Why stupid people want socialism

The class war can only be won when enough of us can convince enough others that socialism is beneficial to them.

Oh, you mean like Prof. Richard Wolff? Bachelors in economics from Harvard, Masters in economics from Stanford, PhD. in economics from Yale, and a solid Marxist. You mean stupid, low IQ like that, loser?

I wonder what he has actually done in the real world vs what his theories say...

He could be an educated dummy who's "theories" hold no water

It is only beneficial to those at the very bottom of the economic ladder, it has no benefits to the middle or upper class, so how it is going to benefit them?

Do you see personal benefit or just a human benefit? What personal benefit do you see?

Healthcare- Seems practical but not cost effective for almost 350 million people.

Satisfaction with being treated well.- What does this mean? Treated well?

Prospects for a good future.- I'm not sure Socialism does this better than what the US already does.

An end to public advertising of prescription drugs (that irks me as inappropriate).- Why are you against this? They have a product to sell, why shouldn't they be able to advertise it? Do you advocate govt take over of the entire health care industry?

Less worry about wars. How do you figure? Socialism isn't going to tame Humanities nature... You are foolish if you think it will lead to the end of wars.

Reduction or elimination of homeless people begging me for handouts.- I think this is another pipe dream. Do you claim that there are no poor people in those counties you want to emulate?

Improving economy.- I don't think Socialism is the boon to an economy as you think. Which nations have the strongest economies right now?

End of harmful products and food additives and pesticides/herbicides.- This is nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with control over everything. Harmful products is very vague and could include products you don't like or don't think people should have, like guns or sodas... Not sure how you think you can grow tons of food without pesticides/herbicides?

It is cost effective for every other developed country that doesn't rely on private insurers for coverage. And the quality of care is better in many cases.

Satisfaction with life.

Our inequality is increasing, poverty is increasing, we are gradually moving toward fascism, global warming is not being addressed under this system, education is failing, private prisons are worsening the problem, healthcare is threatened, we are increasingly divided. Do you think all of that promises a good future?

Think. Why advertise prescription drugs?

Are we supposed to self-prescribe, -to tell our doctor what drug we want? Does advertising drugs undermine the perceived authority and expertise of doctors? Yes it does.

Doctors will tell you that some patients tell them what drug they want and if the doctor won't prescribe it, they will go to another doctor who will do what the patient wants him to do.

Ask doctors like I did. They will tell you. Advertising drugs is completely inappropriate as we are not to be consumers who make decisions about drugs.

"End"? I didn't say "end". I said "less". And you lack objective knowledge of our wars if you think they are not often waged for the benefit of big business, -usually oil corporations. Right now Venezuela is being threatened by our Child in Chief. I don't suppose you know the depth and breadth of the propaganda we've been subjected to regarding Venezuela.

This is why the right is so conservative and pro USA no matter what. Remember "love it or leave it"? The right is uninformed misinformed on so many things. What I remember is that we had very little homelessness until Reagan defunded mental health centers and did a few other things. Homelessness, like so many of our problems, is an economic problem created by our economic system.

Socialism is in its developmental stage, but studies show that businesses structured on a socialist model have higher productivity, morale, sales and wages, according to analysts. Rutgers University, which has studied the topic extensively, has found that employee ownership boosted company productivity by an average of 4 percent, while profits went up 14 percent.
https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/17/senators-look-take-vermont-worker-owner-effort-nationwide/
http://ownership.rutgers.edu/

I don't think you are taking population into account nor are you taking who actually pays federal income taxes into account. A majority of the nations you are talking about have a fraction of the population size of the US. In fact most of those "socialist" nations in Scandinavia have a population of about 21 million... that is the population of Florida, a single state in the US. Denmark has 5.7 million people, New York city has just over 8 million. What you want to do works with smaller populations but I don't think it works in larger populations let alone with populations were there is a larger percentage that don't really pay into the federal system, that brings me to taxes.

A majority of the US population doesn't contribute to the Federal tax base although they do contribute to their state and local taxes via sales tax and other such taxes.

So in reality the only way to do what you deem "right" is at the state level and then it is by choice of the people who live in those states.

I think you will find a majority of the states will go the way Colorado did in 2016, against a push for single payer. When they start to do the math, they won't see the savings in medical over what they will pay in taxes.

I think a portion of inequality and poverty have a lot to do with the personal choices people make and the paths they take. I don't think the wealthy are doing anything on purpose to screw the American people, I think that is a left-wing conspiracy theory.

I'm not even going to talk about climate change, I see it as a ploy by the left to take control of the US economy and eliminate portions of the economy they don't like.

Education? You mean the one thing the left-wing in the US has had their full control of for the last several decades, at least since the 1970's?

Quote:

It is cost effective for every other developed country that doesn't rely on private insurers for coverage. And the quality of care is better in many cases.

I don't think you are taking population into account nor are you taking who actually pays federal income taxes into account. A majority of the nations you are talking about have a fraction of the population size of the US. In fact most of those "socialist" nations in Scandinavia have a population of about 21 million... that is the population of Florida, a single state in the US. Denmark has 5.7 million people, New York city has just over 8 million. What you want to do works with smaller populations but I don't think it works in larger populations let alone with populations were there is a larger percentage that don't really pay into the federal system, that brings me to taxes.

That's always the objection but there is never a sound, clear, cause/effect analysis offered.... because there isn't any. Cost per capita is the correct measure and it tells the story.

That would be corrected by boosting the economy, creating jobs, building demand for goods, and making the US prosperous again. But Republicans didn't want Obama to accomplish anything so they obstructed his efforts.

Completely wrong. That would produce inconsistencies, pockets of bad programs and pockets of great programs, and there would be an effort to go where it's best, especially for retirees, and then you would get pockets of elderly with expensive medical costs. For the best results it needs to be one program delivered the same for all. Interesting that education has a similar need for success.

The problem with Colorado and Vermont where it was also proposed and studied, is that even when the state implements a plan, there are still federal taxes and regulations to contend with, and they make it unworkable. That's another reason why it must be a national program.

Sorry pal, but it's a fact that for 30 years productivity has gone up, up, up and real wages have remained flat as you can see here: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/44/440c34f52d3d1d344a1cca6b755557ae.png But the inequality in incomes as well as wealth has grown hugely while productivity increased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_in_the_United_States.png

This one is interesting: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Income_inequality_-_share_of_income_earned_by_top_1%25_1975_to_2015.png

Sure! You believe the paid naysayers and ignore the qualified scientific 90%.

RIGHT!!!! Bush was a lefty with his NCLB!!!

It's time for the right to face the fact that they have no arguments.