Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why are we all becoming socialists now?
Options
Comments
-
Traditional Conservatism and Socialism are bullsh3t. Libertarianism is where it's at!0
-
rossie1977 wrote: »the polish lived under a communist regime controlled from mother russia
if you want to see socialism at work in 2012 go visit one of the nordic countries
Norway is a Joke. It's the most, if not the most taxed country in the world. The quality of life is good, until it comes to payday for the Government. Switzerland is 1,000,000,000 times better because they support social and economic liberty, whereas Norway only holds social order, not economic order. Socialism is enslavement.0 -
GombeanMan wrote: »Traditional Conservatism and Socialism are bullsh3t. Libertarianism is where it's at!
Libertarianism is a whole other level of bullshít !0 -
GombeanMan wrote: »Norway is a Joke.
course it is, even the extreme right wing rag the daily mail was forced to admit http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218276/Norway-crowned-best-place-world-live--UK-trails-21st-place.html0 -
rossie1977 wrote: »course it is, even the extreme right wing rag the daily mail was forced to admit http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218276/Norway-crowned-best-place-world-live--UK-trails-21st-place.html
Best place to live is not a quantified datum. It's a moral stance perpetuated by the Socialists. I want to run a company, why the hell would I set up in Norway, a tax prison? Explain that one to me please!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Because austerity isn't working.
Because the rich have far too great a share of the nation's resources hoarded away.
Because the only way to set in train a meaningful recovery is to unlock those resources and put them to work, for all of our benefits.
Because its a more rational, fairer way of organising society.
Because neoliberal, free market capitalism has failed.
Socialism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, btw. While I'm at it, neoliberal capitalism doesn't seem to be much compatible with democracy either - just look at Greece and Italy.
This is complete and utter horsesh$t I am afriad. The European Union is the one implementing all this austerity. Remove the Socialistic Policies of the EU, and austerity stops. Granted, some Socialists don't trust the EU, and I would commend them for it, but you have to realise that
European Union = MASSIVE CRIPPLING AUSTERITY.
It's not rocket science to figure out the source of these measures. If you an EU supporter, you support Austerity by default.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »Why shouldn't you be rewarded for working hard to attain the qualification that allows you to live a comfortable life?
Nobody's denying people who work hard the right to a comfortable life. But the top 10% get 25% of the disposable income in this country. The cumulative effect of this has been that 1% of the population holds 20% of the nation's wealth. That's a bit beyond comfortable.
Meanwhile 17% of children are at risk of poverty, or brought up in poverty.
It's getting to the point where the wealthy need to make the choice between letting some of these resources go in order to give the majority of the population have a better life, or hide out in their gated communities with armed guards, as the rest of the country falls into penury. Won't be much of a life for anyone if they're allowed to follow the latter course.
why should we be allowed take rich people's wealth and give it too the poor, where's the incentive to work hard and to do well for yourself, without the reward of wealth why would anyone set up a business and create jobs.
Some people are smarter, work harder and are better at becoming wealthy. I thinks lot of this desire for socialism comes out of insecurity and jealousy that other people are better at succeeding in business.0 -
Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »why should we be allowed take rich people's wealth and give it too the poor, where's the incentive to work hard and to do well for yourself, without the reward of wealth why would anyone set up a business and create jobs.
Some people are smarter, work harder and are better at becoming wealthy. I thinks lot of this desire for socialism comes out of insecurity and jealousy that other people are better at succeeding in business.
Because the 'American Dream' is an advertising ply. The idea that you can work hard and make something of yourself is simply not true. In America the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider and the middle-class is being decimated.
The Scandinavian states have created some major companies and yeah rich people have to pay more of their income in tax. They use up more of the scarce resources on the planet.
Besides people don't need 100s of billions of dollars.
Socialism did not fail in Russia, Soviet Russia was a fascist state rather than a socialist state.
No system of government could have succeeded in Cuba whilst it's neighbour and biggest trading partner implemented a trade embargo.
Socialism doesn't have to mean the eradication of private property or company ownership. Neither does it have to mean that hard work, innovation and success should not be rewarded. It is more about ensuring that everybody in society who is able to work has a job and in return can take home a fair wage that allows them to live comfortably. Those who are unable to work because of illness, age or disability are supported by those who can.
Many wealthy people accept this.
Bill Gates "People like me don't pay enough taxes'
Warren Buffet is another prime example of a billionaire who advocates higher taxes for richer people.
A recent poll suggest that almost 70% of rich people feel the same
.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/
It is not about jealousy or insecurity, it is about making sure that key workers such as nurses, teachers, care-workers, bus-drivers etc etc etc are paid enough money to live comfortably.0 -
forfuxsake wrote: »Because the 'American Dream' is an advertising ply. The idea that you can work hard and make something of yourself is simply not true. In America the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider and the middle-class is being decimated.
That is because the Libertarian philiosophy upon which the states was founded has been hijacked by the Republican and Democratic parties who both implement policies that undermine social and economic progress within the country. These two parties are responsible for the current mess in America. Adam Smith would be turning in his grave.forfuxsake wrote: »The Scandinavian states have created some major companies and yeah rich people have to pay more of their income in tax. They use up more of the scarce resources on the planet.
Feck all really in comparison to the USA and other non Socialist companies. Infact, most major Corporations today like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc are a result of low American taxation and a philosophy of encouraging growth. Nobody with an ounce of sense would set up a primary major corporation in one of these countries, at least for day to day operations. The USA, China and India and others will suffice.forfuxsake wrote: »Besides people don't need 100s of billions of dollars.
This is a moral stance. My primary goal in life is to accumulate wealth. It gives you the ultimate social and political bargaining power, as all other resource ownership is derived from this resource.forfuxsake wrote: »Socialism did not fail in Russia, Soviet Russia was a fascist state rather than a socialist state.
Russia in the USSR was infact a Federation of Communist states, Socialism is the first step in the integration of a full communist state. Socialism is deeply related to Communisn in it's ideology, albeit less extreme. The socialists want eventual Communism. It's within the creed of Socialism.forfuxsake wrote: »No system of government could have succeeded in Cuba whilst it's neighbour and biggest trading partner implemented a trade embargo.
Cuba was acting the **** with mass warfare, it's to be expected. The USA is better off ignoring Cuba, because frankly, Cuba is of no benefit to the US Economy.forfuxsake wrote: »Socialism doesn't have to mean the eradication of private property or company ownership. Neither does it have to mean that hard work, innovation and success should not be rewarded. It is more about ensuring that everybody in society who is able to work has a job and in return can take home a fair wage that allows them to live comfortably. Those who are unable to work because of illness, age or disability are supported by those who can.
Many wealthy people accept this.
Bill Gates "People like me don't pay enough taxes'
Warren Buffet is another prime example of a billionaire who advocates higher taxes for richer people.
A recent poll suggest that almost 70% of rich people feel the same
.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/
It is not about jealousy or insecurity, it is about making sure that key workers such as nurses, teachers, care-workers, bus-drivers etc etc etc are paid enough money to live comfortably.
This is all just opinion. The fact is, Socialism is the first step down the long road to Communism. Socialism as an element of Communism is immutable. Just because these people wish to live in communes without much money or private property, while sponging off other people, does not mean it should be accepted. Socialism is now very close to Communism in it's philosopy.0 -
forfuxsake wrote: »Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »why should we be allowed take rich people's wealth and give it too the poor, where's the incentive to work hard and to do well for yourself, without the reward of wealth why would anyone set up a business and create jobs.
Some people are smarter, work harder and are better at becoming wealthy. I thinks lot of this desire for socialism comes out of insecurity and jealousy that other people are better at succeeding in business.
Because the 'American Dream' is an advertising ply. The idea that you can work hard and make something of yourself is simply not true. In America the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider and the middle-class is being decimated.
The Scandinavian states have created some major companies and yeah rich people have to pay more of their income in tax. They use up more of the scarce resources on the planet.
Besides people don't need 100s of billions of dollars.
Socialism did not fail in Russia, Soviet Russia was a fascist state rather than a socialist state.
No system of government could have succeeded in Cuba whilst it's neighbour and biggest trading partner implemented a trade embargo.
Socialism doesn't have to mean the eradication of private property or company ownership. Neither does it have to mean that hard work, innovation and success should not be rewarded. It is more about ensuring that everybody in society who is able to work has a job and in return can take home a fair wage that allows them to live comfortably. Those who are unable to work because of illness, age or disability are supported by those who can.
Many wealthy people accept this.
Bill Gates "People like me don't pay enough taxes'
Warren Buffet is another prime example of a billionaire who advocates higher taxes for richer people.
A recent poll suggest that almost 70% of rich people feel the same
.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/
It is not about jealousy or insecurity, it is about making sure that key workers such as nurses, teachers, care-workers, bus-drivers etc etc etc are paid enough money to live comfortably.
How is hard work and innovation rewarded under socialism?
How do you decide what a fair wage is for each profession?
If you read economics you'll realise we are worse off for the most part by interfering with the free market?
I don't work as hard as I could to earn a promotion because the extra work and responsibility isnt rewarded due to our high tax rates, being taxed half your income past 32k or whatever it is is ridiculous.0 -
Advertisement
-
Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »How is hard work and innovation rewarded under socialism?
How is hard work rewarded under capitalism? My grandfather worked extremely hard his whole life as a miner and lived and died in relative poverty. Fair reward?How do you decide what a fair wage is for each profession?
Well it wouldn't be based on the lowest amount a desperate person who has no other option will do it for.
[/QUOTE]If you read economics you'll realise we are worse off for the most part by interfering with the free market?[/QUOTE]
That's right better we plunder the earth's limited resources now so that a small percentage of the earth's population can get super rich while millions starve. Yeah the last few years has shown us the wonders of free-market capitalism. Boom bust.
[/QUOTE]I don't work as hard as I could to earn a promotion because the extra work and responsibility isnt rewarded due to our high tax rates, being taxed half your income past 32k or whatever it is is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It just means that the employer would have to sacrifice more of the profit to reward hard work. In other words the pay rise takes into account the higher taxes and the companies profits fall. In other words if you work hard for a company you are entitled to a greater share of their profits.0 -
GombeanMan wrote: »That is because the Libertarian philiosophy upon which the states was founded has been hijacked by the Republican and Democratic parties who both implement policies that undermine social and economic progress within the country. These two parties are responsible for the current mess in America. Adam Smith would be turning in his grave.
Feck all really in comparison to the USA and other non Socialist companies. Infact, most major Corporations today like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc are a result of low American taxation and a philosophy of encouraging growth. Nobody with an ounce of sense would set up a primary major corporation in one of these countries, at least for day to day operations. The USA, China and India and others will suffice.
This is a moral stance. My primary goal in life is to accumulate wealth. It gives you the ultimate social and political bargaining power, as all other resource ownership is derived from this resource.
Russia in the USSR was infact a Federation of Communist states, Socialism is the first step in the integration of a full communist state. Socialism is deeply related to Communisn in it's ideology, albeit less extreme. The socialists want eventual Communism. It's within the creed of Socialism.
Cuba was acting the **** with mass warfare, it's to be expected. The USA is better off ignoring Cuba, because frankly, Cuba is of no benefit to the US Economy.
This is all just opinion. The fact is, Socialism is the first step down the long road to Communism. Socialism as an element of Communism is immutable. Just because these people wish to live in communes without much money or private property, while sponging off other people, does not mean it should be accepted. Socialism is now very close to Communism in it's philosopy.
It is close to Communism but humans are close to gorillas, it don't make us the same.
Anyways time will tell. We are heading for a federal Europe and this will become a socialist state. The centrist right wing parties have failed in France, Italy and Greece. They will soon fail in Spain and appear to be failing in the UK(which may not be included). Europe will adopt the Scandinavian model and we will all live happily ever after.0 -
If you read economics you'll realise we are worse off for the most part by interfering with the free market?[/QUOTE]forfuxsake wrote: »Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »How is hard work and innovation rewarded under socialism?
How is hard work rewarded under capitalism? My grandfather worked extremely hard his whole life as a miner and lived and died in relative poverty. Fair reward?How do you decide what a fair wage is for each profession?
Well it wouldn't be based on the lowest amount a desperate person who has no other option will do it for.
That's right better we plunder the earth's limited resources now so that a small percentage of the earth's population can get super rich while millions starve. Yeah the last few years has shown us the wonders of free-market capitalism. Boom bust.
[/QUOTE]I don't work as hard as I could to earn a promotion because the extra work and responsibility isnt rewarded due to our high tax rates, being taxed half your income past 32k or whatever it is is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It just means that the employer would have to sacrifice more of the profit to reward hard work. In other words the pay rise takes into account the higher taxes and the companies profits fall. In other words if you work hard for a company you are entitled to a greater share of their profits.[/Quote]
What's the obsession with the super rich, they are a tiny minority.
Your grandfather could have set up his own business if that is such a walk in the park as you seem to be implying. Hard work, intelligence and courage are rewarded under capitalism, being a moron while working hard won't get you very far. That's just tough. If there was a system that existed that allowed everyone to live in pure bliss then that's what I'd recommend, but that's impossible, resources are limited, the laws of supply and demand offers the fairest way of allocating resources.
Why go to the trouble and risk of setting up a business and creating jobs if you could earn a similar amount as an employee under socialism?
Socialism sounds great, but when you dig deeper the practicalities and reality of it make people worse off, including the poor guy working at the bottom rung of the ladder. Look at the high minimum wage for example, as a result unemployment is higher as businesses can't afford to pay the minimum wage to more employees.0 -
Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »If you read economics you'll realise we are worse off for the most part by interfering with the free market?
That's right better we plunder the earth's limited resources now so that a small percentage of the earth's population can get super rich while millions starve. Yeah the last few years has shown us the wonders of free-market capitalism. Boom bust.
[/QUOTE]I don't work as hard as I could to earn a promotion because the extra work and responsibility isnt rewarded due to our high tax rates, being taxed half your income past 32k or whatever it is is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
It just means that the employer would have to sacrifice more of the profit to reward hard work. In other words the pay rise takes into account the higher taxes and the companies profits fall. In other words if you work hard for a company you are entitled to a greater share of their profits.[/Quote]
What's the obsession with the super rich, they are a tiny minority.
Your grandfather could have set up his own business if that is such a walk in the park as you seem to be implying. Hard work, intelligence and courage are rewarded under capitalism, being a moron while working hard won't get you very far. That's just tough. If there was a system that existed that allowed everyone to live in pure bliss then that's what I'd recommend, but that's impossible, resources are limited, the laws of supply and demand offers the fairest way of allocating resources.
Why go to the trouble and risk of setting up a business and creating jobs if you could earn a similar amount as an employee under socialism?
Socialism sounds great, but when you dig deeper the practicalities and reality of it make people worse off, including the poor guy working at the bottom rung of the ladder. Look at the high minimum wage for example, as a result unemployment is higher as businesses can't afford to pay the minimum wage to more employees.[/QUOTE]
Modern socialism isn't the idea that everybody lives in two rooms and drives a lada. It is the idea that wealth should be better shared across the workforce. I don't deny that those who take risks and create employment don't deserve financial reward. I only believe that those who own companies should give a more equitable share of its profits to its employees and the wider society. To its employees as a reward/motivator for their hard work and to wider society because they are using up more of the finite resources of the state.0 -
I don't work as hard as I could to earn a promotion because the extra work and responsibility isnt rewarded due to our high tax rates, being taxed half your income past 32k or whatever it is is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]forfuxsake wrote: »Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »If you read economics you'll realise we are worse off for the most part by interfering with the free market?
That's right better we plunder the earth's limited resources now so that a small percentage of the earth's population can get super rich while millions starve. Yeah the last few years has shown us the wonders of free-market capitalism. Boom bust.
It just means that the employer would have to sacrifice more of the profit to reward hard work. In other words the pay rise takes into account the higher taxes and the companies profits fall. In other words if you work hard for a company you are entitled to a greater share of their profits.[/Quote]
What's the obsession with the super rich, they are a tiny minority.
Your grandfather could have set up his own business if that is such a walk in the park as you seem to be implying. Hard work, intelligence and courage are rewarded under capitalism, being a moron while working hard won't get you very far. That's just tough. If there was a system that existed that allowed everyone to live in pure bliss then that's what I'd recommend, but that's impossible, resources are limited, the laws of supply and demand offers the fairest way of allocating resources.
Why go to the trouble and risk of setting up a business and creating jobs if you could earn a similar amount as an employee under socialism?
Socialism sounds great, but when you dig deeper the practicalities and reality of it make people worse off, including the poor guy working at the bottom rung of the ladder. Look at the high minimum wage for example, as a result unemployment is higher as businesses can't afford to pay the minimum wage to more employees.[/QUOTE]
Modern socialism isn't the idea that everybody lives in two rooms and drives a lada. It is the idea that wealth should be better shared across the workforce. I don't deny that those who take risks and create employment don't deserve financial reward. I only believe that those who own companies should give a more equitable share of its profits to its employees and the wider society. To its employees as a reward/motivator for their hard work and to wider society because they are using up more of the finite resources of the state.[/Quote]
If you want the profits of a company buy its shares. The whole point of a company is to maximise profits, whose going to invest in companies when the profits are being given away. Giving away hard earned profits to those who didn't earn it is not equitable. If you want profits earn your own through finding away to provide a product/ service that is valuable.That's fair, it's about give and take. Apple earn huge profits because they provide us with a valuable product.0 -
Think most can agree that either pure capitalism or pure socialism are bad things, obviously the most sensible solution is a balanced mix of the two.
It's like pigeonholing people based on "left vs right" beliefs; it's simplistic and inaccurate (though that doesn't stop people getting reflexively ideological about it).
Also, Ireland has one of the lowest rates of corporate tax in Europe, so I don't understand the OP's complaints about tax hurting business; our low corporate tax is about the only "light at the end of the tunnel" for us now as we are fúcked without it (how else will we attract international business?).
Plus...it's the unregulated 'free market' economy that got us into this gigantic mess in the first place so....no, we shouldn't go back to (or rather, stay like) that, we need a stable moderately regulated economic system, or we'll be back in a similar mess in the future.
Also, look at what happens when the private banking industry fúcks up: in the good times, they privatize the profits, in the bad times, they socialize the debt.
What message does that give? They have zero accountability there, and as far as they are concerned they're free to fúck up without consequence, no penalties, fines, criminal investigations or jail sentences; in fact they get rewarded, get given free money for their gigantic mishandling of the economy?
Does an unregulated free market still sound good there? Will deregulation magically fix things or, idk....just give these greedy fúckers free reign to pillage the countries economy without consequence?
If this country is to return to a fair level of taxation, we need to get over the current economic mess first and pay back what the banks we owe; whether or not that is actually possible is (I think) still debatable, idk much about it though, we may be better off defaulting in the long run.
Would you really trust private industry to be in charge of something like social welfare, or the Gardai? That would ensure the poorest and least fortunate get fúcked over the most, and that we have an unaccountable, easily corrupted police force; you wouldn't even be able to hold your government to account for it, you'd just have faceless corporations that would be free to ignore you.af_thefragile wrote:The government doesn't need funds if private industries can do the jobs better than the government can.
You can't have 100% socialism or 100% capitalism, a mix of the two is the only sane way to run a country; deregulating/privatizing everything won't magically fix things.
Apart from our low corporate tax rate, Ireland (from my limited understanding admittedly) is a pretty shít place to do business compared to a lot of other places in Europe, so I don't think anything we do is going to cause a useful spurt in industrial development; what kind of industry would you support developing?af_thefragile wrote:The problem with Ireland is that there is no proper industrial sector to sustain the economy here and no one is willing to set one up either because of the high taxes. Hence just increasing taxes will not fix the economy.0 -
^A proper form of capitalism functioning with austrian economics (what the libertarians propose) would never allow the banks to exploit the economy. Also in a free state the babks would be allowed to close down rather than being bailed out and the bankers would be imprisoned for committing fraud.
Also lower corporation tax compared to other EU countries is not the only tax that keeps corporation out of Ireland. All the other taxes such as vat which make the cost of living in ireland very expensive. Also there is corruption in the government, poor resources and you can find a more hardworking labour in other countries for a lower rate. All these things make Ireland a pretty **** place to set up business.
But until there arent more businesses set up in ireland, the economy will just not recover. No economy can sustain itself without any industry. The reason why a country like Germany and now India and China have such strong economies is because they have many large manufacturing secondary secture industries that produces lots of export and generate revenue.
Ireland needs an educated workflow and lower taxes which will encourage both local and foreign investors to set up industries in Ireland. Any sort of industry that can create jobs and export. But this cant happen till ireland is under the grips of the EU. Ireland needs to compete with India, China, Taiwan and other such economies if we want any real hope of improving the economy and making Ireland a prosporous nation. Turning the country into a socialist state will not help recover Ireland's economy because Ireland has very little sources of generating revenue and then all the wealth is taken away first from the people by the government and then from the government by the EU!
And finally no one is proposing private corporation should run everything including welfare and garda. But private corporations can do a better job running schools and hospitals than the government does.0 -
We do have a 'socialist bent' in this country. The dole, free healthcare, free education (well, not free, but paid by someone else's taxes), state pensions and so on and so forth.Harry Angstrom wrote: »Don't confuse socialism with communism, lads.
Communism never works but it wouldn't do a Government any harm to incorporate a socialist bent into its policies, unless we want to end up having the same sort of stark divisions between rich and poor that we see in countries like the United States??0 -
Would ya pi$$ off, you have a computer, Internet access and unless theres a power point + Internet access available in a field you have a roof over your head.
Disaparity between rich and poor ?
Go visit Indonesia, Curacao, Brazil or almost anywhere in Africa and then you'll see a real difference between rich and poor.
Were quite lucky in Europe to have the luxuries we have.0 -
Those are not socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with a socialist tinge.rossie1977 wrote: »the polish lived under a communist regime controlled from mother russia
if you want to see socialism at work in 2012 go visit one of the nordic countries
If you are interested in how socialism affects the success of a country though, you should look into how the Swedish economy has fared in the last 60 years and how much more successful it was before they adopted the socialist policies they currently pursue.
Norway is a special case due to its oil wealth so can safely be ignored; otherwise you could argue that repressing women and adopting Islam causes great wealth (as seen in Saudi Arabia).0 -
Advertisement
-
af_thefragile wrote: »The government doesn't need funds if private industries can do the jobs better than the government can.
But they can't. For example, rural busroutes. A private fir mwoyuld scrap them if they were not making a profit, without any regard for the people who need them. A really shudder to think what private industry would do with
People have to come first.
You do know we have one of the lowest levels of corportate tax in the world, right?The problem with Ireland is that there is no proper industrial sector to sustain the economy here and no one is willing to set one up either because of the high taxes. Hence just increasing taxes will not fix the economy.
Increasing taxes is only going to hurt the people who have worked hard to try to lead a decent life. If you keep increasing taxes leading to lower incomes and higher cost of living, no wonder so many young educated people want to emigrate to other countries where their education and qualification will be valued more and they can live a more comfortable life.
I emigrated not because of money or tax, but because of the ****storm that the conservative system threw up.
And in Denmark's case? And Sweden's case? Workign models there and aso lower levels of emigration, too. Exaplain that, please.Socialism doesn't work because we humans will always seek to live the more comfortable life. In Scandinavia they have managed to maintain high incomes and a high standard of living along with a high taxed society. There are many reason for this. In Norway's case, it is not a part of the EU and it has plenty of natural resources which clearly helps its economy.
Corruption from where? Who's offering the bribes?This won't work in Ireland because in Ireland even if we have any natural resources, we make very poor use of it. The government is extremely inefficient in the way it manages its resources. Also there is a lot of corruption in the government here too.Hence if I can find another place in the world where I can live more comfortably in the short and the long run, then that's where I'll strive to go to.
Converting a country into a gloomy socialist state where where we all have to give away most of our earnings as taxes so that the inefficient government and the less fortunate can to function while I to sacrifice my comforts which I have worked so hard to achieve, in an idealistic world this may work. In the real world people are selfish and I care more about my comforts than my fellows.
That last line is exacly why Ireland can never work.
Perhaps the reason people are leaning towards socialism (if the even are, you never prove that it was in the first place) is because they've seen that selfish-prickism simply doesn't work on a social level.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Socialism, similar to the Scandinavian model, will never work in Ireland.
We don't have a social conscience and the "entitlement" mentality of the state is just incompatible with a fair socialist model. People are too one-sided here. They don't realise (or care) that anything they receive from the state is actually being paid for by other people and thus take advantage of the system.0 -
GombeanMan wrote: »That is because the Libertarian philiosophy upon which the states was founded has been hijacked by the Republican and Democratic parties who both implement policies that undermine social and economic progress within the country. These two parties are responsible for the current mess in America. Adam Smith would be turning in his grave.
Libertarian ideals of the US? How does that play with somebody like Alexander Hamilton, the first treasury secretary, who's main idea was protecting 'young' industries? A policy that was followed, and helped the US become one of the fastest growing economies by the late 19th century?GombeanMan wrote: »Feck all really in comparison to the USA and other non Socialist companies. Infact, most major Corporations today like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc are a result of low American taxation and a philosophy of encouraging growth. Nobody with an ounce of sense would set up a primary major corporation in one of these countries, at least for day to day operations. The USA, China and India and others will suffice.
All the companies you've listed are there because of the US government pumping huge amounts of money into research and development, specifically into computer technology but also indirectly due to research and development as a result of WWII. Obviously this is due to taxation.GombeanMan wrote: »Russia in the USSR was infact a Federation of Communist states, Socialism is the first step in the integration of a full communist state. Socialism is deeply related to Communisn in it's ideology, albeit less extreme. The socialists want eventual Communism. It's within the creed of Socialism.
Depends on the type of socialism. Most socialists operating today want a democratic form of socialism. Interestingly, a lot of Marx's ideas on how the state operates industry were based on how companies operated at the time he was writing.0 -
I'm just curious why you think this is so? I know you're right but I'd just like to be informed.KyussBishop wrote: »Apart from our low corporate tax rate, Ireland (from my limited understanding admittedly) is a pretty shít place to do business compared to a lot of other places in Europe, so I don't think anything we do is going to cause a useful spurt in industrial development; what kind of industry would you support developing?0 -
You know he's right but you don't actually know what the story is? Shouldn't you find out the facts first and then decide who is right?Ambient Occlusion wrote: »I'm just curious why you think this is so? I know you're right but I'd just like to be informed.
0 -
People who oppose socialism always point to the USSR to somehow point out its inherent flaws. It's important to note that when the Bolsheviks took over, their economy wasn't at all suited to Marxist socialism. Also, Stalin's state was not a socialist revolutionary one, but an authoritarian one.0
-
Well I imagine the lack of industry would be a fairly large indicator that business here isn't the best, but I don't have the whole picture.Monty Burnz wrote: »You know he's right but you don't actually know what the story is? Shouldn't you find out the facts first and then decide who is right?0 -
-
GombeanMan wrote: »Traditional Conservatism and Socialism are bullsh3t. Libertarianism is where it's at!
The only thing worse than an out and out fascist, is a libertarian. Fringe lunatics.0 -
Advertisement
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Which successful socialist country should we look at instead?
What makes you think there has ever been a true Socialist country?
People who think the Bolsheviks were actual Marxist Communists are dopes.0
Advertisement