labeled 'socialism' since the 1870's when capitalists tried to make people hate 'soci ...[text shortened]... state ownership. Socialism has everything to do with equality and is closely linked to democracy. 😆
Maybe we are on the same page but with different definitions.
I believe capitalism is the driving force for economic success, and I also believe that it is the function of a strong government to provide welfare services up to such a point that the poor are taken care of [whatever standard is acceptable]. This welfare must not reach a point where people are comfortable enough to stay at home and/or produce nothing. This is why I said socialist principles or welfare can be overdone and lead to fall in the standard of living.