socialism

[frogboy]

Consumers wanted big vehicles so the big three made big vehicles. Consumers since the late 60's have had a choice between fuel efficient and big/fast cars. They didn't "get away" with it, they saw what the market wanted and delivered.

What exactly do you want? If you socialize GM it will just keep producing cars people don't want or you could let the market decide if it will survive or fail and keep the firms that make the better cars.

Socialized Healthcare, at least in America, is a joke. The people who are wealthy enough to afford healthcare (and the firms they work for) will pay the vast majority of the costs of socialized healthcare and then receive a worse plan than the one they have. Healthcare policy needs to be reformed so that plans can be affordable and so we don't have to pay for poor people's emergency room visits.

i'm not entirely sure how to respond to any of this except that it's sociopathic drivel. why should workers have to suffer because their employer didn't have the far-sightedness to develop more efficient vehicles? why should everyone have to suffer because their government, instead of taxing less efficient vehicles, subsidised them? and the thing i'm most shocked at, why should sick people have to suffer because they aren't millionaires? seriously, people should not have to declare bankruptcy just to keep living.

sidenote, from what i remember of history last year, the japanese government was very involved in restoration after WWII, and well, look at them now. central planning also brought us the beetle, which was produced from 1938 to 2003.

also pcw i don't know i think it's just that i like laughing at americans

[a-4-year-old]

I find it amusing that you think those auto workers will benefit from a socialist health care plan. If you think that you need to do some serious research about economics. Your argument is entirely  a political appeal to ignorance. You're completely ignoring fundamental economic principals.  This is not about who cares more about poor people like you're trying to make it, this is about what works best for everyone. Capitalism is the most economically efficient system possible with communism as the least efficient. This is an indisputable fact and the best argument against wasteful inefficient systems like socialized health care which are nothing more than a completely unfair tax on anyone who has a career.

The real solution is within the bureaucracy within the American health insurance system and the prescription drug industry. Reform this and everyone, rich and poor, can afford insurance.

[m00`]

I think america is shit at trying to be different like how it spells the word colour

[smiluu]

I spell color or humor because its shorter.
I just simply don't give a swimming s**t is it brit-english or american english.

[frogboy]

there is no reason why anyone should give a rats arse about "fundamental economic principals [sic]" if it means that eighty percent of the population holds a mere fifteen percent of net wealth, or that two million people had to file bankruptcy in one year because they got sick.

the free market is essentially building a car without airbags, seatbelts or even bumpers, because anyone who crashes shouldn't have been there in the first place. naturally the guy in the 2.5 tonne SUV is going to be safer than the poor bastard in a pinto, but hey, its his fault for not being able to afford it, right?

at least if he crashes over here he won't have to worry about paying for it.

[LtKillroy]

I hate socialism because it is a temporary fix. Sure for a few years everyone is happy but sooner or later industry suffers because there isn't anyone trying new things. If Henry Ford was given the same rate as everyone else for his cars why would he bother with the assembly line and the Model T? Same is true across the board. Without incentives people do nothing.

[a-4-year-old]

there is no reason why anyone should give a rats arse about "fundamental economic principals [sic]" if it means that eighty percent of the population holds a mere fifteen percent of net wealth, or that two million people had to file bankruptcy in one year because they got sick.

the free market is essentially building a car without airbags, seatbelts or even bumpers, because anyone who crashes shouldn't have been there in the first place. naturally the guy in the 2.5 tonne SUV is going to be safer than the poor bastard in a pinto, but hey, its his fault for not being able to afford it, right?

at least if he crashes over here he won't have to worry about paying for it.

Socialism won't do anything for you if most of the wealth is lost to inefficiency. Ignoring the principals of economics is like ignoring medical science while performing surgery. The majority of people are in the middle class. The middle class will pay for the bulk of every program the government starts and the middle/upper class will benefit the least from government health care.

What you propose is simply theft.

[Veritas]

Capitalism is the most economically efficient system possible with communism as the least efficient. This is an indisputable fact.

Then you won't have any trouble citing this fact, correct?

[a-4-year-old]

Chapter 2 Page 34 Economics Principles, Problems, and Policies 14th edition.

"Advocates of pure capitalism argue that such an economy promotes efficiency in the use of resources, stability of output and employment, and rapid economic growth. Hence, there is little or no need for government planning, control, or intervention."
just for clarification this book was written during the cold war, they say "advocates" meaning people outside the (then) recently dissolved Soviet union and China.

I can't be bothered right now to look for the info on communism but I specifically remember an  economic law regarding that economic system.

Also from wikipedia:
"The central axiom of capitalism is that the best allocation of resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and producers responding accordingly to meet collective consumer demand. This contrasts with planned economies in which the state directs what shall be produced. A consequence is the belief that privatization of previously state-provided services will tend to achieve a more efficient delivery thereof. Further implications are usually in favor of free trade, and abolition of subsidies."

[frogboy]

i'm not sure if you're even serious anymore. where does this wealth go? does it disappear into thin air? you have honestly not convinced me of anything except that free market fundamentalism is a pathological condition similar to sociopathy.

such policies will not lead anywhere except for the continued existence of an aristocracy whereby one percent of people own a third of the country's wealth, the annihilation of the environment and in all probability an eventual marxist revolution.

[a-4-year-old]

Taxes on individuals lowers total buying power which lowers GDP.
Taxes on corporations/business raise prices which lowers demand which lowers GDP.

I'll spare you the boring lecture, if anyone is interested in how our economic systems work they should definitely take an economics class in high school/college.

[Dascoo]

ITT: Internet Intellectuals

[Demonic]

A strong state controlled economy means central planning, which fails to meet the demands of local areas. Corruption aside, this is how the Eastern block failed, and as the globalised free market is shifting towards bigger and bigger factories and other industry, it's getting into the same trap. Big systems cannot adapt as quickly to shocks - such as the world wide recession - and jobs are lost, the middle class crumbles.

Some sort of crossover system could be welcome - but then you look at China, where people work for 100$ a month to make all the items that are used in the part of the world where people make over a 1000$... yeah. It's crap.

As for healthcare, Norway seems to have a working model for that, but at the price of carving down everyone's payment by a fine slice - it might be effective for their scale, but with the population of the U.S., or a country with a less developed economy (Hungary), it ends up at crud quality, while still vacuuming tons of money every year.

Also, dascoo warned for troll attempt.

[The Epic Guy]

where does this wealth go?

On a side note, what the hell is national dept for? I know what it is but it doesn't seem to effect anything. Look at the US, one of the richest if not the richest country in the world, has an epic amount of national dept. I believe its $30,000 per person now, for 300,000,000 people.

[jettlarue]

where does this wealth go?

On a side note, what the hell is national dept for? I know what it is but it doesn't seem to effect anything. Look at the US, one of the richest if not the richest country in the world, has an epic amount of national dept. I believe its $30,000 per person now, for 300,000,000 people.

America has no wealth. The federal reserve has the wealth. All America has is the debt.

[a-4-year-old]

where does this wealth go?

On a side note, what the hell is national dept for? I know what it is but it doesn't seem to effect anything. Look at the US, one of the richest if not the richest country in the world, has an epic amount of national dept. I believe its $30,000 per person now, for 300,000,000 people.

Usually a government will pour money into a recession to raise the GDP and shorten the recession. Normally they go into debt to do this. We spent quite a lot already on the two wars and we've had debts since after President Jackson.

If we tried to pay all of it off at once we would tax the shit out of people and crush our own GDP.

[Veritas]

Chapter 2 Page 34 Economics Principles, Problems, and Policies 14th edition.

"Advocates of pure capitalism argue that such an economy promotes efficiency in the use of resources, stability of output and employment, and rapid economic growth. Hence, there is little or no need for government planning, control, or intervention."
just for clarification this book was written during the cold war, they say "advocates" meaning people outside the (then) recently dissolved Soviet union and China.

I can't be bothered right now to look for the info on communism but I specifically remember an  economic law regarding that economic system.

Also from wikipedia:
"The central axiom of capitalism is that the best allocation of resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and producers responding accordingly to meet collective consumer demand. This contrasts with planned economies in which the state directs what shall be produced. A consequence is the belief that privatization of previously state-provided services will tend to achieve a more efficient delivery thereof. Further implications are usually in favor of free trade, and abolition of subsidies."

Nowhere in there does it conclude that Capitalism is the most economically efficient system. You claimed this was an indisputable fact, and I'd like to see you back it up with more than "Advocates of this system say" (as any advocate of any system will claim their system is the best) and a quote from Wikipedia.

[Demonic]

Capitalism is efficient because price and payments are defined by consumer demand - in optimal conditions, everything is worth as much as the people are willing to pay for it. This allows companies to put cheaper but same quality items on the market, forcing the prices lower, which creates competition, and in theory, the laws of this system would allow a smooth way towards more efficiency.

Central planning means that the state defines prices for services and objects, which means that they have to compensate any losses that the companies have from this artificial line (because some of them would be forced to sell their stuff for less than it cost to produce), and through this, money flows away into fast-consumed products, lowering the system's overall efficiency.

All in all, atleast capitalism works in theory. (:

[frogboy]

capitalism works in economic theory, which doesn't mean shit if everything else is neglected. take maggie thatcher's britain:
"The trend to increasing child health has reversed, and childhood diseases that had been controlled are now on the upswing thanks to the (highly selective) "free market gospel" that is much admired by its beneficiaries", and
"Dickensian Diseases Return to Haunt Today's Britain," another headline reads, reporting studies concluding that "social conditions in Britain are returning to those of a century ago." Particularly grim are the effects of cutting off gas, electricity, water and telephones to "a high number of households" as privatization takes its natural course."

it appears this doesn't actually mean anything to a-4-year-old, as poor people go straight to hell anyway, but nevertheless, why is there any impetus for anyone but the wealthy, and hence the vast, vast majority of the nation, to support a policy that will lead to its downfall?

[a-4-year-old]

Britain has socialized healthcare.