what's wrong with socialism?

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Canada and Germany economically leaned towards capitalism to a much greater extent then the US over the last 30 years. Canada and Germany also had homogeneous populations. As that has faded so has the economic effectiveness of both countries.

Canada homogenous?



You realize France also isnt homogenous and is a social democracy as well right?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

No, the US is closer to socialist then either Canada or Germany. Canada and Germany are both significantly more authoritarian also.

Americans are divided racially on the issue and not without cause. In the US a single payer healthcare system would be a direct subsidy from Asians an Whites to Blacks and Latinos. Until there is a dramatic improvement in US's integration efforts, this isn't an unreasonable complaint considering the high correlation between ethnic and cultural differences between these groups.

Your username is very apt.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Canada homogenous?



You realize France also isnt homogenous and is a social democracy as well right?

Until the 80's Canada was extremely homogeneous unless you count the English/French divide which I don't since the English are just a bunch of wanna be Frenchmen. The diversification of Canada is a relatively recent thing. I think they have diversified more then any other country in the world in the last 20 years if I am not mistaken.

 

[Kindacrazy]

No, what's mathematical truth is that the top, say, 1% are disproportionately whiter and more Asian than the general population and the bottom, say, 50% are more black and Latino than the general population and that that bottom 50% will see more relief in their healthcare costs through single-payer.

But that's not a "direct subsidy from whites and Asians to blacks and Latinos." There's milions of whites in that bottom 50% as well.

If you group whites, Latinos, Asians, and blacks into population groups then take their relative tax burdens and the relative benefit each would receive from socialized medicine then yes it is a direct subsidy from one community to another. This matters politically to participants, it isn't a social issue that is easily diffused either. As I said before, the class issue is diffused someone by personal familial ties which create social pressure to assume some care of community members. When you have distinct communities operating within the same framework without that sense of connection it is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Am I just not explaining this concept correctly? Social cohesion in multicultural groups falls into the toilet, nobody wants to contribute to the social good because every group has a different set of values and they don't want to subsidize the values of other communities.

 

[CauseImbetta]

The more towards Socialism the Country trends, the more we'll see this garbage....

And this is why Socialism fails... there's always a significant part of the population who will fail to uphold their end of the deal and look for the Gov't Handouts.

Also, LOL at the Government trying to run any program and at least try to recoup costs. The dipshits running most major cities are always running deep in the red. Why? They have no fucking idea how to prioritize resources and manage budgets.

I mean seriously... look at the Federal Government. Keep spending assholes...

That doesn't look like Sweden of Finalnd or Denmark or Europe or Canada to me. They are very socialist compared to the USA. You have a poor argument.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Why is some socialism bad in your opinion?

We clearly need some socialism to counter-balance extreme capitalsim. Is it right that if you can't afford thousands of dollars for healthcare you have to live out of a card board box under a bridge?

What's wrong with the ultra rich paying their share in taxes commensurate with their income? What's wrong with wealthy corporations paying their share in taxes back to the community. Open up drug rehabilitation centers, etc. But no! Each man for himself! If the poor end up in ghettos that's their problem. Well, that's what lead to the French Revolution and caused the upper class to get mass executed.

Because of a lack of social services and well being for all I can't walk out at night in some areas without the fear of getting robbed. That is much less of an issue if developed nations such as Canada, Europe, etc. Today the highest taxed countries in the world have the highest standard of living.

With extreme capitalism you have less checks and balances, mortgage crisis of 2008 was a clear lesson. No one was ever held accountable for that disaster and greed. Interest groups run the show and don't give a shit about people. Some parts of the USA, the richest nation on earth, looks like sub Saharan Africa. Extreme poverty for all different types of races and people. Then you have the extreme rich that don't give a fuck.

Extreme socialism is bad too. It's best to be centrist.

That literally isn't an issue in the US. Many people have filed for bankruptcy (as if that's the end of the world) over medical bills, but no one has been forced to live in a cardboard box or die in the streets.

 

[Kindacrazy]

That doesn't look like Sweden of Finalnd or Denmark or Europe or Canada to me. They are very socialist compared to the USA. You have a poor argument.

No they aren't, I just proved they weren't in this thread. They are generally less corrupt. Also there are places in Canada and Europe that are exactly like that. Not Sweden or Finland because quite frankly it is to damn cold.
There is an area in Vancouver along the Fraser where their are tents of homeless for what is literally miles. You couldn't photograph it like this because they live in a wooded area but I walked along it last summer and it was absolutely stunning the sheer volume of homeless.

 

[CauseImbetta]

Its not fair. People who actually work hard for their shit should be able to keep their money.

Big government is bad. And dont get me wrong, this isnt a left v right thing. Trump's administration is very pro Big Government.

I agree. The problem then becomes huge income disparity in society and you can't walk the street without getting mugged. Look at South Africa. Rich pay no tax and hoard all the cash. So now they have to get cars that shoot fire out the sides to combat car jackers that don't have social services, paved roads or job support. Do you want to live in a mad Max ecosystem or a more egalitarian society? Over 65 and don't have a pension? We'll help. Or would you rather live in a cardboard box under a bridge and rob school children. Let me know.

 

[Trotsky]

Mostly to express amazement and disgust at the bigoted mindset.

Anyone over the age of about 10 knows that blacks' and Latinos' incomes are lower than whites' and Asians', but to frame single-payer as a "direct subsidy" of one entire racial/ethnic group to another takes some really impressive racism.

Single-payer isn't going to bring blacks' and Latinos' health spending to zero. It's also not going to keep white and Asian health spending steady or raise it. Yet that's exactly the way people like you see it.

Again:

"Yeah, but even though every race will spend less on health care, blacks and browns will spend more lesser."

It's two scoops-ism. If white folks are only just benefiting, but not benefiting to an equal or greater extent than minorities, they'd just rather everyone be worse off.

 

[CauseImbetta]

That literally isn't an issue in the US. Many people have filed for bankruptcy (as if that's the end of the world) over medical bills, but no one has been forced to live in a cardboard box or die in the streets.

False, just from the 2008 mortgage crisis alone thousands became homeless. I worked with a guy who lost his house. Was anyone held accountable for that? No. google the number of Americans living in cardboard boxes. You'll be shocked. But spending trillions on a failed and illigal war in Iraq is perfectly fine because the military industrial complex and AIPAC says so.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

False, just from the 2008 mortgage crisis alone thousands became homeless. I worked with a guy who lost his house. Was anyone held accountable for that? No. google the number of Americans living in cardboard boxes. You'll be shocked. But spending trillions on a failed and illigal war in Iraq is perfectly fine because the military industrial complex and AIPAC says so.

You were talking about health care, now you're moving it to the housing crises.

You're buddy bought a house he couldn't afford and lost it. It sucks, but maybe he should have bought a house more inline with his salary.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Why is some socialism bad in your opinion?

We clearly need some socialism to counter-balance extreme capitalsim. Is it right that if you can't afford thousands of dollars for healthcare you have to live out of a card board box under a bridge?

What's wrong with the ultra rich paying their share in taxes commensurate with their income? What's wrong with wealthy corporations paying their share in taxes back to the community. Open up drug rehabilitation centers, etc. But no! Each man for himself! If the poor end up in ghettos that's their problem. Well, that's what lead to the French Revolution and caused the upper class to get mass executed.

Because of a lack of social services and well being for all I can't walk out at night in some areas without the fear of getting robbed. That is much less of an issue if developed nations such as Canada, Europe, etc. Today the highest taxed countries in the world have the highest standard of living.

With extreme capitalism you have less checks and balances, mortgage crisis of 2008 was a clear lesson. No one was ever held accountable for that disaster and greed. Interest groups run the show and don't give a shit about people. Some parts of the USA, the richest nation on earth, looks like sub Saharan Africa. Extreme poverty for all different types of races and people. Then you have the extreme rich that don't give a fuck.

Extreme socialism is bad too. It's best to be centrist.

I agree with you. The extremes are dangerous.

People won’t try hard if there is no incentive, no sticks or carrots. Your country, team, group or family will be stronger if there is incentive to try to be better.

On the other hand, the Capitalist model of a village where the best guy gets the buyers is apt.. in a village setting. It isn’t apt in a giant setting. The winner becomes the best advertiser, the best liar, and the guy who already holds the finance to crush the competition with advertising and propaganda.

I like that, in socialist countries, the playing field for who becomes a doctor comes from anyone who wants to be a doctor. May the fittest survive. In a capitalist country the fittest amongst those rich enough to buy entry can play. You get a smaller population able to compete. This is bad for a country, you don’t get the best.

I believe in Capitalism, but with some safety nets, and a serious drive to find talent hidden in the families who start behind the eight ball. I believe in welfare, but that it should be an actual job. A shitty one, so that anyone would rather have a real job.

That leads into eugenics.....

It’s a tough call, all of this. I agree that extremism on either side, which likely implies a lack of willingness to listen on a casebycase and rather a fallback onto a dogmatic automatic belief system, is the worst way to go.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

My point being that "socialism" and "capitalism" are already hopelessly muddled, and now we're having to deal with "social capitalism" (new one I saw here), social democracy, and now your "socio-capitalism." For fuck's sake, just discuss policies on their own merits. No one can keep up with this language pollution, and with everyone using their own private glossary, it's no wonder you see so many arguments about nothing.

This is something I can agree with. Nice post.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Until the 80's Canada was extremely homogeneous unless you count the English/French divide which I don't since the English are just a bunch of wanna be Frenchmen. The diversification of Canada is a relatively recent thing. I think they have diversified more then any other country in the world in the last 20 years if I am not mistaken.

We are wannabe Frenchmen?

 

[Kindacrazy]

We are wannabe Frenchmen?

Sure, better food, thinner women, better weather. There is a reason so many brits want to retire in France. But in all seriousness, it was a joke.

 

[lfd0311]

Why is some socialism bad in your opinion?

We clearly need some socialism to counter-balance extreme capitalsim. Is it right that if you can't afford thousands of dollars for healthcare you have to live out of a card board box under a bridge?

LOL, that was as far as I got.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its not fair. People who actually work hard for their shit should be able to keep their money.

Big government is bad. And dont get me wrong, this isnt a left v right thing. Trump's administration is very pro Big Government.

Landlords and shareholders also take a bite out of what people work hard for (a bigger one than the gov't, actually). And for that matter, workers also benefit from a lot of the work of previous workers, gov't services, and nature.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Until the 80's Canada was extremely homogeneous unless you count the English/French divide which I don't since the English are just a bunch of wanna be Frenchmen. The diversification of Canada is a relatively recent thing. I think they have diversified more then any other country in the world in the last 20 years if I am not mistaken.

What do you mean by "Until the 80's Canada was extremely homogeneous unless you count the English/French divide"?

Are you saying that Canada was basically only English/French to that point as that is wrong.

 

[ndwolfwood]

Or would you rather live in a cardboard box under a bridge and rob school children. Let me know.

As a married man with a career, this life does have some romantic elements to it.

 

[ndwolfwood]

Nobody bothering me, just under my bridge sharpening up my knife, waiting for the next rube to shake down.