Why are we all becoming socialists now?

paddyandy

Dudess wrote: »

Wow, you've said something sensible! :eek:

You finally noticed !

zephyro

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Schools and hospitals run for profit? ****, that is one frightening thought.

Can you explain what is frightening about it?

scopper

zephyro wrote: »

Can you explain what is frightening about it?

Everything.

boynesider

Socialism would not help Ireland. What would help would be a higher level of honesty and integrity amongst our political classes. Too many careerists and party ideologues at the moment, although at the same time I reject the notion of Ireland being in an enormous crisis in both a global and historical context.

plasmaguy

A couple of years ago, the majority of Irish people were PD's/right wing FFers.

If you weren't one ourself, you at least knew of someone, a family member or extended relative.

They celebrated the free market, and boasted about the rising value of their investment properties, and toasted champagne at the Galway Races.

Now you can hardly find any of those free marketeers. They have all gone socialist, and tell you how they always admired Eamon Gilmore or Pat Rabitte, and weren't the PDs terrible and so on.

You'd wonder how PDs/FF ever got elected in the first place.

paddyandy

zephyro wrote: »

Can you explain what is frightening about it?

We Irish love hospitals and doctors and nurses and that is a problem . Hospitals run as businesses would take the sloppy ' day at the sea-side ' thing out of the system . Agree ????

mloc

paddyandy wrote: »

We Irish love hospitals and doctors and nurses and that is a problem . Hospitals run as businesses would take the sloppy ' day at the sea-side ' thing out of the system . Agree ????

It's not quite so black and white.

If you run the hospital with a business-like model where the patients are the "major shareholders", yes, that works.

If you run a hospital in a private business context, where the goal is to maximise profit... the results are not so good for the patient.

zephyro

mloc wrote: »

If you run a hospital in a private business context, where the goal is to maximise profit... the results are not so good for the patient.

Is there any evidence supporting this? Presumeably if results have not been good for patients at such a hospital people won't choose that hospital for their treatment. I don't see how profits could be maximised without giving the best possible results for patients.

mloc

zephyro wrote: »

Is there any evidence supporting this? Presumeably if results have not been good for patients at such a hospital people won't choose that hospital for their treatment. I don't see how profits could be maximised without giving the best possible results for patients.

Here I would point to the US medical system where an enormous proportion of people can't afford basic medical care due to price gouging by hospitals.

It's not that they don't provide good care, they do; they provide it at a price that many cannot afford.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

boynesider wrote: »

Socialism would not help Ireland. What would help would be a higher level of honesty and integrity amongst our political classes. Too many careerists and party ideologues at the moment, although at the same time I reject the notion of Ireland being in an enormous crisis in both a global and historical context.

Absoulte pipe-dream. Not disgreeing with the idea, but it's never going to happen.

zephyro wrote: »

Is there any evidence supporting this? Presumeably if results have not been good for patients at such a hospital people won't choose that hospital for their treatment. I don't see how profits could be maximised without giving the best possible results for patients.

How do you know the patient is an area where he or she has a choice? If you get hit by a car, knocked unconscious, how do you register your objects or requests?

In answer to your first question, about what was so frightening (and hats off to whoever said "everything") is that it just eeks inequality. And don't give me that work hard bull**** - plenty of people work hard but would not benefit, while plenty who are rich do **** all.

Also, what happens when you get to the point where saving the patient might mean your profits taking a hit? Do you seriously trust the owner of the hospital (let's say it's Michael O'Leary) to make an ethical decision? Come on!

Toby Take a Bow

Sleepy wrote: »

A few salient points:

1. Norway has billions of euros worth of oil. We don't. To try model our economy on theirs is ludicrous.

We could model our system on how they organised when they did find oil. Instead we've gone the other way.

Sleepy wrote: »

2. Under a capitalist system, we wouldn't be paying Anglo's debts. Nor would we have a bloated, over-paid public sector we can't afford.

Under an idealised interpretation of a completely free-trade based capitalism, we wouldn't be paying Anglo's debts. There are no true free-trade capitalist countries, and never have been. The so-called free trade ideal is only supportive of free-trade when it helps to cement their position in the world. Otherwise, they will gratefully accept government help, and indeed call for it if needs be.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You should probably get less in child support the more kids you have. It's nuts the way it's structured at the moment where the more kids you have, the more you get for each kid - you're just encouraging people who can't afford to have kids to have even more of them.

I always thought the idea of child support in return for more kids was to pay for pensions. The less kids the more screwed we are down the line (although maybe this wasn't the case back in the day, and has only been realised recently).

plasmaguy wrote: »

Now you can hardly find any of those free marketeers. They have all gone socialist, and tell you how they always admired Eamon Gilmore or Pat Rabitte, and weren't the PDs terrible and so on.

It's easy to find the so-called free marketeers. The PDs went bust because every major political party has appropriated their ideals. So the free marketeers trumpeting Gilmore and Rabitte aren't actually that hypocritical.

JyesusChrist

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? NO! Says the man in Washington it belongs to the poor. NO! Says the man in the Vatican it belongs to god! NO! Says the man in Moscow it belongs to everyone!" Anyone else think of Bioshock?

Monty Burnz

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I always thought the idea of child support in return for more kids was to pay for pensions. The less kids the more screwed we are down the line (although maybe this wasn't the case back in the day, and has only been realised recently).

Unfortunately, I don't know that many of the children who are born to milk the system ever get a fair chance in life to become earners and contributors to the system.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

JyesusChrist wrote: »

"Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? NO! Says the man in Washington it belongs to the poor. NO! Says the man in the Vatican it belongs to god! NO! Says the man in Moscow it belongs to everyone!" Anyone else think of Bioshock?

Bioshock the video game? Never mind. Elaborate, pelase.

mfceiling

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Tax in this country is actually fairly low. We're better off than most other European countries http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

VAT is a bit above average, but income tax is pretty low. Our corporation tax is very low and makes us a very attractive place to be for businesses, so saying that taxes are forcing businesses out is a load of BS.

People complain if hospitals are closed and if schools are understaffed, yet the slightest mention of raising taxes and people are up in arms. It's impossible to have good public services and low taxes.

Tax might be low but indirect taxes are high.

Buy a new car - VRT please and then the vat can be added to that and not the original price.

Doctor, dentist, hospital - good chunk of money please.

Alcohol, cigarettes, petrol....nice big whack for the government.

High cost of groceries, tv licence, bin charges, motor tax, private health insurance, schools, toll roads etc....it all adds up.

Well and good to ask where the government are going to get their money from but it's like going to your jar of coins to buy your things....only so many times you can go to that jar until one day it's empty.

Socialist_Pig

JyesusChrist wrote: »

Anyone else think of Bioshock?

no.... not till you mentioned the qoute anyways:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9NJZUomjQ

zephyro

mloc wrote: »

Here I would point to the US medical system where an enormous proportion of people can't afford basic medical care due to price gouging by hospitals.

It's not that they don't provide good care, they do; they provide it at a price that many cannot afford.

That's because the US government doesn't provide adequate assistance for those who can't afford medical insurance, which I'm definitely not advocating.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In answer to your first question, about what was so frightening (and hats off to whoever said "everything") is that it just eeks inequality.

Compared to our current two-tier system which doesn't? Presumeably by inequality you mean that the wealthy will get better treatment. That will happen in any health system unless it is regulated against.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Also, what happens when you get to the point where saving the patient might mean your profits taking a hit? Do you seriously trust the owner of the hospital (let's say it's Michael O'Leary) to make an ethical decision? Come on!

Sounds terrible but I can't think of a specific situation, can you?

Yeah Yeah Yeah

Are "we"?. Excellente..

Eric Cartman

mloc wrote: »

Begrudgery and a sense of entitlement is what drives the heart of the Irish socialist movement; not a real sense of social equality or political progressivism.

This ^^ this is exactly it. Most people who would Identify themselves as 'socialist' just seem to have a hatrid for rich people and a chip on their shoulder about anybody having anything. Not everyone is equal, some people work harder than others, and are entitled to earn more money and have nicer things. Just because I manage to do something that makes me a million doesnt mean that the people on welfare should get any of it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

zephyro wrote: »

Compared to our current two-tier system which doesn't? Presumeably by inequality you mean that the wealthy will get better treatment. That will happen in any health system unless it is regulated against.

Sounds terrible but I can't think of a specific situation, can you?

No, thank ****, because we haven't done it.

I was referring more of the idea of havign hospitals for-profit when I wrote that, but yes-why should someone who was born rich be more entitled to someone wo works hard every day?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This ^^ this is exactly it. Most people who would Identify themselves as 'socialist' just seem to have a hatrid for rich people and a chip on their shoulder about anybody having anything. Not everyone is equal, some people work harder than others, and are entitled to earn more money and have nicer things. Just because I manage to do something that makes me a million doesnt mean that the people on welfare should get any of it.

The problem with your argments, Eric, is that you twist situations and definitions to make yourself feel better about your positions. Socialism id me demanding what you earned? Eh, no. And even if it was, we've already had the emytological debate. Everyone who is rich has worked hard? Bull****. Everone who is on welfare has never worked? Bull****. And I think you know it, but if it makes you feel better, believe on. Doesn;t make you right or it true.

If you "manage" to do something, yes - reap the rewards, BUT it does not give you this "entitlement" you demand and bemoan at the same time.

If you lost everything, would you still hold the same view, that you should be kicked to the kerb and steamrolled over when you're down?

Eric Cartman

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The problem with your argments, Eric, is that you twist situations and definitions to make yourself feel better about your positions. Socialism id me demanding what you earned? Eh, no. And even if it was, we've already had the emytological debate. Everyone who is rich has worked hard? Bull****. Everone who is on welfare has never worked? Bull****. And I think you know it, but if it makes you feel better, believe on. Doesn;t make you right or it true.

If you "manage" to do something, yes - reap the rewards, BUT it does not give you this "entitlement" you demand and bemoan at the same time.

If you lost everything, would you still hold the same view, that you should be kicked to the kerb and steamrolled over when you're down?

so what, they got rich , however they did it, fair play to them.

I would rather clean toilets, pick up rubbish or do absolutely any other job than be on welfare, and the same cant be said for most people.

I just want to see how you feel about something, lets say we changed over the economic system to have no welfare system whatsoever provided by the government , and instead people could get together collectives or have an insurance company that they optionally paid into incase they lost their jobs and needed private welfare out of it. This would solve the problem of
A) the people whove never worked getting my money
the people who might lose their jobs would have a safety net.

please explain how you would feel about that and identify any pitfalls for me.

MungBean

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so what, they got rich , however they did it, fair play to them.

I would rather clean toilets, pick up rubbish or do absolutely any other job than be on welfare, and the same cant be said for most people.

Easy to say that when our not in that position. And I think everyone here including yourself knows its bullshít, youd sit on your todd waiting for a job to suit you same as most people would.

_Gawd_

OP you should know better than to start threads in AH. AH is a socialist leaning sub-forum and usually tends to attract the general scum. If you want to discuss genuine and logical political philosophy and economic systems...search elsewhere.

MungBean

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I just want to see how you feel about something, lets say we changed over the economic system to have no welfare system whatsoever provided by the government , and instead people could get together collectives or have an insurance company that they optionally paid into incase they lost their jobs and needed private welfare out of it. This would solve the problem of
A) the people whove never worked getting my money
the people who might lose their jobs would have a safety net.

please explain how you would feel about that and identify any pitfalls for me.

400 k people currently on the dole would have no money and no job and no way of paying for this insurance. Pretty big pitfall right there.

_Gawd_

MungBean wrote: »

400 k people currently on the dole would have no money and no job and no way of paying for this insurance. Pretty big pitfall right there.

Your ignorance is endearing.

Why would you blast capitalism if the current system has no more features of capitalism than Stalinism had. What youre forgetting is that these 400k people on the dole would find productive work in the private sector due to total deregulation i.e- capitalism.

Scanlas The 2nd

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

zephyro wrote: »

Compared to our current two-tier system which doesn't? Presumeably by inequality you mean that the wealthy will get better treatment. That will happen in any health system unless it is regulated against.

Sounds terrible but I can't think of a specific situation, can you?

No, thank ****, because we haven't done it.

I was referring more of the idea of havign hospitals for-profit when I wrote that, but yes-why should someone who was born rich be more entitled to someone wo works hard every day?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This ^^ this is exactly it. Most people who would Identify themselves as 'socialist' just seem to have a hatrid for rich people and a chip on their shoulder about anybody having anything. Not everyone is equal, some people work harder than others, and are entitled to earn more money and have nicer things. Just because I manage to do something that makes me a million doesnt mean that the people on welfare should get any of it.

The problem with your argments, Eric, is that you twist situations and definitions to make yourself feel better about your positions. Socialism id me demanding what you earned? Eh, no. And even if it was, we've already had the emytological debate. Everyone who is rich has worked hard? Bull****. Everone who is on welfare has never worked? Bull****. And I think you know it, but if it makes you feel better, believe on. Doesn;t make you right or it true.

If you "manage" to do something, yes - reap the rewards, BUT it does not give you this "entitlement" you demand and bemoan at the same time.

If you lost everything, would you still hold the same view, that you should be kicked to the kerb and steamrolled over when you're down?

If you have more money then you are more entitled to get what you want, no one is entitled to be rich, so what's the problem? Some people just complain because others are doing better, tough sh1t, stop complaining or figure out a way to earn more money for yourself.

MungBean

_Gawd_ wrote: »

Your ignorance is endearing.

Why would you blast capitalism if the current system has no more features of capitalism than Stalinism had. What youre forgetting is that these 400k people on the dole would find productive work in the private sector due to total deregulation i.e- capitalism.

Who's blasting capitalism ? I'm responding to Eric Cartman who never mentioned anything about total deregulation.

Eric Cartman

MungBean wrote: »

Easy to say that when our not in that position. And I think everyone here including yourself knows its bullshít, youd sit on your todd waiting for a job to suit you same as most people would.

last tuesday I had no money to do anything, and I literally mean 0 euro (even cleaned out all the change from the couch and under my car seats) . By 2pm today I had generated a total of 240 euro by doing jobs like : fixing 2 washing machines, installing a tv point in a house, moving furniture, going to the dump for a friend, putting up 2 shelves, pruning a fir tree and selling old computers I had gotten and fixed up.

I officially have 0 qualifications ,I went to public school like most of us, all of those skills I taught myself, I needed money so thats what I did to get it. I dont understand why other people cant do the same.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so what, they got rich , however they did it, fair play to them.

Eh, no. Your point was, "people who worked hard". Unless you meant to say, "**** the poor, i don't care how many hours a day they put in."

I would rather clean toilets, pick up rubbish or do absolutely any other job than be on welfare, and the same cant be said for most people.

I just want to see how you feel about something, lets say we changed over the economic system to have no welfare system whatsoever provided by the government , and instead people could get together collectives or have an insurance company that they optionally paid into incase they lost their jobs and needed private welfare out of it. This would solve the problem of
A) the people whove never worked getting my money
the people who might lose their jobs would have a safety net.

please explain how you would feel about that and identify any pitfalls for me.

If the country had 100% employment, you'd have a point, but it doesn't Personally, with your attitude, I wouldn't hire you to clean toilets. There is no way I could rely on you to help out if needs be, because there might not be anythign in it for you. You're not a team player, to use the lingo.

You'd also need 100% employment to abolish the social welfare system. You'd also need to have eradicated mental and physical disabiliities, unless you want me to invoke Godwin's Law. What are you going to do when 400,000 people for whom there are no jobs (and you'll notice I did NOT say "with no jobs" - big difference) are starving, have no welfare and are looting the supermarkets just to get food to fee their families?

What's your educated respocne to that scenario?

_Gawd_

MungBean wrote: »

Who's blasting capitalism ? I'm responding to Eric Cartman who never mentioned anything about total deregulation.

There is ZERO welfare in capitalism.

In capitalism, there exists NO bailouts, no subsidies, no welfare, no policies, no unions, no protectionism, ZERO public sector.