Why are we all becoming socialists now?

Chuck Stone · 12-03-2012 1:12am

_Gawd_ wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you're happy to spout the same old same old as you're happy being a product of your time?

And what you're saying is that a fantasy land of benevolent halo-wearing capitalists will make the world a better place for all?

K-9 · 12-03-2012 1:17am

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I've recently just finished a book on the U.S's history of bimetalism and monometalism. Here, you can find out what exactly happened in 1893 and it wasn't because of sound money. It was because of a stupid decisions government made in signing into law the obtainment of gold for pence. There was a run and the US gold ended up all over the world.

http://mises.org/daily/4112

Grand, might take a look, what about these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis#Prior_to_19th_century

Click on prior to the 19th century.

_Gawd_ · 12-03-2012 1:22am

southsiderosie wrote: »

Actually I've done a great deal of research on the history of the gold standard in Europe, and its relationship to political instability. But funny, any mention of politics in these conversations generally gets ignored - perhaps because in an era of universal voting rights, this vision of a market-driven society is unpalatable to the majority of voters.

The nation - state is only the most recent form of governance: tribalism, feudalism, and a variety of other isms have shaped human interactions - both social and economic - since the dawn of time.

Finally, you can talk all you want about a stateless world, but to be a weak state in a world of strong political and economic interests - both internal and external - is to be an architect of your own demise. As Hobbes noted centuries ago, a world without a Leviathan - whether a feudal lord or duly elected Parliament - is nasty, brutish, and short.

So your basic premise is to quote one philosopher and cement that as your argument? I can do just the same thing. Here, I'll give it a go...

"Government promote inefficiency in production and efficiency in coercion and subservience, while penalizing efficiency in production and inefficiency in predation. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives... libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy." - Murray Rothbard.

southsiderosie · 12-03-2012 1:25am

_Gawd_ wrote: »

So your basic premise is to quote one philosopher and cement that as your argument? I can do just the same thing. Here, I'll give it a go...

"Government promote inefficiency in production and efficiency in coercion and subservience, while penalizing efficiency in production and inefficiency in predation. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives... libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy." - Murray Rothbard.

Instead of constantly deflecting, how about you address my multiple points about the political distaste for the policies you are proposing, and their inability to be adopted in any democratic society with universal voting rights?

_Gawd_ · 12-03-2012 1:29am

southsiderosie wrote: »

Instead of constantly deflecting, how about you address my multiple points about the political distaste for the policies you are proposing, and their inability to be adopted in any democratic society with universal voting rights?

Well, firstly you labeled me as wanting a stateless world - here, you're deviating from the topic of the thread which is about capitalism. Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere. As a mod, you'd be all over someone else if they did that, now wouldn't you?!

Regardless, if you knew about statelessness, you'd also know that democracy is incompatible with it. I'm more than willing to have a conversation with you but I can only accept that debate with someone with a slight knowledge of the subject at hand.

southsiderosie · 12-03-2012 1:33am

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Well, firstly you labeled me as wanting a stateless world - here, you're deviating from the topic of the thread which is about capitalism. Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere. As a mod, you'd be all over someone else if they did that, now wouldn't you?!

Regardless, if you knew about statelessness, you'd also know that democracy is incompatible with it.

I'm not a mod in this forum.

I'm also done here. There is no point in mud wrestling with a hog - the hog enjoys it, and you just end up covered in shit.

K-9 · 12-03-2012 1:39am

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Nevertheless, in your attempt to contribute, you're regurgitating the same old arguments that have been addressed here and elsewhere.

That's the definition of political debates.

One side thinks they've found something new, unique, original and never tried before, a new way of dealing with things, the other yawns because they've seen it before.

Reverse and that's political debate.

For all the rise in Libertarianism, especially on the net, it still hasn't succeeded anyway politically. Same old arguments across many debates, the consistent theme is its never the markets fault, never considering what's the common denominator to market crashes. The clue is in the name.

yawha · 12-03-2012 1:41am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Some people seem to have a problem with people being born into privilege. If someone works hard and builds a successful company, why can't they have the freedom to give their kids a privileged life, it's their money they can do what they want with it.

Because those kids have done no hard work to deserve that privileged life. Why do they deserve that?

_Gawd_ · 12-03-2012 1:46am

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm not a mod in this forum.

I'm also done here. There is no point in mud wrestling with a hog - the hog enjoys it, and you just end up covered in shit.

You can wrestle me anytime.

K-9 wrote: »

That's the definition of political debates.

For all the rise in Libertarianism, especially on the net, it still hasn't succeeded anyway politically. Same old arguments across many debates, the consistent theme is its never the markets fault, never considering what's the common denominator to market crashes. The clue is in the name.

Well, thats the thing...I've already read your economists arguments. Now it's your time to read mine.

K-9 · 12-03-2012 1:51am

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Well, thats the thing...I've already read your economists arguments. Now it's your time to read mine.

I might as its an area I don't know much about. I'll come at it from as neutral a point of view as I can, which is why I asked about all the crashes pre the 19th century.

I suspect I already know your answer, everybody was to blame except the market!

KyussBishop · 12-03-2012 5:31am

_Gawd_ wrote:

Why would you have banking regulations set by the banks? Because that's how it works...I say we need ZERO regulation i.e - capitalism and let whatever business that makes stupid decisions go out of business. So you're wrong in your thinking.

Eh, what happens to the money of all the banks customers when it goes out of business? The people who lose most in that situation, are the banks customers; a small number of people (owners of the bank) can do an enormous amount of harm.

This is why regulation is important, to stop massively risky investments of other peoples money, because the purpose of a bank should be to provide security to its customers (with interest to keep up with inflation, and a bit extra from non-risky ventures), not massive profits for itself through risky investments, at the expense of all customers.

Killer Wench · 12-03-2012 5:54am

When I first read this thread's title, I thought it said socialites.

Scanlas The 2nd · 12-03-2012 7:46am

yawha wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Some people seem to have a problem with people being born into privilege. If someone works hard and builds a successful company, why can't they have the freedom to give their kids a privileged life, it's their money they can do what they want with it.

Because those kids have done no hard work to deserve that privileged life. Why do they deserve that?

Their parents worked hard, why can't they do what they want with their money. Who decides what people "deserve"? Why can't you mind your own business and not worry about other people being better off. What's your problem with other people having a good life, it seems childish. No one is entitled to privilege but no one is obliged not to be privileged.

benway · 12-03-2012 11:23am

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Their parents worked hard, why can't they do what they want with their money. Who decides what people "deserve"? Why can't you mind your own business and not worry about other people being better off. What's your problem with other people having a good life, it seems childish. No one is entitled to privilege but no one is obliged not to be privileged.

Well, elements on the right seem to think that they're more than entitled to privilege. The whole line of "I worked hard for this, I'm entitled to it, fck the rest of ye" is totally fraudulent.

When you look at social mobility statistics, say, it has to be acknowledged that the accident of birth goes a very long way towards determining how "successful" someone will be in life. That's the fact of the matter.

I have no problem with people giving their children the best possible start in life, but that negates the "I did it all for myself, I'm wealthy because I'm smarter, harder working and generally more deserving" argument against social responsibility at a stroke.

12-03-2012 11:26am

you're right, we should all sit around leeching off the state instead because god forbid anyone try to work hard to make something better of themselves
who the hell do they think they are anyway :rolleyes:

benway · 12-03-2012 11:35am

bluewolf wrote: »

you're right, we should all sit around leeching off the state instead because god forbid anyone try to work hard to make something better of themselves
who the hell do they think they are anyway :rolleyes:

Nice pat attack there. Seems like you've really considered my post and responded accordingly. Real nice.

The problem isn't with people working hard and making a better life for themselves and their families - I'm all for that. The problem is people's sense of entitlement, thinking that their success is all their own, and they don't owe anything to anyone. This is simply not the case.

There's actually less begrudgery in the socialist attitude than in the "devil take the hindmost" capitalist line - someone making a success of themselves is good for everyone and should be lauded, rather than envied.

A community nurtures you, supports you, shields you from your failures, and should share in your successes, making everyone better off.

Monty Burnz · 12-03-2012 12:21pm

benway wrote: »

A community nurtures you, supports you, shields you from your failures, and should share in your successes, making everyone better off.

Sounds a lot like what we have in Ireland. Freedom to succeed, and a safety net if you fail. But I'd argue the safety net shouldn't be a way of life - it's bad for society and the individual.

benway · 12-03-2012 12:43pm

So would I.

I don't feel that our current arrangement goes nearly far enough to encourage, support and facilitate children from all walks of life in maximising their potential. The overwhelming majority of those born into deprived backgrounds will remain in deprived backgrounds - there's almost a tacit message to these kids that they aren't good enough and that they shouldn't bother because it won't get them anywhere. Don't have time to flesh this out at the moment, will get back to it. Our safety net is about subsistence no more - social inclusion involves more than handouts.

The point is that socialism would grant these kids an equal opportunity to better themselves, recognising the tougher start they have in life, where PD style capitalism celebrates inequality, and unequal opportunity, pretty much blaming our burgeoning underclass for their position in life, by the same token lauding children of privilege for "personal" achievements that owe as much to luck as to hard graft.

KyussBishop · 12-03-2012 12:45pm

Interesting article I saw linked on 'Naked Capitalism' blog (albeit US-centric):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

Point #5 there makes a pretty good point (relevant to thread), at how some rich people earn a disproportionate amount of money, compared to the skills and effort put in.

Point #1 also makes a very relevant point, regarding social welfare, and the general "I worked hard to make my own way" argument against it.

When you consider point 5 (disproportionate earning) vs 1 (arguments against welfare), from the perspective say of people working in the banking industry and some of them (not generalizing on all) getting ridiculously high wages, what value do they add to society that they deserve such disproportionate earnings? (in many cases, paid for now in public money)

I so totally don't understand how social welfare gets more criticism and calls for reduction than that above; people who should not be on social welfare take a % of all our money through taxes, but the banks take an even bigger amount profiting from peoples money, with very little added value compared to their earnings.

Not only that, but banks have negligently used peoples money in risky ventures, to generate enormous profits that turned out to be inflated, putting everyones money in risk, and in the process have gotten bailouts which will be taking a % of our taxes for some time to come, and have put the country in serious trouble.

Why do a relatively small number of people engaging in social welfare fraud (which I agree should be tackled/reduced), draw so much more anger than the bailouts and continued massive undeserved profits/wages in the banking industry, that dwarf the public costs of social welfare in comparison?

Monty Burnz · 12-03-2012 12:46pm

benway wrote: »

So would I.

I don't feel that our current arrangement goes nearly far enough to encourage, support and facilitate children from all walks of life in maximising their potential. The overwhelming majority of those born into deprived backgrounds will remain in deprived backgrounds - there's almost a tacit message to these kids that they aren't good enough and that they shouldn't bother because it won't get them anywhere.

I think where my views have changed on this in the last decade is that I now blame the parents of these kids whereas before I blamed 'society'. You can throw all the money in the world at these kids and give them every chance going, but if their parents don't do a good job of raising them (and they don't) then it's all wasted. My mother's family came from a dirt poor background but got a great attitude re. work and education from my widowed grandmother. They've all done really well.

Monty Burnz · 12-03-2012 12:51pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

I so totally don't understand how social welfare gets more criticism and calls for reduction than that above; people who should not be on social welfare take a % of all our money through taxes, but the banks take an even bigger amount profiting from peoples money, with very little added value compared to their earnings.

The theoretical answer to this is that they play an important role in capital allocation, and correctly allocating capital to its most productive uses is a key difference between capitalism and socialism (which is why capitalist societies are far richer). Of course, the bank management in this country allocated capital in a disastrous fashion during the bubble (the bondholders' capital is now in the shape of ghost estates in Leitrim). In a properly working system, those banks would have gone bust and all of those people who did a poor job would be on the dole now (but of course savers would have lost their savings, unless we maintain deposit insurance which is effectively a state subsidy for savers).

hooradiation · 12-03-2012 12:59pm

Looks like we've successfully imported the american habit of screeching that everything you don't like is 'socialism'.

Good job, I was worried we mightn't have enough stupid soundbites for repetition but we've dodged that bullet.
That was a close one.

Monty Burnz · 12-03-2012 1:04pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Looks like we've successfully imported the american habit of screeching that everything you don't like is 'socialism'.

I may be unusually slow today, but I don't see that going on here...

hooradiation · 12-03-2012 1:33pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I may be unusually slow today, but I don't see that going on here...

I'm not sure what other conclusion you could draw from the OP, but yeah, sure.
Maybe it was a fair and reasonable post wearing a thoroughly cunning disguise.

Stranger things have happened.

KyussBishop · 12-03-2012 1:42pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The theoretical answer to this is that they play an important role in capital allocation, and correctly allocating capital to its most productive uses is a key difference between capitalism and socialism (which is why capitalist societies are far richer). Of course, the bank management in this country allocated capital in a disastrous fashion during the bubble (the bondholders' capital is now in the shape of ghost estates in Leitrim). In a properly working system, those banks would have gone bust and all of those people who did a poor job would be on the dole now (but of course savers would have lost their savings, unless we maintain deposit insurance which is effectively a state subsidy for savers).

Okey, but this (in my view) doesn't justify the absolutely gigantic profits banks make (EDIT: on the back of other peoples money), relative to the difficulty of the job at hand, and particularly the wages many make at banks.

Again, the potential of a bank collapsing and losing a lot of peoples (customers not bondholders) money, is another reason I see for some level of moderate regulation, rather than having a totally or mostly unregulated market.

Monty Burnz · 12-03-2012 1:44pm

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm not sure what other conclusion you could draw from the OP, but yeah, sure.
Maybe it was a fair and reasonable post wearing a thoroughly cunning disguise.

Stranger things have happened.

:pac:

I'd forgotten all about the OP. My bad.

benway · 12-03-2012 1:44pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I may be unusually slow today, but I don't see that going on here...

To be fair, I think that OP is characterising any form of redistribution, functioning public services, etc, as "socialism". Seems to be implied in certain positions that the even a very limited form social democracy is one step away from Mao Tse-tung.

Monty Burnz · 12-03-2012 1:50pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Okey, but this (in my view) doesn't justify the absolutely gigantic profits banks make, relative to the difficulty of the job at hand, and particularly the wages many make at banks.

The wages of some people in some roles do appear to be wildly disproportionate, this is true. I suppose the (again, theoretical) answer is that they are in a position to create enormous value and their pay is a fraction of that - but I have my doubts on that score.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, the potential of a bank collapsing and losing a lot of peoples (customers not bondholders) money, is another reason I see for some level of moderate regulation, rather than having a totally unregulated market.

Either you have no regulation where everybody looks after themselves - like in America in the old days - or you have competent regulation where people don't bother taking responsibility for ensuring that their money is kept safe and the banks are well run.

Unfortunately we ended up in the in-between position where people didn't worry about whether the banks were run properly because they assumed that Patrick Neary and company were regulating them properly, but it turns out that Neary and co. didn't have a clue what they were at and ended up losing us tens of billions (and retiring on 6-figure pensions).

12-03-2012 2:02pm

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.

That is wrong. I worked hard and have made something of myself. I know alot of my friends have done the same.

gozunda · 12-03-2012 2:05pm

In a far off country, ten good men go out for beer every day and the bill for all ten comes to €100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay €1.
The sixth would pay €3.
The seventh would pay €7.
The eighth would pay €12.
The ninth would pay €18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay €59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner announced: "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by €20." Drinks for the ten now cost just €80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men-the paying customers? How could they divide the €20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that €20 divided by six is €3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid €2 instead of €3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay €5 instead of €7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid €9 instead of €12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid €14 instead of €18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid €49 instead of €59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a Euro out of the €20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got €10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a Euro, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get €10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes may appear get the most benefit from a 20% tax reduction but they also pay the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

KyussBishop · 12-03-2012 2:21pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Either you have no regulation where everybody looks after themselves - like in America in the old days - or you have competent regulation where people don't bother taking responsibility for ensuring that their money is kept safe and the banks are well run.

Unfortunately we ended up in the in-between position where people didn't worry about whether the banks were run properly because they assumed that Patrick Neary and company were regulating them properly, but it turns out that Neary and co. didn't have a clue what they were at and ended up losing us tens of billions (and retiring on 6-figure pensions).

Well, I don't see why there can't be regulation with transparency; government and the banking industry are far too opaque, so I don't see why you can't have independent open-access to these industries (and government plus regulators) to be able to evaluate their performance that way.

You would have the regulators watching the banking industry, and the public watching the banks plus the regulators as well.

In fact, since the industry is so opaque, even if you had no regulation, it's highly unlikely for the banking industry to make things transparent enough for the public to keep them in check, as it will always be in the banking industries interest to keep things opaque for their own financial interests.

Basically, you would need to use regulation to enforce that transparency.

Mance Rayder · 12-03-2012 2:24pm

Ireland has been socialist for a very long time.

Social welfare, Social Housing, Social healthcare.

hooradiation · 12-03-2012 2:33pm

gozunda wrote: »

In a far off country, ten good men go out for beer every day and the bill for all ten comes to €100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
*snip*

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

And for those that don't want to think too hard about what they're saying, there is always an email forward to copy & paste

gozunda · 12-03-2012 2:49pm

hooradiation wrote: »

And for those that don't want to think too hard about what they're saying, there is always an email forward to copy & paste

I take it you are being critical hd....

The fact that something has been said before and in a manner that explains the matter succinctly does not mean that the message is any less true..

Unless you have a problem with the truth of course.

Pehaps a review of the economy as you see it would be more constructive than unilateral criticism....

hooradiation · 12-03-2012 2:52pm

gozunda wrote: »

I take it you are being critical hd....

The fact that something has been said before and in a manner that explains the matter succinctly does not mean that the message is any less true..

Unless you have a problem with the truth of course.

Except, like all gross over simplifications, it's not really true at all.

All these copy-paste jobs which claim to make complex issues "simple" should be treated with suspicion, doubly so anything which couches itself with the "you can't disagree with this" bullshit caveat in the last two lines.

And don't you even try pulling the same transparent fuckwittery.

"Unless you have a problem with the truth of course"
Get out.

St.Spodo · 12-03-2012 2:53pm

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Ireland has been socialist for a very long time.

Social welfare, Social Housing, Social healthcare.

That's social democracy. Ireland has traditionally had a mixed economy.

gozunda · 12-03-2012 2:56pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Except, like all gross over simplifications, it's not really true at all...And don't you even try pulling the same transparent ****wittery.
....Get Out

Eloquent as ever eh? And do explain how you have come to these conclusions?...I would expect at least some comparable figures and some detailed example otherwise you appear to be simply mouthing...

Do I detect some totalitarian authority coming out in that last little missive perhaps?

KyussBishop · 12-03-2012 2:58pm

gozunda wrote: »

I take it you are being critical hd....

The fact that something has been said before and in a manner that explains the matter succinctly does not mean that the message is any less true..

Unless you have a problem with the truth of course.

Pehaps a review of the economy as you see it would be more constructive than unilateral criticism....

Perhaps provide your own opinion? Your post appears to boil down to: Don't tax rich people too much or they'll move away to a different country, then we won't get any tax from them.

Is this your argument?

gozunda · 12-03-2012 3:06pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Perhaps provide your own opinion? Your post appears to boil down to: Don't tax rich people too much or they'll move away to a different country, then we won't get any tax from them.

Is this your argument?

What do you think KB? Read it again and see what is explained...I think you missed one or two points tbh...

benway · 12-03-2012 3:09pm

gozunda wrote: »

In a far off country, ten good men go out for beer every day and the bill for all ten comes to €100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,

No offense to you personally, but that copypasta is so monumentally retarded, it's hard even to know where to start.

gozunda · 12-03-2012 3:20pm

benway wrote: »

No offense to you personally, but that copypasta is so monumentally retarded, it's hard even to know where to start.

At the begining is always the best place to start imo BW...
So do please tell me How it is, to use your phrase "monumentally retarded"

Though in all honesty yourself, hooradiation and KyussBishop are so far in each others sheughs and the wonderful world of 'socialism' I dont expect much better tbh..

keithclancy · 12-03-2012 3:22pm

gozunda wrote: »

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes may appear get the most benefit from a 20% tax reduction but they also pay the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This is the most retarded post i've ever seen.

Might as well have been narrated by Eddie Hobbs:
"Bertie and Enda walk into a bar ... Enda has a tenner on him ... "

gozunda · 12-03-2012 3:30pm

keithclancy wrote: »

This is the most retarded post i've ever seen.

... "

Yes but did you actually understand it kc?

As I have suggested to the other socialists brothers on here could you at least give a review of the economy as you see it using a similar analogy perhaps. This would be more constructive than rehearsed unilateral criticism....and may I suggest that the use of the word 'retarded' by you and those sharing the same ideological platform be discontinued...It is not very nice tbh...

KyussBishop · 12-03-2012 3:34pm

gozunda wrote: »

What do you think KB? Read it again and see what is explained...I think you missed one or two points tbh...

It didn't make any concrete points, just suggested rich people shouldn't be taxed heavily lest they leave the country. What specific, clear points can you pick out from it, that you agree with?

You seem to believe that rich people should not be taxed heavily, and that if they are some would leave the country. Can you explain why that would be bad?

Personally, I think any effect of some rich people leaving the country, would be more than economically compensated by the increased tax from those that remain.

hooradiation · 12-03-2012 3:43pm

gozunda wrote: »

And do explain how you have come to these conclusions?...I would expect at least some comparable figures and some detailed example otherwise you appear to be simply mouthing...

It's funny isn't it, you can claim total truth with that one piece of internet flotsam , yet the standard of proof suddenly jumps up to "comparable figures and some detailed example" when your silly nonsense is challenged?

If only you'd shown such dedication to the rigours of reasoning before you thought that posting that was such a good idea, we could have saved ourselves such an amount of effort.

But, to humour you.

The most obvious, but by no means only, logical missteps here are that the original writer assumed that the rich and the poor make an equal use of public resources and that paying low tax favours the poor men exclusively.
These are, despite your belief to the contrary, not true.

The rich people use more public resources than those who are poor. Their activities require more land, power and cause more pollution, they require transport infrastructure to sell and buy goods and services and a base level of education from those they employ. Income tax is the user fee for society - if you use more, they pay more.
Unless you imagine these come into existence in a vacuum, of course. Then all bets are off.

Likewise the concept that the poor are being gifted some kind of unfair advantage with them not paying income tax is equally misguided. Those that earn so little as to be exempt are using that money to stay alive.
Were they to be required to pay income tax the burden they'd place on the state would increase.

There is also the delightful nonsense in this that pretends that the wealth of the rich person has no impact on the poverty of the poor person, or vice versa - As if the rich persons fortune came to be independent of the labour and purchasing power of the poor and middle classes, and likewise that the poor man is simply poor because he is - as opposed to there being a system in place that actively keeps people locked in their strata. We can't all be rich after all, no matter how much people extol the virtues of "bootstraps"

gozunda wrote: »

Do I detect some totalitarian authority coming out in that last little missive perhaps?

Nope, just a fervent hope and prayer.
Though nice to see the persecution complex is kicking in nice and early, this won't make any future exchanges trying in the least.

benway · 12-03-2012 3:47pm

gozunda wrote: »

So do please tell me How it is, to use your phrase "monumentally retarded

All I really need to say - if the "failings" of socialism are so easily demonstrated, why not give real world examples?

This is blatantly, grossly, simplified scenario, bearing no relation to reality, clearly designed to fool the simple-minded and to provide reinforcement to preconceived positions, rather than to educate or illuminate.

keithclancy · 12-03-2012 3:49pm

gozunda wrote: »

Yes but did you actually understand it kc?

Oh yes,
But you don't seem to.

That the story has been republished multiple times, but its been used to describe the Taxation system in the United States.

Can you explain why you think its applicable to the Irish Taxation system ? Not confusing Corporation Tax with Personal Tax of Course.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

This ^^ is condescending

_Gawd_ · 12-03-2012 4:27pm

Capitalism is defined as "Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property."

Now, with that in mind we can view others views of capitalism as ignorance because a) they see no problems with a public service and b) when government interfere in the market they regulate and legislate creating monopolies fundamentally hostile to capitalism. When a government gets involved in the markets this is called corporatism/state controlled capitalism/fascism. This doesn't benefit the common man and woman, only the corporations so the people advocating this are not benevolent.

Secondly, when you involve a public service, they can only live on what they steal from private individuals i.e - private capital as they produce no capital themselves...again, interfering in the price system and by extension, the very foundations of capitalism. So, in Ireland when we view our massive public sector that has grown during the Ahern "I'm a Socialist" years, we can see that there is no longer consideration or policies being created to benefit the price system and in essence move closer to collectivism i.e - Communism.

So no, Ireland is not a capitalist country.

gozunda · 12-03-2012 4:47pm

Ignoring the obvious low flung flying insults...:rolleyes:

hooradiation wrote: »

The most obvious, but by no means only, logical missteps here are that the original writer assumed that the rich and the poor make an equal use of public resources and that paying low tax favours the poor men exclusively.
These are, despite your belief to the contrary, not true.

No there was no such presumption in the example imo. If anything the example showed how in the the first instance that there were benefits to all. However taking the proverbial out of the sytem as given in the example suggested elsewhere in this thread renders such sytems inoperable

hooradiation wrote: »

The rich people use more public resources than those who are poor. Their activities require more land, power and cause more pollution, they require transport infrastructure to sell and buy goods and services and a base level of education from those they employ. Income tax is the user fee for society - if you use more, they pay more.
Unless you imagine these come into existence in a vacuum, of course. Then all bets are off.

You really have to be living in la la land to think that this one up.I would really love to see your statistics that show that "The rich people use more public resources than those who are poor" ...

what do you define as a "public resource" btw? Two Thirds of all tax revenue collected by the state is being spent on Social Welfare and as for the presumption concerning 'rich' peoples activities, such generalisations are not really worthy of comment. Remember it is these 'rich' people who pay the most tax on everything including their activities, transport, services and just about anything else you can think of - where do honestly you think most of the taxes come from? So I take it that with this logic those that earn should be penalised for doing so...In fact at the moment it is not that you use more, so pay more...it is simply - you earn more so you pay more. More importantly your example here does not include the ordinary employed individual ie the bloke that manages a shop (though he may earn more) but does not own any or use more resources than his neighbour next door who is a postman ...he is not an industrialist or other captain of industry....so how does this individual fit with the example of using 'more public resouces'?

hooradiation wrote: »

Likewise the concept that the poor are being gifted some kind of unfair advantage with them not paying income tax is equally misguided. Those that earn so little as to be exempt are using that money to stay alive.
Were they to be required to pay income tax the burden they'd place on the state would increase.

The example did not give that the 'poor' were gifted with an unfair adavantage. Rather they benefited from an equitable system of distribution. However I will add that those who are 'poor' and on welfare in addition to geting everything paid for by the state could include the buying cigarettes and booze as part of staying alive? (and no I dont mean everyone does this but it does bear consideration) No one has suggested that the 'poor' as defined by yourself be required to pay more tax btw and in no instance does this make up any part of the example given in the analogy.

hooradiation wrote: »

There is also the delightful nonsense in this that pretends that the wealth of the rich person has no impact on the poverty of the poor person, or vice versa - As if the rich persons fortune came to be independent of the labour and purchasing power of the poor and middle classes, and likewise that the poor man is simply poor because he is - as opposed to there being a system in place that actively keeps people locked in their strata. We can't all be rich after all, no matter how much people extol the virtues of "bootstraps"

I dont see this given in the example either. If anything the example shows that all are co-dependent in such a system as ours. I do take it however from what you have said that you suscribe to the general socialist theory of the oppressed...

Look its quite easy, how about you put together a worked analogy in response to the one I have given that shows HOW taxation and allowance works in a perfect social world and I will take a look at it with an open mind. What you have presented here tbh is little more than supposition on the evils inherent in the system - which i do not suscribe too btw

gozunda · 12-03-2012 4:53pm

gozunda wrote: »

Yes but did you actually understand it kc?..

keithclancy wrote: »

Oh yes,...

From what you have written, I dont think you do kc...

Just because you dont like something, does not mean that it does not reflect what is in effect happening in this country

It will interesting to document the ensuing dog eat dog society we are moving towards as we watch those that take most from the pot of revenue scramble to savage what little is left when those that contribute most get the last boat out...

Why are we all becoming socialists now?

Comments