How should wealth be distributed?

Just lurking through this thread and I'll quickly respond to the question OP posted, wealth should be distributed simply on your work. This can be how hard you work, getting promoted till you reach the top, or entrepreneurship where you launch and run a new business. Those who do not want to work should not get any money, simple as that.

But the main reason I'm posting because i wanted to respond to this
Yes, I can defend Socialism.
Public roads.
Public education.

Social Security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Post office.
Labor laws.


And look at the areas where USA does poorly, namely health care and education.
Both of these problems are solved by other countries with more Socialism.
Also, every time Reaganomics has been tried, it has led to Recession, most notably the Great Recession.
First of with Public Roads. I'm pretty sure this is not a socialist idea. This is because roads where created since 4000 B.C, and these places weren't ruled by socialists but by kings. So no roads are not socialism. Far from it.

Labor laws are basically supposed mandated by government. Laws have to be put in place so people don't get screw over, whatever if its from unfair business polices, to burglary, or to kidnapping. This isn't also really a socialist thing, its more a law so people don't get f'd over thing.

Finally there is Public Education and Post office. No I not going to say its not socialism. My problem is that saying that this is a success of socialism. The thing is these places weren't amazing as they were until there is some sort of competition arrives. Some public schools by the government today has some flaws at the moment which is why Charter schools, Private schools and home schooling are a thing. In fact school choice is great for everyone. For the Post Office, it is FedEx and UPS. These companies brought competition. FedEx is noted for starting the tracking your package online thing. This leads both cases into competition which is a huge core in how Capitalism works. Competition is extremely important because it forces similar companies to work on better customer service, better products, lower prices, and new innovations that helps companies get more people to spend on their services, which equals more money to go around, that's one of the main reasons why the United States of America has the highest GDP on the planet. It surely wasn't because of government controlling everything. It was because there was competition and also entrepreneurship which leads to better products for people which helped the economy and wealth distribution overall.



Oh yea also fyi to everyone just because government is involved in X, doesn't always mean that X is part/made by socialism.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
EimP

fat wikipedia:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[13] Social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
An idea doesn't have to have been made by self-proclaimed socialist theorists in order to be socialist. Public roads and infrastructure are collectively owned by the citizenry, and can easily be seen as a form of socialism. Guess what-- trade and markets are a lot older than capitalism too.

Basically, anytime wealth is collected and resources allocated based on needs of the collective-- that can be defined as a form of socialism.

Labor laws are basically supposed mandated by government. Laws have to be put in place so people don't get screw over, whatever if its from unfair business polices, to burglary, or to kidnapping. This isn't also really a socialist thing, its more a law so people don't get f'd over thing.
What happened in the wallstreet collapse? Long story short-- the market was so complex, and so opaque, that there was no economic incentive to do anything but try to screw each other over. Too much thieving/stealing/swindling, not enough real work going on, the market crashed and people got screwed. Conservatives love "the rule of law" but seem to have a very poor understanding of its value; and don't seem to get that "Regulation" is another word for the rule of law.

Liberals want regulations and consumer protections because they help defend people from getting screwed and screwing each other. A belief in the safety of one's well being and the well being of his property is the bedrock of market belief needed to make a stable market for trade. But a market only functions well as long as the players can understand what's going on, make good decisions, and not fuck it up too much. That means the Rule of Law (regulations) are needed, and guess what--

Courts and Law Enforcement are pretty useless without $$$-- another form of socialism unfortunately.

It was because there was competition and also entrepreneurship which leads to better products for people which helped the economy and wealth distribution overall.
I doubt you will find many people here in this thread or in the Western world who will outright deny that competition is a vital tool for driving productivity, innovation, and more productive allocation of resources. Also, I'd fully agree that public school is pretty shit and needs a kick in the rear. Charter schools may be a way to drive that point home, but de-funding education in general is definitely not.

However, there are goods and services that no one wants to make, or where profit motivation will inherently make those goods/services worse (see: private prisons-- worse for prisoners, worse for public safety). There are ways to incorporate the benefits of competition and/or an organic moving market without being completely private. Sometimes, a hybrid model is enough.

Actually, it's always enough-- because every functioning country has an economy--several markets within-- that act on some balance of capitalism and socialism.
 
EimP

fat wikipedia:


An idea doesn't have to have been made by self-proclaimed socialist theorists in order to be socialist. Public roads and infrastructure are collectively owned by the citizenry, and can easily be seen as a form of socialism. Guess what-- trade and markets are a lot older than capitalism too.

Basically, anytime wealth is collected and resources allocated based on needs of the collective-- that can be defined as a form of socialism.



What happened in the wallstreet collapse? Long story short-- the market was so complex, and so opaque, that there was no economic incentive to do anything but try to screw each other over. Too much thieving/stealing/swindling, not enough real work going on, the market crashed and people got screwed. Conservatives love "the rule of law" but seem to have a very poor understanding of its value; and don't seem to get that "Regulation" is another word for the rule of law.

Liberals want regulations and consumer protections because they help defend people from getting screwed and screwing each other. A belief in the safety of one's well being and the well being of his property is the bedrock of market belief needed to make a stable market for trade. But a market only functions well as long as the players can understand what's going on, make good decisions, and not fuck it up too much. That means the Rule of Law (regulations) are needed, and guess what--

Courts and Law Enforcement are pretty useless without $$$-- another form of socialism unfortunately.



I doubt you will find many people here in this thread or in the Western world who will outright deny that competition is a vital tool for driving productivity, innovation, and more productive allocation of resources. Also, I'd fully agree that public school is pretty shit and needs a kick in the rear. Charter schools may be a way to drive that point home, but de-funding education in general is definitely not.

However, there are goods and services that no one wants to make, or where profit motivation will inherently make those goods/services worse (see: private prisons-- worse for prisoners, worse for public safety). There are ways to incorporate the benefits of competition and/or an organic moving market without being completely private. Sometimes, a hybrid model is enough.

Actually, it's always enough-- because every functioning country has an economy--several markets within-- that act on some balance of capitalism and socialism.
Once again, roads are not socialism. Also courts and Law Enforcement are definitely not socialism. This is because you are actually missing a major part of socialism which the government & people (workers) control in production. They are more of what we call Public Good. What is public good? Public Good is an item whose consumption is not decided by the individual consumer but by the society as a whole, and which is financed by taxation. A public good (or service) may be consumed without reducing the amount available for others, and cannot be withheld from those who do not pay for it. Public goods (and services) include economic statistics and other information, law enforcement, national defense, parks, and other things for the use and benefit of all. No market exists for such goods, and they are provided to everyone by governments. This affects all economic systems or else all will collapse due to the lack of public good. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-good.html


This is why I said just because government is involved in X doesn't mean X is socialism or a form of socialism or else socialism is just going to lose its meaning because then that means capitalism, communism, dictatorships and anyother type of government is socialism because the government is involved in something.

Also never said that we should defund public schools. I'm saying that because of the competition and school-choice, education gets better due to competition.
 
Last edited:

BenTheDemon

Banned deucer.
Sounds a lot like the No True Scotsman fallacy.
What makes a public park a Public Good, but Single-Payer Healthcare Socialism?
It seems to me that anything before you were born is a Public Good, and anything after your born is dirty ol' Socialism.

Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Every economy in the world is a mixed economy to some degree.
To paraphrase something Kyle Kalinski once said, some things work better as Socialism like education and healthcare. Compare the United States' healthcare to any other modern nation, and Capitalism has failed it miserably. But also compare cars made in Capitalist America to cars made in the Soviet Union. The cars from the Soviet Union were a joke.

Capitalism and Socialism have two completely different goals. Capitalism is driven by maximizing profit. Socialism is driven by maximizing public interest. Often times, competition will lead to creating the best product for the best price, but it can also lead to concentration of wealth/power that puts the market into a stranglehold and we become dependent on the powerful corporations.
George Carlin described this best:
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Once again, roads are not socialism. Also courts and Law Enforcement are definitely not socialism. This is because you are actually missing a major part of socialism which the government & people (workers) control in production. They are more of what we call Public Good. What is public good? Public Good is an item whose consumption is not decided by the individual consumer but by the society as a whole, and which is financed by taxation. A public good (or service) may be consumed without reducing the amount available for others, and cannot be withheld from those who do not pay for it. Public goods (and services) include economic statistics and other information, law enforcement, national defense, parks, and other things for the use and benefit of all. No market exists for such goods, and they are provided to everyone by governments. This affects all economic systems or else all will collapse due to the lack of public good. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-good.html


This is why I said just because government is involved in X doesn't mean X is socialism or a form of socialism or else socialism is just going to lose its meaning because then that means capitalism, communism, dictatorships and anyother type of government is socialism because the government is involved in something.

Also never said that we should defund public schools. I'm saying that because of the competition and school-choice, education gets better due to competition.
The terms are not mutually exclusive. lol
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
The terms are not mutually exclusive. lol
I think the difference is that with something like infrastructure, everyone benefits as a whole, while with healthcare, everyone benefits individually. It's kind of hard for me to explain, but one road helps many people, so the free market cannot take care of that as well (unless you have toll roads), but one person can benefit from their own healthcare plan or own choice of school, they don't need government intervention. I hope you understand the difference i am trying to make clear.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think the difference is that with something like infrastructure, everyone benefits as a whole, while with healthcare, everyone benefits individually. It's kind of hard for me to explain, but one road helps many people, so the free market cannot take care of that as well (unless you have toll roads), but one person can benefit from their own healthcare plan or own choice of school, they don't need government intervention. I hope you understand the difference i am trying to make clear.
Logic Problem 1: There is no reason you can give for why one type is good, and one type is bad.

Both are effectively the same from a cash-flow standpoint-- take cash from citizens, use it in public goods/services. If you are worried about education and health insurance being inefficient due to not being market goods, there is no reason at all to think that roads, courts, police, military should be any more efficient. Essentially, from a productivity standpoint, there is no difference.

Logic Problem 2: Logically, there's no real way to differentiate them either.

With state taxes, we fund many local roads that will only be used by locals of those neighborhoods. Federally, there are interstates I will never drive on in my lifetime. For those who do use them, you could say they benefit from those individually.

For a Universal healthcare program, you could call the budget of the program a shared asset owned jointly by the citizenry, and accessible to everyone under certain conditions. You could say it's is something we benefit from collectively.



Point is, there is no difference where you are trying to establish one, and even if there was-- there is no argument for those differences being meaningful.
 
Last edited:
We should make robots do everything, and employ a few elites to hide food around the world which we have to forage for to keep us entertained.

Meanwhile a shadow council controls the elites from behind and keeps a healthy trade relationship with the aliens.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top