+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: Socialism

  1. #41
    Roxy Contin's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The frozen North
    Posts
    41

    Default Re: Socialism

    There are a lot of benefits for women and children, good education, It's awesome if you don't have a job, but if you do you pay about half what you make in taxes.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by StolenName
    Our economy atm is heading into a privatised area (AUSTRALIA) as our government is selling off all our primary assets. Telstra (communications) is the biggest one to date, which has resulted in a quick buck for them but higher rates for us. Water and electricity are going the same way, and as we're now signing agreements with the US and China even, alot of produce producers are getting boned.

    Luckily, healthcare hasn't been fully privatised yet.

    The essential services, IMO should remain the property of the state and it's people.

    I sound like a fool compared to these other arguments
    Not at all, hardly anyone care to explain it, and what was relatively widely understood in a previous generation has been obfuscated by an avalanche of detail in this generation. Half of what you do hear is lies - the influence of Randians has been pernicious, crypto-feudalism cposing as capitalism.

    "Rational self interest" is an illusion: all self interest is rational to the person doing the rationalizing, the actual prescription is self interest in competition - in capitalism, self interest is checked by self interest, ambition by ambition - it's a dynamic system, and the tendency of the status quo, entrenched interests to further entrench themselves by eliminating the competion is theoretically channelled into the more productive route of innovation and streamlining to remain competitive against the challenges constantly rising from the bottom: newer, nimbler, less encumbered by outmoded assumptions and culture.

    Privitization is a typical neo-liberal strategy - there really isn't a whole lot of difference between neo-liberals and neo-cons, they both tend to front for multinationals, and "privitization" is essentially handing over large chunks of publically owned resources over to multinationals who are in a position to exploit them- the locals get a few jobs in exchange for helping export the nations natural wealth, till it rund out, and the corporations move on leaving not much more than a big hole in the ground.

    It's a logical extension of the supply side theory that prevailed in the eighties - the theory is that investment drive economic growth, and by freeing up liquidity (capital available for investment) economic growth will result. Part of this effort involved loosening up restrictions on financial institutions, savings and loans, etc., to allow them to invest in real estate development, among other things, which previously only banks had been allowed to do. This legislation was drafted by the democrats under Carter, and signed into law by Reagan.

    The theory behind the previous implementation of the regulatory state was to "spread the wealth", i.e., utilities and service providers were required to provide service to rural areas, subsidizing that with their sales in urban areas where the natural market existed - densely packed urban areas require less infrastructure to service more customers with things like telephone service, and public utilities: power, water and sewer, etc., adn the same regulations and requirements were extended to airline service as well. Left to normal market operation, these services would tend to be clustered in urban areas leaving rural areas to fend for themselves.

    At the same time, transportion infrastructure was doing much the same thing, with the federal government building interstate highways, and local governments required to create state highways, with some federal funding, between urban areas.

    This can be seen as somewhat of a socialist venture, but the upshot was that it turned the entire country into one vast market - it was suddenly feasible to market goods nation wide, and the economy boomed as a result: goods and services were no longer confined to specific geographic markets.

    Synergystically with this, millions of Americans bakc from the war were being educated via the GI bill, it had not been anticapated that so many would take advantage of this, but they did, and huge talent pool of scientists, engineers, etc. was generated - exactly the sort of educated, mobile work force that Smith described as being ideal for capitalism to work properly.

    The third factor was a vast resevior of basic research generated by the war effort was available, including research captured from the Germans - basic research is expensive and unprofitable, as it's unpredictable - you're never sure what you're going to find, and looking for one thing generally results in finding something else, or maybe even nothing - it's only when things uncovered in basic research are refined in applied research, that products result that can be manufactured and marketed to generate wealth.

    In 1950, only half the country had indoor plumbing, and there was less than one car per household - we cruise on the results post WWII Keynsian investment to this day.

    Continued...

  3. #43

    Default Re: Socialism

    By the late Seventies however, the American manufacturing hegemony was being nibbled at by Japan and Europe - particularly in non-agricultural export industries - who had rebuilt economies devastated by war - meanwhile, the Kennedy tax cuts had triggered an inflationary cycle that was eating away at capital reserves.

    American industry was percieved as being static, smothered in layers of entrenched middle management that was killing productivity, and one aspect of the strategy involved freeing up enough liquidity to allow financial institutions to buy out entire companies in order to restructure them from without (hostile takeovers). Instead, a lack of regulation enforcement or even scrutiny resulted in vulnurable companies being picked off and sold piecemiel - any publically held firm, no matter how competitive, became a target if they didn't have the cash reserves to fend off a bid, and this was a lot of them, as most had their available cash tied up in pension funds. It was a whole new dynamic, one that favored creditors, and real estate speculation resulted in the overdevelopment that caused the crash in the mid Eighties and the S&L debacle (much more to that story...), as well as the layoffs that kept the labor market loose, and held wages down below the rate of inflation.

    Inflation, to some degree, is actually good for consumers: if you take out a loan to buy a house for example, your outstanding debt is essentially reduced annually by the current rate of inflation, the bank takes the hit.

    The fed ended the inflationary cycle started by the Kennedy tax cuts by cutting back the money supply (tight money), which triggered the 80-82 recession that swept Reagan into office - since that time, a tight money policy has driven Fed policy - all else is subordinate to keeping the rate of inflation under control, and any hint of inflation in the offing is enough to prompt the Fed to raise interest rates, resulting in layoffs, loosening the labor market, which is seen as the main culprit in inflation.

    This is the reasoning, the avoidance of demand pull inflation, that the Reagan, and all subsequent tax cuts have targeted the upper tier of the economy, with only token cuts to middle class, the fear that a middle class tax cut will touch off a spending spree that will result in another cycle of demand pull inflation, and wages declined for the bottom half of the economy, with respect to the rate of inflation, for twenty years since, until the end of the Ninties - they've begun falling again since, of course.

    It's also worth noting that a tight monetary policy caused the price of domestic goods to rise relative to international currencies, and this has the effect of killing exports - the US trade deficit has been growing for twenty years. It devastated family farms in the Eighties, who were largely swept away and replaced by agribussiness, and it what triggered the sell off in the tech bubble at the end of the Ninties when dollar stayed high against the euro: tech companies had based their earnings projections on exports, as the domestic market became saturated.

    At the same time, certain aspects of supply side theory were working in other areas - junk bond financing created a whole new economy, what we used to call the electronic economy before everybody got sick of putting "e-" in front of everything, by financing the small tech start ups that are today's giants - aided in no small way by the same war and post war research that led to IC's, processors, and the languages, standards and protocalls, even the infrastructure of the World Wide Web which matured at a timely moment.

    Sorry to go on, but understanding the history of the last 50 years or so is critical to understanding how and what creates and sustains economic growth, and how that growth is distributed.

    High tax economies actually grow faster, provided that it represents public investment in infrastructure, educationa and basic research, than low tax economies with outdated infrastructure, an inflexible labor market, and without a constant stream of technological spillover creating new opportunities, generally speaking. This is empirically demonstrable, and supported by all the available evidence.

    One see's the results in incomprehension of this principle regularly in the recent past - I just heard on the radio about high tax revenue producing states complaining about having to share that with low revenue states, without understanding that they are killing the very markets that made them wealthy to begin with - i.e., even congress itself appears fairly ignorant at times about how economics and markets actually work.

    The top 1% were paying an average 5% more in taxes during the Ninties, while their income was growing by nearly 10 times that amount - subsequent tax cuts basically represent a larger slice of a smaller pie, even from the viewpoint of the uppermost tier of the economy.

    And we really are talking about only 5% either way, and a couple of points of periodic inflation - hardly the same thing as Seventy percent marginal rate and double digit inflation that marked the tail end of the Seventies - and even then, we didn't have a homeless problem to speak of, as well as higher economic growth (as measured by GDP) and productivity than we had at the end of the Eighties.

    The US economy seems to operate naturally at it's optimal point when taxes are at around 10% of GDP, they were a little higher, about 12%, at the end of the Ninties, but the debt was under control, and now they are between 7 and 8 percent, I believe, and debt is beginning to choke economic growth, crowding out investment, and causing interest rates to rise.

    Anyway, I've spent some time thinking about this, and I hope it helps you to understand a little better how macro-economics works in praxis, regardless and irrespective of ideology - Henry Ford, when he raised his employees wages (and was soundly criticized for it) understood that regardless of the level and degree of investment, you don't make a dime till somebody actually buys your product.

  4. #44
    Morning Glory's Avatar Apathetic Voter
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Campbell's (or is it Warhol's?) Primordial Soup
    Posts
    5,643

    Default Re: Socialism

    here's my business model. take a dollar bill and light it on fire. this is industrialization. keep adding more bills and sit back and watch your stocks skyrocket.

    I'm not being superfluous. when this metaphor runs it's course it will be the end of civilization, and then it will be happening for real.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Socialism

    Can't see it happening, although the next century should be very... interesting; as certain underlying assumptions such a stable climate and endless resources are challenged.

    That's a Chinese curse, BTW - "may you live in interesting times" - but I believe we have the capability of dealing with it, should we manage to put ideology aside and look at the facts - otherwise it's back to nature for a while - of course some people never left, and they probobly won't even notice.

  6. #46
    Jebadiah's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Socialism

    Well this pisses me off!

    I miss a few days of checking out Blueblood, and so I missed out on participating in this thread when it was hot.

  7. #47
    Amelia G's Avatar chick in charge
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Born in London. Lived everywhere.
    Posts
    7,181

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jebadiah
    Well this pisses me off!

    I miss a few days of checking out Blueblood, and so I missed out on participating in this thread when it was hot.
    I don't think anyone will punish you for adding your thoughts now (unless you come up with a really hot punishment.)

  8. #48
    Mr Karl's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    4,725

    Default Re: Socialism

    socialism doesn't work here's why.......I enjoy working, it's one of the few things I do very well and I can do a lot of it. I also like getting paid for working and I enjoy spending the money I earn on things I want. I am also very good at surviving without a job(hunting, gathering and tilling the earth) and the day anyone thinks that I'm going to work for the benifit of others free of charge is the day that I stop working and start waiting for the day when only the workers are left. So socialsim won't work because the people who do the work won't allow it.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Socialism

    One of the tough aspects of universal healthcare are the particular market dynamics which are at extremes in a case where the outcome is critical: doctors are inclined to order more tests, do more procedures, etc. - some because that's how they make money, others just like to cover all the bases - it's hard to say how much is unneccessary, bu the other side, the bean counters that work for the HMO's assume it is, and are loathe to spend a dime on anything but proven procedures.

    There is no reason to suspect that this dynamic will change in a socialized healthcare system, which would most likely be (or should be) designed to take advantage of market dynamics to accomplish what capitalism is designed to accomplish: stimulate innovation and efficiency through competition in ways that increase quality while lowering price - and at the same time, providing a reasonable level of healthcare for everyone.

    Applying market dynamics to healthcare is a bit of a conundrum that no one has quite managed to resolve to everyones satisfaction

  10. #50
    Morning Glory's Avatar Apathetic Voter
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Campbell's (or is it Warhol's?) Primordial Soup
    Posts
    5,643

    Default Re: Socialism

    well the thing is that for most of time working and not working were ubiquitous. work wasn't seen as something that was seperate from the rest of the stuff that you do, it wasn't seen at all. it was all just doing stuff. it's only because working is tied to material production and more boradly economics that any action that isn't a part of these things (while still contributing to society because it's an action being performed by a member of society.) is seen as not working.

    going to school, playing firsbee, having sex, cooking food, making footballs, selling stocks, raising kids, getting sick and dying- these are all "work" because they are things that faccilitate society.

  11. #51
    Jebadiah's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wickedanima
    I beg to freaking differ. I wouldn't give a rodent's behind if I got the worst healthcare, if myself and the other piss-poor in the U.S. could get any at all. The problem is that no money equals no doctor. If my arm gets broken, I will literally have no way to receive healthcare, or even worse, I will have to sell my first born just to be seen by an ER doctor.

    Socialized Medicine HAS its problems, but at least really really freaking poor people can get some sort of 'bad care', rather than having to pay for the rest of their lives for the same horrible medical care.

    Socialized medicine/education, don't we already have it? Even if we are not calling it by name. From my personal history I've accepted alot of free money from the government.

    Chronologically:

    I got sick with Acute Respiratory Disorder (ARDs) and was in the hospital for two weeks ( in a coma for one week), and I racked up a bill of $60,000, the government paid for it. Even though I was claiming $30,000 a year income and I just never got around to buying healthcare coverage.

    The government paid for my college education, and they also gave me an equal amount in loans, just so I would have some spending money.

    I started collecting unemployment two months before starting school and instead of it being considered double dipping, they doubled its term ( I even tried to talk them out of that).

    My wife and I had two babies while I was in school, and the government covered those hospital bills too.

    I am definately not proud of taking these hand outs. And I never considered my self poor enough to be eligible for these moneys, but there it is, your tax dollars at work. So while current healthcare may not provide free preventative care, if you have no coverage, and you brake your arm, go to the emergancy room, the government will pay for it. And if you want a free college education wait until your considered an adult by the government (it was 26), then they'll stop looking at your parents income, and they'll pay your way.

  12. #52

    Default Re: Socialism

    The top one-tenth of 1 percent, about 130,500 taxpayers, reported their average income fell almost 17 percent, to just under $4.9 million each in 2004. Because of the tax cuts after-tax incomes fell by a significantly smaller amount, 12.1 percent.
    ’04 Income in U.S. Was Below 2000 Level

    i.e., we grew the pie lower.

  13. #53
    Bedlamite
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Places.
    Posts
    1,044

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Jebadiah
    So while current healthcare may not provide free preventative care, if you have no coverage, and you brake your arm, go to the emergancy room, the government will pay for it. And if you want a free college education wait until your considered an adult by the government (it was 26), then they'll stop looking at your parents income, and they'll pay your way.
    ...The Government has never covered my healthcare, its all been out of pocket. When I got my Gallblader out, I owed ALOT of money, and it was the doctor that forgave my debt, not the Government. If I broke my arm, it would be out of pocket, the Government wouldn't cover me. And since when do they pay for your education? I'd like to know about these programs, like names numbers and departments, because I know that most of this impoverished county would like free medical care and education!

  14. #54
    Jebadiah's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Socialism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wickedanima
    ...The Government has never covered my healthcare, its all been out of pocket. When I got my Gallblader out, I owed ALOT of money, and it was the doctor that forgave my debt, not the Government. If I broke my arm, it would be out of pocket, the Government wouldn't cover me. And since when do they pay for your education? I'd like to know about these programs, like names numbers and departments, because I know that most of this impoverished county would like free medical care and education!


    When I was in the hospital, and when my wife had our babies, we recieved Access cards through our county asistance office (Pennsylvania). In the case of me in the hospital, a person came around to my room and took my info and told me what would happen, and that what the government wouldn't cover the hospital would forgive. And the last time we had a baby they not only gave my wife and child Access cards for a year, they also gave me one, and once you have the card it covers everything; medicine and visits to the doctor.

    As for a college education, just go to the college of your choice and find the financial aid department. You will have to fill out one hell of a form but its worth it. Both Federal and State government offer grants (free money), and loans to help you through your college years. Another thing to consider is that state colleges are always cheaper then private colleges. And although the government takes that into account when they figure the amount to give you, no matter the money will go further at a state school. Also, a state school may not have 'state' in its name, mine didn't. One last thing, when I started college, I was accepted with no SAT's and only a GED.

    I'd be suprised if your state doesn't offer aid. Sometimes I think the main reason aid is not going to people who need it, is that no one lets them know its there for them. I've definiteley seen that alot here in PA., in my role as a foster parent.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Blue Blood
Trappings | Personalities | Galleries | Entertainment | Art | Books | Music | Popcorn | Sex | Happenings | Oddities | Trade/Business | Manifesto | Media | Community
Blue Blood | Contact Us | Advertise | Submissions | About Blue Blood | Links | $Webmasters$
Interested in being a Blue Blood model, writer, illustrator, or photographer? Get in touch