Why are we all becoming socialists now?

SeanW

benway wrote: »

Because ... free market capitalism has failed.

You are serious?

You do realise that what we had was anything but free market capitalism?

In free market capitalism:

1. The currency would be "hard" e.g. a credible gold standard. It would have been much harder for the construction bubble to form (or indeed any bubble) because loanable funds would have been limited to the savings rate only.
2. The tax incentives to build apartments a million miles into the sticks etc would never have been granted, and most importantly:
3. BANKS THAT MESSED UP WOULD HAVE FAILED. That is, they would disappear, go away, and the government would have realised that the best way to respond was to compensate retail depositors like the American FDIC does as a matter of routine when banks do fail. We would not have had our government sign away the wealth of generations compensating bank bondholders because in a genuine free market, that doesn't happen.

All of these contributing factor came from government meddlinng and the maliciousness and neglect of European institutions. It had nothing to with freedom or markets.

_Gawd_

SeanW wrote: »

You are serious?

You do realise that what we had was anything but free market capitalism?

In free market capitalism:

1. The currency would be "hard" e.g. a credible gold standard. It would have been much harder for the construction bubble to form (or indeed any bubble) because loanable funds would have been limited to the savings rate only.
2. The tax incentives to build apartments a million miles into the sticks etc would never have been granted, and most importantly:
3. BANKS THAT MESSED UP WOULD HAVE FAILED. That is, they would disappear, go away, and the government would have realised that the best way to respond was to compensate retail depositors like the American FDIC does as a matter of routine when banks do fail. We would not have had our government sign away the wealth of generations compensating bank bondholders because in a genuine free market, that doesn't happen.

All of these contributing factor came from government meddlinng and the maliciousness and neglect of European institutions. It had nothing to with freedom or markets.

Forget about it. The fact of the matter is that there is simply total ignorance about capitalism or what it actually is. Yet we see people chime in on fixing a problem they don't even understand the concept of. Free market capitalism has not failed - it never even existed. Why? Because the wealthy despise it.

Monty Burnz

_Gawd_ wrote: »

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.

I think you will find you are incorrect.

Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism is variously defined by sources. There is no consensus on the definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[1] There is general agreement that capitalism is an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.[2][3] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[4] There is general agreement that capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[5]

MungBean

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

If I could earn €240 euro a week putting up shelves and fixing washing machines I'd be doing it. But you cannot honestly tell me if you were unemployed you would do any kind of job rather than go on welfare because we both know that isnt true.

If someone wanted to pay me 200 a week to clean their toilet I'll clean their toilet but I'm not going to decline welfare in favour of struggling to put food on the table.

Eric Cartman

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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."



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?

leaving out the disabilities as they would need support. Where are these peoples families, did these people leave school and just find that there were no jobs for them anywhere ? , Emmigration has become such an easy process that realistically without a dole safety net anywhere you could have a lot of countries, especially in our great 'free' land of the EU that self regulate and match the number of jobs to the number of people. Were going to hit this crisis again in about 20-25 years judging by the amount of people who seem to be preggers this year. If we opened up all the channels , cut the welfare budget and the bloated public service, used those savings to cut taxes and attracted foreign investment, then we would have a wonderfully self regulated market and almost full employment. Those without employment could be assisted by family or charity.

Monty Burnz

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

I don't mean this as a criticism Eric, but I presume you didn't pay any tax on what you earned?

On an unrelated point, are you in receipt of the dole at the moment?

Chuck Stone

SeanW wrote: »

All of these contributing factor came from government meddlinng and the maliciousness and neglect of European institutions. It had nothing to with freedom or markets.

Crony Capitalism.

_Gawd_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think you will find you are incorrect.

LOL...read your own post instead of criticizing mine.

I know what capitalism is - I'm a member of the LvMI. I repeat, there is ZERO public sector compatible with the economic system of capitalism. Your post never once mentioned public intervention.

Eric Cartman

MungBean wrote: »

If I could earn €240 euro a week putting up shelves and fixing washing machines I'd be doing it. But you cannot honestly tell me if you were unemployed you would do any kind of job rather than go on welfare because we both know that isnt true.

If someone wanted to pay me 200 a week to clean their toilet I'll clean their toilet but I'm not going to decline welfare in favour of struggling to put food on the table.

Yes, andything I needed to work at to survive Id do. The problem is our welfare state is so bloated that your sometimes financially better off on welfare than working, and that should never be a possibility

Micky Dolenz

_Gawd_ wrote: »

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.

Mod

Heh, the irony.

Flame like that again and you'll be banned.

MungBean

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes, andything I needed to work at to survive Id do. The problem is our welfare state is so bloated that your sometimes financially better off on welfare than working, and that should never be a possibility

You'd do whatever work you needed to do to survive but you draw the line at claiming welfare ?

Welfare for a lot of people isnt a get out of jail free card its their last option to survive. The vast majority of people on welfare are hard working people who have seen their avenues of work disappear. I know there are lazy people out there who have no intentions of working but its a minority. The majority of people would work if there were jobs available.

Its easy to say "I made 200 doing odd jobs this week" thats great but you may not make it every week for the rest of your life. Its not a viable option for most people to decline welfare in favour of hoping there are enough small jobs in their local area and praying someone else isnt doing them.

Eric Cartman

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't mean this as a criticism Eric, but I presume you didn't pay any tax on what you earned?

On an unrelated point, are you in receipt of the dole at the moment?

Im self employed and pay tax on everything I earn, It also doesnt entitle me to be on the dole due to a different rate of PRSI paid , so Im almost living in my dream world of having to always look out for myself

Monty Burnz

_Gawd_ wrote: »

LOL...read your own post instead of criticizing mine.

What?

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I know what capitalism is - I'm a member of the LvMI.

Oh really? I'm so sorry! I guess that means you should be allowed make completely incorrect claims. There's no single agreed definition of capitalism: the overwhelming majority of definitions allow for state intervention and welfare.

And wtf is LvMI?

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I repeat, there is ZERO public sector compatible with the economic system of capitalism. Your post never once mentioned public intervention.

cough*bullsh!t*cough

mloc

MungBean wrote: »

If I could earn €240 euro a week putting up shelves and fixing washing machines I'd be doing it. But you cannot honestly tell me if you were unemployed you would do any kind of job rather than go on welfare because we both know that isnt true.

If someone wanted to pay me 200 a week to clean their toilet I'll clean their toilet but I'm not going to decline welfare in favour of struggling to put food on the table.

You're only human, and therefore these are understandable choices.

The issue is with the system; welfare should be a very, very uncomfortable place to be (except, again, for those who simply can not work). It should be a place where you rise every day at 6 am and spend the whole day looking for work, any work, so can afford at least some luxury in your life. Welfare should not provide anything beyond subsistance.

Eric Cartman

MungBean wrote: »

You'd do whatever work you needed to do to survive but you draw the line at claiming welfare ?

Its not my money , why should I get a handout, why should anybody get a handout from money that was taken by force from hard working people.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And wtf is LvMI?

A quick google suggests the Ludwig van Mises Institute.

So you think membership means that you can get away with false claims? I must join too - filling in this form shouldn't take me too long.

This will make my Phd in applied economics much easier.

Chuck Stone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And wtf is LvMI?

Ludwig Von Mises Institute I'm guessing.

cough*bullsh!t*cough

In a true free market there would be no involuntary transfers of wealth or resources so there wouldn't be state services.

Free market Capitalism is an ideal that has not been tried (and probably never will be).

MungBean

mloc wrote: »

You're only human, and therefore these are understandable choices.

The issue is with the system; welfare should be a very, very uncomfortable place to be (except, again, for those who simply can not work). It should be a place where you rise every day at 6 am and spend the whole day looking for work, any work, so can afford at least some luxury in your life. Welfare should not provide anything beyond subsistance.

I dont disagree that it shouldn't be comfortable on welfare but I strongly disagree that it shouldn't exist at all and that those who are on it are somehow morally wrong to claim it which is how Eric Cartman's view is coming across. He seems to think its wrong to have welfare and that its taking money by force from one person to pay to the next person because they are too lazy to work. Thats a very simplistic and unfair way to view things in the context of almost half a million people who are on welfare as a result of an economic recession.

Monty Burnz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In a true free market there would be no involuntary transfers of wealth or resources so there wouldn't be state services.

Indeed, in the extreme theoretical form of the free market. But there's a difference between a totally free market and a 'capitalist' system, which is commonly characterised as described by the references I quoted.

_Gawd_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What?

Oh really? I'm so sorry! I guess that means you should be allowed make completely incorrect claims. There's no single agreed definition of capitalism: the overwhelming majority of definitions allow for state intervention and welfare.

And wtf is LvMI?

cough*bullsh!t*cough

Oh now I understand...you're speaking of State controlled capitalism? i.e - corporatism? State controlled corporatism is NOT free market capitalism sorry to disappoint you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

leaving out the disabilities as they would need support.

I think you MASSIVELY underestimate the skills and finances needed to bring up a disabled child if you think every family has the resources.

Where are these peoples families, did these people leave school and just find that there were no jobs for them anywhere ? , Emmigration has become such an easy process that realistically without a dole safety net anywhere you could have a lot of countries, especially in our great 'free' land of the EU that self regulate and match the number of jobs to the number of people. Were going to hit this crisis again in about 20-25 years judging by the amount of people who seem to be preggers this year. If we opened up all the channels , cut the welfare budget and the bloated public service, used those savings to cut taxes and attracted foreign investment, then we would have a wonderfully self regulated market and almost full employment.

1 - You do know we have one of the world's lowest corporate tax rates?
2 - We did exactly what you said and at made things worse. You fail to take into account that the people you put trust in are incredibly corrupt and have no interesting in helping anyone but themselves. As long as that is the prevailant issue, these ideas will not work.

Those without employment could be assisted by family or charity.

In other words, "can't somebody ELSE do it?".

Believeing that charity should look after someone is hypocritical. What you want to do here is using the funds of other people, to help you increase your own funds. Isn't this what dole-dodgers do?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes, andything I needed to work at to survive Id do. The problem is our welfare state is so bloated that your sometimes financially better off on welfare than working, and that should never be a possibility

This, I would agree with.

randylonghorn

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I know what capitalism is

No, you know what YOUR preferred definition of capitalism is; that's not at all the same thing.

I repeat, there is ZERO public sector compatible with the economic system of capitalism.

Just as an intellectual exercise, as befits a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, will you describe to me this ideal capitalist society of yours with ZERO public intervention, if you would?

No police, I presume ... or private police forces employed and under the authority of big business?

No defence forces ... or perhaps privately paid mercenary forces?

No healthcare of any kind, except private / paid healthcare?

No education of any kind, except private / paid education?

No public infrastructure, no public roads, no public transport?

Sounds a bit like society back in the early middle ages, when the Black Death and other plagues ravaged the lands; when a very tiny minority of people were wealthy beyond their dreams and the majority struggled to eat; when life expectancy was about 40 for the majority of the population (if they could actually count that high, due to not having had any education) ...

_Gawd_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A quick google suggests the Ludwig van Mises Institute.

So you think membership means that you can get away with false claims? I must join too - filling in this form shouldn't take me too long.

This will make my Phd in applied economics much easier.

Your Phd in economics obtained in university is nothing more than a Keynes toilet paper. You learn in school about the man that brought the worlds finance to it's knees. The Fed has hundreds of economists with Phd's working for them, sadly it doesn't define or proves one's economic savvy as the Americans are looking into the oblivion.

Chuck Stone

MungBean wrote: »

Eric Cartman's view is coming across. He seems to think its wrong to have welfare and that its taking money by force

It's the 'taxation is theft' idea - an oft vomited piece of libertarian evangelism.

zephyro

randylonghorn wrote: »

Just as an intellectual exercise, as befits a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, will you describe to me this ideal capitalist society of yours with ZERO public intervention, if you would?

He seems to be referring to some form of anarcho-capitalism.

Eric Cartman

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I think you MASSIVELY underestimate the skills and finances needed to bring up a disabled child if you think every family has the resources.

I said leave them out because I am aware that support for disabled children is a necessity as the medical treatments and assistive devices required would bankrupt most families

1 - You do know we have one of the world's lowest corporate tax rates?
2 - We did exactly what you said and at made things worse. You fail to take into account that the people you put trust in are incredibly corrupt and have no interesting in helping anyone but themselves. As long as that is the prevailant issue, these ideas will not work.

This is why a small government of a bare minimum set of services would be most capable of keeping this country on track, the public sector is too large and completely opaque and this needs to be resolved.

But I still dont think that any able bodied person should be entitled to dole without working. Its utter madness that people can leave school/ college without doing a tap and receive money.

This is why I would be in favour of voluntary schemes that people could pay into while employed and phasing out government welfare until your basically left with only the school leavers and layabouts being cut off

_Gawd_

randylonghorn wrote: »

No, you know what YOUR preferred definition of capitalism is; that's not at all the same thing.

Just as an intellectual exercise, as befits a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, will you describe to me this ideal capitalist society of yours with ZERO public intervention, if you would?

No police, I presume ... or private police forces employed and under the authority of big business?

No defence forces ... or perhaps privately paid mercenary forces?

No healthcare of any kind, except private / paid healthcare?

No education of any kind, except private / paid education?

No public infrastructure, no public roads, no public transport?

Sounds a bit like society back in the early middle ages, when the Black Death and other plagues ravaged the lands; when a very tiny minority of people were wealthy beyond their dreams and the majority struggled to eat; when life expectancy was about 40 for the majority of the population (if they could actually count that high, due to not having had any education) ...

You can have a government to only organise police, courts and the military NOTHING ELSE. Anything at all that is not voluntary is not permitted. This is called Libertarianism. In capitalism, the government simply is not involved in legislating or building roads, running transport, education, health etc. Capitalism is inherently anarchist, the market is total chaos in ever sense (self regulating mechanisms exist i.e - supply and demand). But in capitalism, no government involvement whatsoever is tolerated.

Now, this leads me into you claim that this is my definition of capitalism. So, by that logic...would communism exist in the US (not that the US is capitalistic) if Obama woke up tomorrow and said "we have a great little communist country here"? Saying so would not make the fact any different. A government cannot live in a capitalist system because a government is inherently anti-capitalist because they can only survive on what they plunder from the productive private sector. They do not generate any wealth themselves and so their legislation throws the market off course i.e - not capitalism.

southsiderosie

My goodness, there is a lot of nonsense on this thread.

The problem with Ireland isn't socialism, capitalism, or whatever ill-defined ism that people use to put people they disagree with into a box. The problem is gombeenism. The only thing that matters is pleasing key political constituencies - election-ism is the only ism that matters.

The Irish government over the last 15 years has adopted neo-liberal regulatory and tax policies to please its key (US) business constituencies, and engaged in reckless public spending in order to please key voting constituencies: the elderly and public sector trade unions. Any fool could tell you that cutting taxes and increasing spending is a recipe for fiscal disaster REGARDLESS of their ideological bent, and those pretending that the situation in Ireland is due to anything other than Fianna Fail's desire to stay in power endlessly are leading you up the garden path.

mloc

MungBean wrote: »

I dont disagree that it shouldn't be comfortable on welfare but I strongly disagree that it shouldn't exist at all and that those who are on it are somehow morally wrong to claim it which is how Eric Cartman's view is coming across. He seems to think its wrong to have welfare and that its taking money by force from one person to pay to the next person because they are too lazy to work. Thats a very simplistic and unfair way to view things in the context of almost half a million people who are on welfare as a result of an economic recession.

I think there is definitely a need for a "safety net" of sorts for those who are unable to work. It is definitely within the interests of the state to have such a thing.

The net however should be designed as to ensure those in it remain there for the least possible amount of time and are motivated to return to employment as quickly as possible.

I think it's also important to draw a distinction towards an "unemployment benefit", to which I'm referring to in this case, which in my definition is a government payment to an able-bodied individual of working age who is not in employment, as opposed to a disability or similar benefit.

mloc

southsiderosie wrote: »

My goodness, there is a lot of nonsense on this thread.

The problem with Ireland isn't socialism, capitalism, or whatever ill-defined ism that people use to put people they disagree with into a box. The problem is gombeenism. The only thing that matters is pleasing key political constituencies - election-ism is the only ism that matters.

The Irish government over the last 15 years has adopted neo-liberal regulatory and tax policies to please its key (US) business constituencies, and engaged in reckless public spending in order to please key voting constituencies: the elderly and public sector trade unions. Any fool could tell you that cutting taxes and increasing spending is a recipe for fiscal disaster REGARDLESS of their ideological bent, and those pretending that the situation in Ireland is due to anything other than Fianna Fail's desire to stay in power endlessly are leading you up the garden path.

This is largely true. We have a horrendous history of patronage and cronyism in this country, and most of our political ills stem from that. It's not just the politicians that are to blame here, indeed, most of the blame lies with the general populace.