0
   

Why stupid people want socialism

 
 
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2017 04:04 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cX5EHhBSFo

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 514 • Replies: 32

 
Senter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 10:01 pm
@gungasnake,
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?
hibbitus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2017 01:45 pm
@gungasnake,
This guy seems reasonably well informed, but incapable of drawing legitimate conclusions from the information he has. Beware anyone who argues in analogies, they rarely reach the truth. How about starting out with the lack of upward mobility in the US, add in the moral imperative to treat all people as human beings, and season with a bit of despair and hunger. This stupid **** should know all of these facts and should be able to see they lead to only one conclusion.
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Sep, 2017 10:45 pm
@hibbitus,
It's a class war issue. He's an uninformed rightie.
hibbitus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2017 01:25 pm
@Senter,
I was in a foul mood when I first enountered this video. I will agree that he is a far-out right winger, but he is also a potential brother. The only problem is finding a way to get him to step over his prejudices and to reason from the truth rather than his warped interpretation of the world. The class war can only be won when enough of us can convince enough others that socialism is beneficial to them.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2017 03:17 pm
@hibbitus,
Quote:
The class war can only be won when enough of us can convince enough others that socialism is beneficial to them.

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?
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2017 03:21 pm
@Senter,
Quote:
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...
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 04:30 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
I wonder what he has actually done in the real world vs what his theories say...

But that has nothing to do with whether he's stupid or not.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 11:40 am
@hightor,
He could be an educated dummy who's "theories" hold no water in the real world and don't function as expected, so I wonder what these people have actually done in the real world outside of academia to try and prove their theories? Would you listen to a poor economist who never earned a cent of money outside of the University setting?
centrox
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2017 11:41 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
He could be an educated dummy who's "theories" hold no water

Or who doesn't know the difference between who's and whose?
0 Replies
 
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2017 11:06 pm
@hibbitus,
We have to be smart enough to discern those who are honest and receptive to reason, from those who are resistant to sound reasoning. That guy has a contemptuous attitude toward a group of people who live in his contemptuous imagination. Before he can be convinced that socialism is beneficial to him, we would have to first persuade him to reject his own contempt.

We con't have to win over every one of those who have reservations.
0 Replies
 
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2017 11:08 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
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?

I'm in the upper middle class and I see great benefit in socialism. I perceive that you hold mistaken understandings about socialism.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2017 09:30 am
@Senter,
Do you see personal benefit or just a human benefit? What personal benefit do you see?
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2017 12:57 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Do you see personal benefit or just a human benefit? What personal benefit do you see?

Healthcare
Satisfaction with being treated well.
Prospects for a good future.
An end to public advertising of prescription drugs (that irks me as inappropriate).
Less worry about wars.
Reduction or elimination of homeless people begging me for handouts.
Improving economy.
End of harmful products and food additives and pesticides/herbicides.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2017 01:47 pm
@Senter,
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?


Etc.-
Etc.
Etc.[/quote]

You are going to have to cover some of these as they don't seem related to Socialism at all but related to Authoritarianism.
Senter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 11:15 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Healthcare- Seems practical but not cost effective for almost 350 million people.

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.


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

Satisfaction with life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index


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

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?


Quote:
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?

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.


Quote:
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.

"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.


Quote:
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?

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.


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

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/


Quote:
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?

There are non-toxic ways of managing pests. There are non-toxic household cleaning agents that work perfectly well. Industrial pollution is generated and spewed into the environment often because it costs money to do otherwise and money is profit. When profits are no longer supreme and workers who live in the local community are managing production, what worker is going to vote for polluting his community for greater profit? It's time you looked into these things.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2017 01:28 pm
@Senter,
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.

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. Sure they pay their income taxes during the year, but a majority of that is wiped out by the income tax refund they get each year. 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'm sure though, that you will always find someone to vote for their free stuff.

Quote:
Satisfaction with life.

23/178?

Quote:
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?

We will have to disagree on how to "solve" inequality and poverty as I don't think any thing the American left wants to do will fix the issues. 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 think the US push over the last couple of decades for people to get degree's over a trade education has done more damage to the middle class than anything the "wealthy" have done.

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. I'm all for tech and my next car is going to be a Tesla Model 3 but I don't want to see the heavy hand of govt picking winners and losers in this climate debate. Let the market do it's thing, don't let the govt manipulate the market.

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? We spend more on education than most developed nations and we have worse results. Education in the US isn't what it used to be and I think the only way to improve our system is to eliminate the teachers unions, teachers themselves are great hard working people, but the unions are nothing more then protection rackets.

Quote:
Think. Why advertise prescription drugs?

Why advertise anything? Someone created a product and they want to sell it, on top of that there are more than one manufacture of that product so you need to get the word out about yours.

Quote:
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.

Of course we don't self-prescribe, but you are also assuming that your Doctor knows about all of the new medicines that are being released. Why can't I ask my Doctor about different drugs? Authority? That sure is a weird word to use in relation to Dr's.

Quote:
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.

I think you are confusing "drug/doctor" shopping for by drug addicts vs someone with asthma or diabetes wanting to try a medicine they saw a commercial for. My sister who has been a nurse for about 20 years has tons of stories about the "shoppers" and won't take a job in the ER because of it.

Quote:
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.

I don't go to the Dr. that often but the next time I'm there, I'll ask, but I disagree that we as patients are not also consumers and should have information and knowledge about the drugs and treatments that are available to us. My grandfather was a Dr. in Chicago and I remember him telling me that as a patient we should have as much information as possible to make our medical decisions, he said to take a single opinion on serious matters of health was silly and short sighted. I think any Doctor who disagrees with this is a narcissist.

Quote:
"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.

We won't be able to discuss this issue if you think what is going on in Venezuela is nothing more than propaganda against socialism. I think your take on modern war is shortsighted and bias against big business. I look at war through history and humanity is not a gentle beast and we will never be as peaceful as you think they will be.

Quote:
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.

The left's favorite punching bag, Reagan. What Reagan did was return the funding from the federal govt back to the states. Do you not recall the stories of how poorly people were treated by these institutions there were placed in? There was a reason these places closed and Reagan had very little to do with it.

Quote:
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/

Sounds like a good idea but this should be done at the state level and not at the Federal level, it should also be a choice by the company owners on their employers. If the owners of the company don't agree with such a setup, then there should be no way to force them to do this and at the federal level is is what is likely to happen, not with a right leaning govt mind you but if the left got the power it would be forced on company owners nation wide. Anything like this at the Federal level is a no go for me.

Senter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2017 09:04 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

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.


Quote:
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.

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.


Quote:
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.

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.


Quote:
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.

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


Quote:
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.

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


Quote:
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?

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

It's time for the right to face the fact that they have no arguments.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2017 11:53 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

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.


I'm not going to be checking back into this thread, but I always find this argument to be weak.

So if 1 European country has the population of Florida, and the one next to it has the population of Alabama, and the one next to it has the population of Mississippi, and the one next to it has the population of Texas, and so on and so on....and all of those countries are able to have cheaper, more universal single-payer healthcare....why can't the USA?

Here's a handy chart of country size compared to state sizes...if all those smaller countries can have better healthcare than our individual states do....why can't we again?

(note, this state/country list includes countries without universal healthcare, it's meant to illustrate a point...that each state could implement the same universal healthcare policy as the closest in population country with UHC)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MBqYeyygdJc/VsKyBzKjEyI/AAAAAAAAJi8/9bVQTq2WhcQ/s1600/pop_states.JPG
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2017 01:10 pm
@Senter,
Quote:
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.

It doesn't tell the story with larger populations, and you are just assuming that what works for a population of 5 million people will work for 350 million... The logic isn't sound and you know it.

Quote:
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.

Obama wasn't going to accomplish anything, because he thought govt had all the answers and could solve those problems via laws and regulations, he did nothing to unleash the US economy because as someone who had never had a real job or employed people, he had no idea how business worked, he was a community organizer with a law degree and knew nothing about business. Before you say anything, I don't think Trump is going to solve the issues either, it all involves "govt solutions" and not market solutions.

Quote:
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.

This is why these types of programs will never work in the US, the populations are not the same and neither are their needs. A govt program for all is a waste of resources and it should be left to the states to create programs based on what their populations need. One size all programs don't fit and don't work with large populations, no matter how much you think they will. Reality isn't on your side. Just like a fake $15.00/hr wage won't work across the US. Education doesn't work that way either, you are assuming all kids learn the same. Have you had kids?

Quote:
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.

I love how you are basically saying, it won't work until we are all on it... You don't have much faith in the 10th Amendment do you? The problem in CO had nothing to do with regulations or the federal govt and everything to do with costs, no one was fooled by the phony math the single payer supporters were offering. It was rejected on sound grounds. What is going to happen when the single payer fails in the US, will it have to expand to include the entire of North American to properly work? When that fails will it eventually have to include the entire planet to properly work? That's the problem with Socialism and Communism, they only claim to work when everyone is on the same page...

Quote:
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


Which wages have remained flat? Skilled labor or skilled jobs have continued to rise, it is the lower end the labor market that has gone flat and there isn't much that can be done for that. We can't force $15/hr, it isn't practical for the entire country as the cost of living is different for state and even in different part states. CO at the same time we shot down single payer, we passed an increase to our minimum wage to be at $12.00/hr over the next couple of years, it's currently $9.80/hr and will go up another 80 cents in Jan 2018.
Unskilled labor, which is a majority of low income jobs are not going to pay someone $15 to bus tables or or flip burgers, hell even working in retail isn't worth the $15/hr because there is no skills but to be nice to the customer but for some reason being nice to the customer is considered a special skill...

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

Here's my take on the 90% myth:
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
The climate has always shifted and will continue to shift and there is nothing man can do to effect the climate. It is the ultimate hubris of man to think we have such an impact on the planet without taking the rest of the Solar system into account, like the Sun and everything that takes place concerning it.


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

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

If you think education wasn't in trouble before NCLB, then you have a very narrow view of what happens in the US. Our standards have been slipping for years and teachers and admins concern themselves with everything but the basic education. Kids can't spell but they know better than to call a trans-gendered child by the wrong gender... they can't do basic math but they want to tell me how much I should pay in taxes... and they don't have a basic understanding of the US Constitution but they want to demand things that aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, like health care and a min basic income.

Your "no argument" is weak at best and lazy at worst. You should really try to expand on your lazy answers.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why stupid people want socialism
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2017 at 02:38:56