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?

15681011

Comments

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


    _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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭Killer Wench


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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    yawha 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.


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


    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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    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:


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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.


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


    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.


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


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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).


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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... :confused:


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


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

    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.


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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. :)


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


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

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    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.
    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).




  • 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.


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


    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.


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


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Mance Rayder


    Ireland has been socialist for a very long time.

    Social welfare, Social Housing, Social healthcare.


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


    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


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


    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....


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    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.


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


    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?


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


    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?


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


    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...


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


    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.


Advertisement