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?

1567911

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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..


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    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 ... "


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    gozunda wrote: »
    Yes but did you actually understand it kc?..
    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...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    Just to add...

    I'm not against social welfare and nationalised health care, education etc., although I'll still hold it that private schools provide a much better quality of education than public schools, similar with health care.

    My whole point is simply increasing taxes to save the economy is not a solution. What this does is wipe out the middle class which forms the part of the population that contributes the most towards running the economy. Again the top 1% rich are not affected by increased taxes. The only ones who are affected are the bottom working class who find it even harder to get by the day with the increased cost of living and the middle class who have to deal with pay cuts and giving away more of their pay as taxes.

    This will only encourage the skilled middle class professionals to leave the country and move off to other countries where they can live a more comfortable life. Even if they might be getting paid less in the other country, due to the lower cost of living, they end up with more savings. And this is the reason why so many professionals are leaving the country to go and work in Australia, Canada, USA, UK etc.

    This means that there will be even less middle class people to run the economy, which is very prevalent right now with lack of doctors, nurses, teachers etc. in this country putting enormous strain on the understaffed health and education sector.

    Less people working = less people paying taxes and the government has less money to spend on welfare, health, education etc. To counteract this the government simply decides to increases taxes to a point the middle class is paying off 60% of their pay in taxes (income tax may only be 40% but there are tons of other hidden taxes and levys which all eventually add up to the government taking away 60% of your income) and the middle class has even less money, they decide they can make a better living elsewhere, the cycle starts over again.

    Bottom line raising taxes does not solve anything!

    Also a point of education, I believe there should be more private schools and people should be willing to pay for their kids education. When the parents are paying for the education of their children, both the parents and the children take the education more seriously, the children will get a much better quality education and in turn they will do better in life.

    Reduced taxes and parents saving up money will easily pay for their children's education in good private institutions which don't need to cost a fortune.

    For the most deprived who live hand to mouth and can't afford to save up for their children's education, they could apply for state education grants.

    Similar for university education. In many countries (like USA and Canada) the students (and even the parents) take loans to pay for their university education. The students can then work over the summer break or if not pay off their student loans once they've graduated and gotten a job.

    Paying for one's education is not that big a deal, its the norm in many countries. If schools and universities are privatised, the government has less strain on its resources which means reduced taxes, which means people have more money which in turn means they can have more savings to pay for their or their children's education.

    We like to give out about the "nanny state" and how we shouldn't be told what we ought to do and there needs to be more emphasis on person responsibility. Yet at the same time we want the government to pay and support all of our basic needs with a nice safety net underneath us in case we are incompetent idiots and we screw up.

    There is a whole culture of spending unnecessarily in this country. People feel the need to take two holidays a year to some foreign exotic location whether they have a job or not. I've come across many people who live on the dole and still go on their yearly summer and winter retreat. People like to own big plasma TVs and buy new clothes and all sorts of useless **** every Christmas. They don't mind spending upwards 50eur a night going on bender yet when it comes to paying for necessities like health care and education they give out about how they're broke and they can't afford anything.

    Free market capitalism requires people to take risks and take personal responsibility. This means people need to learn to save their incomes and spend it wisely on things that are necessary and if they screw up with their finances there isn't a comfortable safety net for them to fall back on. In this system if the individual makes wise use of his finances, he can then reward himself and his family by paying for a high quality of education and health care for himself and his family. If the person is stupid and wastes all his money on useless things then he will have to reap what he sows.

    For the corporations, if they are fraudulent and exploitative, they will be put under trial and there will be no bailing out for them. The fraudulent and exploitative bankers/CEOs will simply be fined/imprisoned. The people who invested in these corporations, well they'll have to suffer like those who invested in buying houses during the boom era and are now stuck with mortgages way more than what their house is actually worth. Again its about taking personal responsibility. You've got to be careful where you place your steps cause if you fall there won't be a safety net to catch you. And if you place your steps carefully you will be rewarded by the kind of life you wish to live.

    And this is what free market capitalism is about.

    Also the whole rich people's kids get a head start thing is fallacious to a large extent. There are many people who started out with literally nothing and became a millionaire through their hard work in a capitalist system. There are also many people who were bought up in a very privileged home but then never learned to take responsibility of themselves and ended quite miserably. Again you end up reaping what you sow.

    Socialism will never work because if you shift responsibility from the individual to the government then the government does a lousy job and the individual gets lazy and seeks a free ride, especially when there is nothing for an individual to aspire for because the divide between the classes has been all but abolished. Why would anyone want to work hard when they'll eventually end up living at the same means as someone who does no work and lives off state benefits!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    gozunda wrote: »
    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

    There is one floating around the internet somewhere, which is equally persuasive, equally plausible ... and monumentally retarded, equally. To be honest, I can't be bothered to track it down, because getting in to this is about as useful as getting into a debate about Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance as paradigms for a revolutionary socialist movement.

    Meanwhile back in the real world....

    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.

    I don't blame poverty, but I do blame social exclusion, which is a different thing. Handouts aren't going to foster social inclusion, it's a broader rubric, as much cultural as fiscal - although investment in underprivileged areas as well as program for underprivileged children would be necessary.
    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).

    Is it not a thing that capitalist countries generally had empires over the course of the past 500 years, and milked these countries dry, giving a false boost to their economies? I'm counting American westward expansion in that.

    I do agree that the market is probably preferable to a planned economy in most instances, though - that's not the point I'm making.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ireland has been socialist for a very long time.

    Social welfare, Social Housing, Social healthcare.

    Very, very true. Traditionally FF would have been left wing under DeV, problem was the country was very isolationist economically and struggled to pay for it. FG up to the 70's was very socially conservative. Lemass opened things up a bit with more free trade and eventually joining the EEC

    FF had a generation of young bucks like Haughey, O'Malley and Blaney coming up in the 60's, all interested in business, contacts and money, the new generation that we've basically had since then, in some shape or form. No real ideology as such, just getting elected. FG changed in the 70's but their problem was coalitions with a socialist Labour party (if you think Labour now is Socialist, well! :D). If you think taxes are high now well you had no experience of the 80's, high taxes, high interest rates and high inflation.

    That's all in the past and really the main reason we are where we are now is the PD's and their success. Low taxes became the accepted economic wisdom to the extent that all parties in 2007 offered lower taxes, even SF. Personally I think McCreevey was the turning point, he did some good things but taxes should have stayed at levels in or around 2000.

    After this is when all parties bought into, "we'll lower taxes and have high welfare and the best public services". A basic understanding of Maths, never mind politics, never mind economics tells you that is wrong.

    Its what people are paying for now.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    gozunda wrote: »
    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...

    Whatever way you look at it I wouldn't care because I do not pay taxes in Ireland ;)

    But your statements are pretty ridiculous, perhaps visit somewhere that there is true gap between rich and poor and come back to us then. Perhaps Indonesia, Curacao or Tunisia ?

    Maybe then your copy and pastes will have some meaning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    benway wrote: »
    There is one floating around the internet somewhere, which is equally persuasive, equally plausible ... and monumentally retarded, equally. To be honest, I can't be bothered to track it down, because getting in to this is about as useful as getting into a debate about Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance as paradigms for a revolutionary socialist movement.

    ....

    Ah go on! Do...

    Well I am sure Starwars staring Darth Vader as the evil Capitalist Overlord on the Dark Side oppressing the nice Jedi socialists could be kinda interesting..or on the other hand maybe not :rolleyes:


    Oh and btw there is the use of the term 'Retarded' - Now you have been told that it is not very nice - just the way I wont use the term 'Scum' to describe something even if I wish to do so OK?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Whatever way you look at it I wouldn't care because I do not pay taxes in Ireland ;)

    Well guess what I do. I am glad you are happy in position of preaching only...
    But your statements are pretty ridiculous, perhaps visit somewhere that there is true gap between rich and poor and come back to us then. Perhaps Indonesia, Curacao or Tunisia ?
    Maybe then your copy and pastes will have some meaning.

    Well no you see the Thread is about Ireland (See First Post) ....But yes I have been to some of those place mentioned and I can tell you they Do NOt use taxes to pay the 'Poor' Social Welfare. So that really this defeats any extra curricular activities in relation to this thread tbh.

    Btw I did not know that using established examples was wrong..., do forgive me!


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Oh I forgot....
    Originally Posted by gozunda Do I detect some totalitarian authority coming out in that last little missive perhaps?

    ...

    Nope, just a fervent hope and prayer.
    ....

    I understood that socialism and religion were in fact opposing ideologies - No?
    ... The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death ...Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

    LINK

    Well there you go, funny that...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    gozunda wrote: »
    Well guess what I do. I am glad you are happy in position of preaching only...

    Taking what someone else posted (You don't even know who originally wrote it) and regurgitating is preaching, your the one thats preaching mate ;)
    Well no you see the Thread is about Ireland (See First Post) ....But yes I have been to some of those place mentioned and I can tell you they Do NOt use taxes to pay the 'Poor' Social Welfare. So that really this defeats any extra curricular activities in relation to this thread tbh.

    Btw I did not know that using established examples was wrong..., do forgive me!

    I'm Irish, are you telling me I do not have a vested interest in Irelands welfare ?

    P.S. I called the post retarded, Bar Stool ecomonics is just that, if you need to reduce it down to beers and a bar tab then you can twist it anyway you want.

    Yes, do go on preaching sir.


    **gets out popcorn**


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    ...
    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.

    oh dear....


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Taking what someone else posted (You don't even know who originally wrote it) and regurgitating is preaching, your the one thats preaching mate ;)

    As I said I didn't realise there was a law against such activity...do forgive me again...At least I pay taxes towards the common good. (Not much of a working socialist are you?)
    I'm Irish, are you telling me I do not have a vested interest in Irelands welfare ?

    I dont care if you are Mongolian tbh, BUT do try and read the OPs post before jumping to rather absurd conclusions
    P.S. I called the post retarded, Bar Stool ecomonics is just that, if you need to reduce it down to beers and a bar tab then you can twist it anyway you want.

    Well you wish to call it that however it may be construed as offensive where you do. But I will admit in your defence it appears to a popular phrase amongst socialists :D
    ...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    ...
    The money to pay our countries debts has to come from somewhere; currently our debt repayments are barely sustainable (if at all).

    The primary ready source of money in the short term is through taxation, as unfair as that is and as destructive that is in the long term; as I said in a previous post, it's all about today (short term) rather than tomorrow (the future health of our economy).

    That leads to the discussion of whether or not we are better off leaving the EU and defaulting, rather than going through with current austerity measures; whatever we do though, the pain of our debts will need to be doled out, and (I assume) will require increased taxes no matter what.


    I don't disagree that private education is likely of better quality than public, but the importance of public is for equal opportunity particularly for those that can't afford private education; it is also a critical societal infrastructure and directly affects our future economy, which adds to the reasons I think there needs to be a public service there.

    Same arguments apply to university education; it needs to be free or low cost enough to provide equal opportunity for all. The situation in the US there is abysmal, as students are in debt through paying for college, and can not find work, so there is (if I recall correctly) a large market bubble there with debts that can't be repaid.
    That kind of a situation, necessitating often serious debt in order to make your way through college, is a big deal and is unacceptable really, and it will hurt the poorest and disadvantaged the most.
    We like to give out about the "nanny state" and how we shouldn't be told what we ought to do and there needs to be more emphasis on person responsibility. Yet at the same time we want the government to pay and support all of our basic needs with a nice safety net underneath us in case we are incompetent idiots and we screw up.
    That is conflating two things there; "nanny state" stuff, such as censorship and an overarching police force, are a much more extreme variation of state intervention than having a social safety net. The former of which harms people, and the latter of which protects people in need.

    Plus, you (intentionally or not) imply there that people who require social welfare are "incompetant idiots" that "screw up"; in the current economic crisis, where there are not enough jobs and people can not avoid being out of work, this is obviously not the case and I'm sure many would find that offensive (whether intended that way or not).

    People feel the need to take two holidays a year to some foreign exotic location whether they have a job or not. I've come across many people who live on the dole and still go on their yearly summer and winter retreat. People like to own big plasma TVs and buy new clothes and all sorts of useless **** every Christmas. They don't mind spending upwards 50eur a night going on bender yet when it comes to paying for necessities like health care and education they give out about how they're broke and they can't afford anything.
    Eh, that's anecdotal and specious; try doing any of that on a regular basis with your income restricted to that of weekly dole payments. Again, I would say the majority of dole recipients would find that offensive, particularly those who are having a hard time of it.
    Free market capitalism requires people to take risks and take personal responsibility. This means people need to learn to save their incomes and spend it wisely on things that are necessary and if they screw up with their finances there isn't a comfortable safety net for them to fall back on. In this system if the individual makes wise use of his finances, he can then reward himself and his family by paying for a high quality of education and health care for himself and his family. If the person is stupid and wastes all his money on useless things then he will have to reap what he sows.

    For the corporations, if they are fraudulent and exploitative, they will be put under trial and there will be no bailing out for them. The fraudulent and exploitative bankers/CEOs will simply be fined/imprisoned. The people who invested in these corporations, well they'll have to suffer like those who invested in buying houses during the boom era and are now stuck with mortgages way more than what their house is actually worth. Again its about taking personal responsibility. You've got to be careful where you place your steps cause if you fall there won't be a safety net to catch you. And if you place your steps carefully you will be rewarded by the kind of life you wish to live.
    It is fallacious to presume that if a person is competent and acts wisely with his monetary, educational and career choices, that he is not at risk of falling victim to unforeseen circumstances (out of his control, through no fault of his own), and ending up broke and on the streets. It is even more fallacious to presume that everyone has equal opportunity in these regards, especially when you look at people growing up under privileged circumstances (e.g. a rich family; not to say there's anything wrong with that).

    Do you seriously propose there be no social safety net? That people who are victim of unforeseen circumstances, beyond their control, deserve that and shouldn't be given any assistance? That is quite an extreme point of view.

    Also, what kind of regulation do you propose for banks? Should they be totally unregulated, to the point that they can take their customers money and use it for high-risk ventures, potentially losing their customers money?
    Would this really be the fault of the customer for not being careful, as you imply? Is it the customers fault when the banks monetary/investment process is so opaque that they can not inform themselves on how their money is being used? (and when the entire banking market is like that)
    Also the whole rich people's kids get a head start thing is fallacious to a large extent. There are many people who started out with literally nothing and became a millionaire through their hard work in a capitalist system. There are also many people who were bought up in a very privileged home but then never learned to take responsibility of themselves and ended quite miserably. Again you end up reaping what you sow.
    Eh, in all the situations you mention there, the rich families kids have the head start? I'm not saying it is wrong that they do or anything, but it does underscore the need for free public services such as education/health, in order to provide equal opportunity for the less well off.

    A rich families kids will (generally) have the opportunity of privileged education, health services, job prospects, monetary security and more; if they waste that, then that's one thing, but they still started off privileged.
    Socialism will never work because if you shift responsibility from the individual to the government then the government does a lousy job and the individual gets lazy and seeks a free ride, especially when there is nothing for an individual to aspire for because the divide between the classes has been all but abolished. Why would anyone want to work hard when they'll eventually end up living at the same means as someone who does no work and lives off state benefits!
    Again, specious; try restricting the amount of income you allow yourself to spend to that of the dole, and see how comfortable a living situation that provides.

    Generally, only people with very low personal standards (not including people with genuine problems) want to fraudulently stay on the dole; if jobs are available to you, it is not hard to earn more than you would on the dole.


    EDIT:
    gozunda wrote: »
    oh dear....
    Not a whole lot of a point replying to the thread if you are not interested in engaging peoples arguments?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    gozunda wrote: »
    Look its quite easy, how about you put together a worked analogy in response to the one I have given

    How about no.
    Analogies are awful, shitty ways to half-explain concepts. I understand that you have a bit of a hard-on for only using simplistic, reductionist methods of glossing over ideas but to borrow a phrase - I think you'll find it's a bit more complex than that.

    If you want complex concepts to be explained in childish terms someone else might indulge you, but there is no way I'm entertaining your demands for some kind of pathetic duel of analogies.

    gozunda wrote: »
    I understood that socialism and religion were in fact opposing ideologies - No?

    It wouldn't be the first thing you've not quite understood today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    gozunda wrote: »
    Well you wish to call it that however it may be construed as offensive where you do. But I will admit in your defence it appears to a popular phrase amongst socialists :D
    ...

    Never said I was a Socialst, however I do support a Capitalist system with Social Programs. Thats a bit different.

    Carry on ...

    *nom nom*


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    How about no.Analogies are awful, shitty ways to half-explain concepts. I understand that you have a bit of a hard-on for only using simplistic, reductionist methods of glossing over ideas but to borrow a phrase - I think you'll find it's a bit more complex than that. If you want complex concepts to be explained in childish terms someone else might indulge you, but there is no way I'm entertaining your demands for some kind of pathetic duel of analogies.It wouldn't be the first thing you've not quite understood today.


    Ouch Touchy! If you do not wish so be it, you can lead a horse to water... etc etc!

    Well ignoring that analogies are in fact useful tools when discussing the essential points of a specific issue as opposed to the repetition endless ideological waffle is of course your choice.

    I am certainly not the first to make use of these and I somehow doubt that some of the great thinkers of our age could be labelled 'as childish" for doing so (and no I don’t place myself in the same camp btw)

    Of course all issues are a bit more complex than an analogy will allow but the best expressed ideas are always clear and concise. If you wish to hide your arguments in endless sprouting’s concerning the oppressed masses and the evils inherent in capitalism well that’s fine but it does nothing to advance the issue under discussion.

    I of course apologise if you have had problems understanding when I have made myself completely clear...


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Never said I was a Socialst, however I do support a Capitalist system with Social Programs. Thats a bit different.
    Carry on ... *nom nom*

    Never said you were tbh...Do you not know that popcorn is a product of that evil capitalist state? :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    gozunda wrote: »
    Ouch Touchy! If you do not wish so be it, you can lead a horse to water... etc etc!

    Well ignoring that analogies are in fact useful tools when discussing the essential points of a specific issue as opposed to the repetition endless ideological waffle is of course your choice.

    I am certainly not the first to make use of these and I somehow doubt that some of the great thinkers of our age could be labelled 'as childish" for doing so (and no I don’t place myself in the same camp btw)

    Of course all issues are a bit more complex than an analogy will allow but the best expressed ideas are always clear and concise. If you wish to hide your arguments in endless sprouting’s concerning the oppressed masses and the evils inherent in capitalism well that’s fine but it does nothing to advance the issue under discussion.

    I of course apologise if you have had problems understanding when I have made myself completely clear...

    So, if I read this right, your telling me that yes, ideas are complex but no, you won't be quite lowering yourself to the unsightly depth of actually talking about what you profess to be true.
    Not when there are analogies and only analogies to speak in.

    As for your "I'm in good company 'cos great thinkers used analogies too" idea, it think you'll find that they were also capable of talking about the ideas in detail.
    But as you rightly asserted you're not quite in that league...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    @gozunda, would you ever give it a rest? You're being unnecessarily antagonistic, you're not contributing anything of note, just giving me a headache. I'd ignore list you, but I want the first one to be special.
    I'll still hold it that private schools provide a much better quality of education than public schools, similar with health care.

    Do you have any evidence for that, whatsoever?
    Again the top 1% rich are not affected by increased taxes. The only ones who are affected are the bottom working class who find it even harder to get by the day with the increased cost of living and the middle class who have to deal with pay cuts and giving away more of their pay as taxes.

    The top 1% will be affected by a wealth tax, etc. Granted, capital flight may be an issue, but I'm sure we could think of new and innovative ways to ensure that anyone trying to dispose of large amounts of real property, shares, etc. could be disincentivised.
    This will only encourage the skilled middle class professionals to leave the country and move off to other countries where they can live a more comfortable life. Even if they might be getting paid less in the other country, due to the lower cost of living, they end up with more savings. And this is the reason why so many professionals are leaving the country to go and work in Australia, Canada, USA, UK etc.

    This means that there will be even less middle class people to run the economy, which is very prevalent right now with lack of doctors, nurses, teachers etc. in this country putting enormous strain on the understaffed health and education sector.

    The reason most professionals that I know are leaving is that they can't get work. Tax rates in the 80s were astronomical, but we still managed to maintain a healthy professional class.

    You seem to be assuming here, as well, that financial concerns will always over-ride family and emotional ties to the country, which just isn't the case. Lots of assumptions, very little hard evidence.
    Also a point of education, I believe there should be more private schools and people should be willing to pay for their kids education. When the parents are paying for the education of their children, both the parents and the children take the education more seriously, the children will get a much better quality education and in turn they will do better in life.

    Reduced taxes and parents saving up money will easily pay for their children's education in good private institutions which don't need to cost a fortune.

    For the most deprived who live hand to mouth and can't afford to save up for their children's education, they could apply for state education grants.

    This is nonsense - what you're basically endorsing is a system whereby the rich can maintain their status by buying their way to a better education. What about merit? I thought you free market types were about personal responsibility, competition on a level playing field rather than one dictated by the size of daddy's wallet. Similarly, the wealthy get to live because they can afford better health care? That's what it all boils down to.
    We like to give out about the "nanny state" and how we shouldn't be told what we ought to do and there needs to be more emphasis on person responsibility. Yet at the same time we want the government to pay and support all of our basic needs with a nice safety net underneath us in case we are incompetent idiots and we screw up.

    Who likes to give out about the "nanny state"? Not me. If you're all about risk taking in the market, how can you expect people to take a leap if they're going to end up starving and homeless if they fail? People "screw up" for many, many reasons, not necessarily because they're "incompetent idiots".
    There is a whole culture of spending unnecessarily in this country. People feel the need to take two holidays a year to some foreign exotic location whether they have a job or not. I've come across many people who live on the dole and still go on their yearly summer and winter retreat. People like to own big plasma TVs and buy new clothes and all sorts of useless **** every Christmas. They don't mind spending upwards 50eur a night going on bender yet when it comes to paying for necessities like health care and education they give out about how they're broke and they can't afford anything.

    Here, personal responsibility? People can spend wherever they like. Btw, this is basically prejudice, there's no evidential basis for any of it, unless you want to put me right on that? Your "my auntie knows a woman" anecdotes won't cut it, btw.
    Free market capitalism requires people to take risks and take personal responsibility. This means people need to learn to save their incomes and spend it wisely on things that are necessary and if they screw up with their finances there isn't a comfortable safety net for them to fall back on. In this system if the individual makes wise use of his finances, he can then reward himself and his family by paying for a high quality of education and health care for himself and his family. If the person is stupid and wastes all his money on useless things then he will have to reap what he sows.

    Again, if you want people taking risks, you need to reduce the risk. No safety net = less innovation and vibrancy in the economy.
    For the corporations, if they are fraudulent and exploitative, they will be put under trial and there will be no bailing out for them. The fraudulent and exploitative bankers/CEOs will simply be fined/imprisoned. The people who invested in these corporations, well they'll have to suffer like those who invested in buying houses during the boom era and are now stuck with mortgages way more than what their house is actually worth. Again its about taking personal responsibility. You've got to be careful where you place your steps cause if you fall there won't be a safety net to catch you. And if you place your steps carefully you will be rewarded by the kind of life you wish to live.

    And this is what free market capitalism is about.
    Which is nice in theory, but if half the country has its savings wiped out overnight, say, the consequences won't be pretty.

    Btw, you keep banging on about the "safety net" as if it's a bad thing - do you want a situation where the only people striking out and doing something new are those who have a parental safety net in place?
    Also the whole rich people's kids get a head start thing is fallacious to a large extent. There are many people who started out with literally nothing and became a millionaire through their hard work in a capitalist system. There are also many people who were bought up in a very privileged home but then never learned to take responsibility of themselves and ended quite miserably. Again you end up reaping what you sow.

    No, it's not. Take a look at any social mobility study. Sure, there may be exceptions, but certain arbitrary factors have a large bearing on success.
    "Well educated parents tend to have well educated children for whom it is easier to obtain well paid jobs. But the odds are stacked against children who do not benefit from this virtuous cycle."

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

    The whole point of this personal responsibility discourse is that it's blind to the entrenched advantages, privileges, and disadvantages in society. It's basically an apologia for entrenched privilege.
    Socialism will never work because if you shift responsibility from the individual to the government then the government does a lousy job and the individual gets lazy and seeks a free ride, especially when there is nothing for an individual to aspire for because the divide between the classes has been all but abolished. Why would anyone want to work hard when they'll eventually end up living at the same means as someone who does no work and lives off state benefits!

    That's not true. Socialism recognises that the individual doesn't exist in isolation, and has obligations towards the broader society - this is the point. If anything, it's about more responsibility than the mé féiner capitalist line.

    One thing that's accurate is that the divide between classes should be abolished - this idea that some people are "better" than others is a cancer in the heart of our society. We're all human beings, and we should be able to relate to each other as equals on that basis, it's as simple as that.

    Do you not think that pushing yourself to the absolute limit of your abilities should be motivation enough for people? Achieving everything you can achieve? I'm personally hugely ambitious, but money, status and moving in the "right" circles isn't what drives me - it's all about making the best of my abilities.

    Who ever said someone on the dole should have the same means as someone who makes a go of life? What we are saying is that a meritocratic society, where every child, without exception, has a decent chance of attaining their maximum potential, will be healthier, more vibrant, fairer and more inclusive to one where opportunities are limited to the privileged few.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    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."

    See, your problem here (as shown by your poor copy and paste) is that you are defining capitalism as free-market capitalism. They are not necessarily the same thing. Capitalism can have elements of protectionism, and, indeed, all working forms of capitalism have protectionism and government intervention, which is true in any reasonably developed country.
    Capitalism in any shape or form hasn't failed. That's just rhetoric from socialists who've seen their workers' paradises collapse time and time again everywhere they've been (temporarily) established.

    What would constitute a failure of capitalism? If a failure of socialism is a collapse of the economy or a revolution which overthrows the government (speaking here of socialist dictatorships) what would be a similar means for us to say a capitalist country has 'failed'?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    So, if I read this right, your telling me that yes, ideas are complex but no, you won't be quite lowering yourself to the unsightly depth of actually talking about what you profess to be true.
    Not when there are analogies and only analogies to speak in.

    As for your "I'm in good company 'cos great thinkers used analogies too" idea, it think you'll find that they were also capable of talking about the ideas in detail.But as you rightly asserted you're not quite in that league...

    No afraid not dh. That was not what was said...I have gone indepth into the issue raised (See your own post to which I replied on same) which was preceded by a single analogy to illustrate how this quasi capitalist economy has benefited from previous economic directions and how the suggested direction of a number of posters on this thread of further taxing all the "rich b*st*rds" would make everything all right - it wont funnily enough!

    Is there a reason why I have to enter into tedious economic descriptions at your insistence when a direct analogy helps illustrate the matter in an umambiguous manner? Perhaps you wish to permantly confuse the issue for some unstated socialist benefit? I really dont know.

    As for the "good company" reference I knew you just couldn't resist that bait hd..;). No I do not place myself in the league of great thinkers but I can hold an argument without being deflected into devisive behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    benway wrote: »
    @gozunda, would you ever give it a rest? You're being unnecessarily antagonistic, you're not contributing anything of note, just giving me a headache. I'd ignore list you, but I want the first one to be special.
    .

    Well I would suggest do whatever your conscience dictates but please dont expect me to take any notice. If you simply disagree with what I have posted that is fine however if as I believe you are simply attempting to mute a voice of opinion whom you do not agree with, your contributions do this thread and this discussion no favours. So No is the simple answer to your question...


Advertisement