@Rajk999 said
Cuba is a failure. So is North Korea and Venezuela. When the Soviet Union, East Germany and China were purely socialist they were failures as well. All these socialist systems were oppressive and led to millions risking their lives trying to escape the horrendous lifestyle. These countries have blurred the lines between communism and socialism, but all of these mentioned hav ...[text shortened]... rvices you mentioned but they cannot be labelled socialist countries or socialist political systems.
These countries NSD, are capitalist with socialist principles which include providing the essential services...
In the USA it is more about the who than the what, and the labels socialist and capitalist don't even mean anything anymore. Socialism here means providing food subsidies for impoverished families. But capitalism means giving farmers $12 billion because they couldn't turn a profit.
In reality, Trumps industry bailout programs are WAY more socialist than providing food for starving kids.
@wildgrass saidWell thats fine. More welfare can be a good thing, if it goes to deserving people. Judging from comments I have seen here people do not understand how an economy works. Eg There should be no billionaires. Govt should take the billionaires money and share it among the people. This was the mentality of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela. As sure as night follows day, their economy is doomed to fail.These countries NSD, are capitalist with socialist principles which include providing the essential services...
In the USA it is more about the who than the what, and the labels socialist and capitalist don't even mean anything anymore. Socialism here means providing food subsidies for impoverished families. But capitalism means giving farmers $12 billion b ...[text shortened]... lity, Trumps industry bailout programs are WAY more socialist than providing food for starving kids.
2 edits
@Rajk999 saidI don't interpret that as people arguing that anything over $999 million should be removed from an individuals' bank account.
Well thats fine. More welfare can be a good thing, if it goes to deserving people. Judging from comments I have seen here people do not understand how an economy works. Eg There should be no billionaires. Govt should take the billionaires money and share it among the people. This was the mentality of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela. As sure as night follows day, their economy is doomed to fail.
The reason why (some) people say there should be no billionaires is because in a true capitalist economy they don't exist.
Billionaires only exist behind business models that governments consider "too big to fail." Hedge fund manager Jamie Dimon would have been penniless in 2008 if it wasn't for the whims of George W. Bush bailing out his fortune from tax coffers. Jeff Bezos' fortune was built on government handouts and then fortified by broad patents that prevent competition.
Insider trading, stock buybacks, public or private extortion, blackmail mergers and acquisitions, bribes and favorable treatment. There isn't a single billionaire that doesn't have a story like this that explains why they're making 10,000 times more per hour than their own secretary.
Almost every billionaire is corrupt, whether they know it or not.
1 edit
@Earl-of-Trumps saidYou are not consistent. You judge Nazis to be leftist socialists simply because of the name but you don’t apply that same criteria to N Korea.
So was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics....
...but that does not mean that they weren't hardcore leftists to the max
@wildgrass saidThe world has thousands of billionaires mostly in capitalist countries. What do you mean by 'true' capitalism.
I don't interpret that as people arguing that anything over $999 million should be removed from an individuals' bank account.
The reason why (some) people say there should be no billionaires is because in a true capitalist economy they don't exist.
Billionaires only exist behind business models that governments consider "too big to fail." Hedge fund manager Jamie Dimo ...[text shortened]... hour than their own secretary.
Almost every billionaire is corrupt, whether they know it or not.
Corrupt practices are part of many people, its just a matter of degree. The woman that gets a $500 food cheque to feed her 3 kids is corrupt if she spends it on nails and hair for a date.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidMaybe not you, but I think a lot of people have a hard time fathoming how much money $1 billion is. Here's a thought experiment:
Well thats fine. More welfare can be a good thing, if it goes to deserving people. Judging from comments I have seen here people do not understand how an economy works. Eg There should be no billionaires. Govt should take the billionaires money and share it among the people. This was the mentality of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela. As sure as night follows day, their economy is doomed to fail.
Imagine that a vampire came to the New World with Christopher Columbus in 1492. Every single day from when he lands to the present, every day for 533 years, 139,815 consecutive days, that vampire either earns or steals $1,000 (pretend he isn’t earning any interest and doesn't spend it.). At $365,000 a year, this is a decent salary that puts someone in America today above middle class. How much money would he have today, and in what year would the vampire to become a billionaire?
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidLots of billionaires exploit corruption in other countries too. You're using that as an excuse for corruption?
The world has thousands of billionaires mostly in capitalist countries. What do you mean by 'true' capitalism.
Corrupt practices are part of many people, its just a matter of degree. The woman that gets a $500 food cheque to feed her 3 kids is corrupt if she spends it on nails and hair for a date.
You can call it a capitalist system, but the billionaires within that system should not theoretically exist unless it is not truly capitalist.
Capitalism is an economic system driven by private ownership, profit motive, and market competition. Billionaires don't exist within this framework.
@wildgrass saidIt makes no difference how much a $ billion is. Why do you think Cuba and Venezuela are failed economies? Do you think they did not understand about money. Their mindset was that the capitalists are too rich. With that mindset comes failure.
Maybe not you, but I think a lot of people have a hard time fathoming how much money $1 billion is. Here's a thought experiment:Imagine that a vampire came to the New World with Christopher Columbus in 1492. Every single day from when he lands to the present, every day for 533 years, 139,815 consecutive days, that vampire either earns or steals $1,000 (pretend he i ...[text shortened]... dden]He'd only have $140 million and wouldn't be a billionaire until the late 4220s[/hidden]
Success comes when you come to grips with the fact that it is the rich man that drives the economy, and if he fails then the economy dies.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidI agree its not the total amount that matters. The number is simply an example. A placeholder.
It makes no difference how much a $ billion is. Why do you think Cuba and Venezuela are failed economies? Do you think they did not understand about money. Their mindset was that the capitalists are too rich. With that mindset comes failure.
Success comes when you come to grips with the fact that it is the rich man that drives the economy, and if he fails then the economy dies.
It's the means for accruing the total amount that matters. Accruing that amount is not possible if the system was not exploitative and monopolistic. In order to become a billionaire, all billionaires either receive special benefits from the government at the expense of others, or exploit others, or inherit the assets of someone else who did this before.
Billionaires are not good for societies. All are unethical. Extreme wealth undermines the principles of decentralization, corrupts politics both locally and federally, distorts markets, and create a system of laziness at the level of labour because they and everyone around them and all of their kids can sit by the pool and rake in the interest from government bonds, since they bribed the government for their tax breaks and now the government is broke and needs to borrow from them at high interest rates.
3 edits
@Rajk999 saidA) This has nothing to do with the thread topic.
Cuba is a failure. So is North Korea and Venezuela. When the Soviet Union, East Germany and China were purely socialist they were failures as well. All these socialist systems were oppressive and led to millions risking their lives trying to escape the horrendous lifestyle. These countries have blurred the lines between communism and socialism, but all of these mentioned hav ...[text shortened]... rvices you mentioned but they cannot be labelled socialist countries or socialist political systems.
B) Socialist systems which are imposed upon an unwilling public by a revolutionary elite do not work well, not because they are socialist, but because they are imposed on an unwilling public.
C) Socialism is compatible with private ownership of property, including private ownership of corporations, as in Scandinavia. Communism is not compatible with private ownership of corporations; in communist countries, the state owns everything and typically 'nationalizes' large corporations (railroads, telecommunications, heavy industry, shipyards, etc.) which existed prior to a communist take-over.
D) People flee places such as communist E. Germany and communist N. Korea not because of socialism, but because of egregious violations of human rights.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidHow kindly is Mr. Rousseau, who wants to deport U.S. citizens not of White European ancestry? Can you imagine the public outcry if he tried to deport George Takei ?! Mel Brooks ?!?
The real problem is, moonbus -
Left-leaning folk truly believe that socialists are kindly people, when history proves otherwise.
It gives determinism a case to be made.
@moonbus saidB. In the case of Venezuela, Chavez won the popular vote, so we can assume the general population was willing to go along with his socialism.
A) This has nothing to do with the thread topic.
B) Socialist systems which are imposed upon an unwilling public by a revolutionary elite do not work well, not because they are socialist, but because they are imposed on an unwilling public.
C) Socialism is compatible with private ownership of property, including private ownership of corporations, as in Scandinavia. Comm ...[text shortened]... nd communist N. Korea not because of socialism, but because of egregious violations of human rights.
In the case of Cuba, Fidel Castro was widely popular when he overtrew Baptista who was an unpopular dictator. So I guess we can also assume the people wanted his version of socialism.
Both failed miserably.
C. There are no real world examples of successful socialism. Using Scandinavia as an example is wrong. These countries are free market capitalist with a strong welfare system. That is not socialism.
@AThousandYoung saidI think it is safe to say that socialists may be rightists
You are not consistent. You judge Nazis to be leftist socialists simply because of the name but you don’t apply that same criteria to N Korea.