Trump: acquitted

[Ginkgo]

Most of these counties listed have their socialist elements. Australia has many socialist programmes. For example, universal health care, PBS scheme, financial support for the unemployed. These programmes and many more are not a drag on our economy, they are essential for the whole country.

None of them makes money. They all lose money. And they're all managed by bureaucrats, who have no inherent incentive to make them financially accountable or sustainable.

That makes them a drag on the economy, even if we regard some of them as a desirable or necessary drag on the economy. And that means that we cannot have too large a number of them, or they will simply sink the economy entirely. So we have to be very smart and selective about what we allow to become "socialized." It's an option we can afford to use only cautiously.

So maybe "socialized medicine" might be a first one. But it will be (by far) the biggest source of taxation on the productive populace, and will always demand more than we can afford, because that's exactly how socialized medicine is in every place it's been instituted.

But what about education? What about university? What about welfare? What about a living wage? What about family allowance and subsidized contraception? What about roads, bridges and airports? What about policing, the military, and food inspectors? What about fish, game and wildlife? What about borders and passports? What about sanitation services, recycling and power generation? What about...it never stops. And nothing we socialize ever seems to turn a profit. So where does the money come from to pay for all this socializing?

At some point we have to be smart, and say, "A little socialization of programs won't kill us economically. But it can't be everything. It can't even be most things. So we've got to prioritize and minimize here."

The whole idea is that they don't make money. These programmes are essential and for the benefit of the most vulnerable in our society. In other words, those people who are harmed by capitalism.

[Immanuel Can]

At some point we have to be smart, and say, "A little socialization of programs won't kill us economically. But it can't be everything. It can't even be most things. So we've got to prioritize and minimize here."

The whole idea is that they don't make money. These programmes are essential and for the benefit of the most vulnerable in our society. In other words, those people who are harmed by capitalism.

But that won't work. It won't just not-work for capitalism, it won't work for the long-term health of the social programs you say are essential.

Money's got to be being made somewhere, or you can't be spending any. That's simple economics. If all the programs run at a loss, then those "vulnerable people" of who m you speak will be out in the streets with nothing in no time. And how will that help them? How will it help you, when the programs bankrupted you as well? And how will it help the country, when the country's been bankrupted.

Sustainability is the way forward. But for a program to be sustainable, as much money has to be coming in as is going out. Ideally, more, because the programs are always in need of being expanded. But you can't run a program a country or a world on a loss basis. You need to create some wealth.

Socialism creates no wealth. It just spends. Then it collapses the economy. That's what we'e seen, in every single case in history where socialism's been allowed to become the dominant economic model.

How many failures-- and deaths -- does a political ideology have to cause, before we are sensible enough to say, "It was a bad idea"?

[Ginkgo]

At some point we have to be smart, and say, "A little socialization of programs won't kill us economically. But it can't be everything. It can't even be most things. So we've got to prioritize and minimize here."

The whole idea is that they don't make money. These programmes are essential and for the benefit of the most vulnerable in our society. In other words, those people who are harmed by capitalism.

But that won't work. It won't just not-work for capitalism, it won't work for the long-term health of the social programs you say are essential.

Money's got to be being made somewhere, or you can't be spending any. That's simple economics. If all the programs run at a loss, then those "vulnerable people" of who m you speak will be out in the streets with nothing in no time. And how will that help them? How will it help you, when the programs bankrupted you as well? And how will it help the country, when the country's been bankrupted.

Sustainability is the way forward. But for a program to be sustainable, as much money has to be coming in as is going out. Ideally, more, because the programs are always in need of being expanded. But you can't run a program a country or a world on a loss basis. You need to create some wealth.

Socialism creates no wealth. It just spends. Then it collapses the economy. That's what we'e seen, in every single case in history where socialism's been allowed to become the dominant economic model.

How many failures-- and deaths -- does a political ideology have to cause, before we are sensible enough to say, "It was a bad idea"?

Me thinks you protest too much. No one is saying that socialism is the dominant theory. It is a matter of balance. The Australian economy is not going to collapse because of our socialist programmes.

[Immanuel Can]

Me thinks you protest too much.

Methinks I don't.

What I'm arguing for is not "no socializing anything." What I'm saying is that "socializing everything" has been a disaster 100% of the time. That's statistically verifiable.

And its main failure (although it has many) has been that it takes no cognizance at all of the sorts of realities with which capitalism makes do. It acts as if simply proclaiming things "rights" by means of government will also mean they are stable, deliverable, equitable and sustainable indefinitely. But the truth is, they're not even delivered in a fiscally responsible way; so disasters ensue, culminating in the collapse of the socialized economy.

Remember WHO put up the Berlin Wall, and which side had no trouble keeping its people in. And remember that all the boats go from Cuba to America. The escapees are never going the other way. And the guns to shoot the escapees with are always on the one side.

There might be reasons for that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Most of these counties listed have their socialist elements. Australia has many socialist programmes. For example, universal health care, PBS scheme, financial support for the unemployed. These programmes and many more are not a drag on our economy, they are essential for the whole country.

Your mistake here is to assume those are socialist policies, they are not. They are all policies that can be done in a socialist way or a capitalist way, and for capitalist or socialist reasons (or both). You are arguing with people who see socialism as a curse word, when there is no need to invoke it anyway for most of the policies you are advocating.

Universal unemployment insurance has been around for a long time. It reduces direct costs to employers, but also allows for a mobile workforce that is not afraid to move between jobs. This is not a socialist objective at all, socialists tend to prefer guranteed jobs, in extreme circumstances (communists) they like to assign the worker directly to the job. Universal insurance is in general a capitalist scheme that keeps the labour market more flexible.

Socialists are liable to want to do it differently to the way that capitalists want to. Very generous payment levels result in a high price floor in the labour market which is good for workers (supposedly preventing exploitation) and bad for employers (supposedly forcing their costs up) and bad for consumers (higher prices). But capitalists can be opposed to cheap solutions because generous insurance gives cover to rationalise industries and replace manual labour with less political interference, and lefties who worry about the effect on immigrant populations are liable to want a reasonable price floor on labour otherwise immigrants cannot get jobs (which they can't in places such as Sweden for instance because there are no low paid jobs for them to get).

Similar stuff, but more complicated, applies to universal health insurance. In brief the socialist way of doing it obsesses about who owns the hospitals, and who directly employs the cleaners and is heavily weighted towards viewing the whole project in means-of-production terms. The capitalist way tends to involve a lot of private companies providing specific services, and multiple insurance companies and so on. But the underlying issue is what economists call adverse selection and this is why capitalists in Europe wouldn't dream of having an American style healthcare system. It has nothing to do with socialism, it's simply much more efficient to have universal insurance than it is to have a fractured mess like the Americans have. Again, this makes markets more efficient.

[Dontaskme]

Trump for president.

You cannot become a sucessful billionaire business man without having a competent ultra smart mind.

God save the Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

Trump for president.

Today's New York Times depicts Biden as the only hope to stop Bernie.

So I guess we should ask, "If Socialism's such a good thing, why are the Democrats so desperate to make sure that Bernie, the poster boy for Socialism, does not get the nomination today?"

[henry quirk]

a fractured mess like the Americans have. Again, this makes markets more efficient.

Some of us like that fractured mess and want it even more fractured. I get efficiency as a big picture goal, but big picture tends toward one size fits all.

Not everyone likes bein' shoehorned.

Free Enterprise (not [State] Capitalism) is meant to be fractured and sloppy and effective: we should try it.

[Immanuel Can]

a fractured mess like the Americans have. Again, this makes markets more efficient.

Some of us like that fractured mess and want it even more fractured. I get efficiency as a big picture goal, but big picture tends toward one size fits all.

Not everyone likes bein' shoehorned.

Free Enterprise (not [State] Capitalism) is meant to be fractured and sloppy and effective: we should try it.

Well, and if American capitalism is such a "fractured mess," (and, perhaps, in some ways it is) it's certainly proved to be the most lucrative "fractured mess" on the face of the planet. It's generating a ton of new wealth that other economies are not.

America is not perfect. Okay. There are things to criticize rationally. Okay. But there's also a lot of really poisonous envy of the Americans, mostly coming from Europe. I run into people there who just don't like the fact that America is doing better at a whole bunch of things than their nations are, or are enjoying themselves more than we are.

And that's not a good thing.

Why we should get all green at their success is beyond me. Why we don't focus on doing better ourselves, I don't understand. If we know how to do things better than the Americans do, then how come we're not ignoring them and getting on with doing the right thing? I'm sure that if we did better than they did, they'd come along eventually. Americans like success.

But we don't. We crab about them instead of manning up and doing better ourselves.

I think it speaks of a smallness of soul -- on our side, not theirs.

[henry quirk]

a fractured mess like the Americans have. Again, this makes markets more efficient.

Some of us like that fractured mess and want it even more fractured. I get efficiency as a big picture goal, but big picture tends toward one size fits all.

Not everyone likes bein' shoehorned.

Free Enterprise (not [State] Capitalism) is meant to be fractured and sloppy and effective: we should try it.

Well, and if American capitalism is such a "fractured mess," (and, perhaps, in some ways it is) it's certainly proved to be the most lucrative "fractured mess" on the face of the planet. It's generating a ton of new wealth that other economies are not.

America is not perfect.

Okay. There are things to criticize rationally. Okay. But there's also a lot of really poisonous envy of the Americans, mostly coming from Europe. I run into people there who just don't like the fact that America is doing better at a whole bunch of things than their nations are, or are enjoying themselves more than we are.

And that's not a good thing.

Why we should get all green at their success is beyond me. Why we don't focus on doing better ourselves, I don't understand. If we know how to do things better than the Americans do, then how come we're not ignoring them and getting on with doing the right thing? I'm sure that if we did better than they did, they'd come along eventually. Americans like success.

But we don't. We crab about them instead of manning up and doing better ourselves.

I think it speaks of a smallness of soul -- on our side, not theirs.

No, it's not, and it shouldn't be. America is not meant to be an efficient machine built of cog-citizens. America is supposed to be a sprawling, sloppy, effective nation of free men and women. It's supposed to be fractured (50 sovereign states, innumerable cultural divides), The cracks are part of the design (so mind 'em).

America was meant to be a Free Enterprise, not a state-capitalism or -- for Christ's sake -- a state socialism.

Every attempt to perfect America, to streamline America, to unify America, to domesticate America, only diminishes America.

[FlashDangerpants]

a fractured mess like the Americans have. Again, this makes markets more efficient.

Some of us like that fractured mess and want it even more fractured. I get efficiency as a big picture goal, but big picture tends toward one size fits all.

Ah huh. But there's other ways of doing stuff and they at least bear some consideration. Other countries are able to expend in the region of 10 to 15% of GDP on healthcare and gain unversal coverage, and also to have private healthcare for those who want it (UK employers often provide healthcare on top, or at least they almost all do in my industry). I get the benefit of both worlds, the UK gets a healthier workforce, the poor get access to insulin. The USA spends 17% GDP on healthcare, and your poor very often don't get insulin.

You and Mannie seem to like that toad Nigel Farage. Here he is calling for improvments (capitalist ones, rather extreme ones of course) to the UK public health service. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... den-on-nhs
Outside of America, even the most avid right wingers are in favour of universal healthcare.
There might be something you haven't thought about, it is possible for the American approach to a thing not to be the best.
If you don't find an all American way to do this stuff, you invite

Free Enterprise (not [State] Capitalism) is meant to be fractured and sloppy and effective: we should try it.

That brand of capitalism is about creating winners and losers as fast as possible. Which is highly effective in silicon valley and hollywood. The problem with applying that to healthcare and umemployment insurance though is that the losers are left absolutely destitute. That creates a climate of fear where workers are so afraid to lose the job to which their healthcare is attached that they can never leave to start businesses of their own, except those lucky enough to get bankrolled by daddy. It's less effective than providing a safety net and allowing those who fail to survive. This is not a socialist interpretation, it's pure neoliberal business stuff.

The real bad policy that Bernie has is the nationwide rent control idea. Price fixing is pure Venezuelan shit and well known to always have medium and long term negative results. I'll make no attempt to defend him on that one, it's fucking stupid.

[henry quirk]

Other countries

Not America.


You and Mannie seem to like that toad Nigel Farage.

I don't give a flip about the folks in your country.



That brand of capitalism is about creating winners and losers as fast as possible.

Free Enterprise isn't capitalism, and it's about bein' free.

[Immanuel Can]

You and Mannie seem to like that toad Nigel Farage.

He rocks.

I love his oratory at the EU. Classic comedy, shredding the autocrats in Brussels. Wonderful stuff.

Hooray for Dear Old Albion.

[Arising_uk]

Doesn't seem to mind collecting the EU pension tho' does he. Nor paying the missus £27,000 of EU taxpayers money.

[Arising_uk]

...
You cannot become a sucessful billionaire business man without having a competent ultra smart mind. ...

Well that and being given four hundred million to start with.