Does Socialism hurt more people than it helps?

[Neutrino]

Alright but only a few nuggets. I know how opening yourself up to ideas which don't involve trashing the United States, capitalism, or the military might upset you.

I have yet to recieve an adequate answer as to why any of these are so awesome...

Socialism is defined as having weak or non-existent property rights, high tariffs, high taxes against individuals, and heavy regulation of businesses.

In a capitalist country you can expect to have a higher average income, there is less than a 1% chance that your child will die during infancy, and you can expect to have a higher chance of living a longer life than if you lived in a socialist country. The poorest 10% of the populations living in the most capitalistic countries in the world still make more money than those who make the average income in the most socialist countries of the world.

Congratulations, you have just identified the positive points to capitalism, and completely ignored the negatives.
Capitalism screws over the environment, badly. Do I need half a kilo of packaging with my biscuts? Apparently yes, 'cause packaging each biscut individually makes them better, somehow. Dosen't matter that there is a huge amount of non-renewable resources and poisionous chemicals in that packaging; it only cost 2c to produce and boosted sales by 7%.

[Guiscard]

Congratulations, you have just identified the positive points to capitalism, and completely ignored the negatives.
Capitalism screws over the environment, badly. Do I need half a kilo of packaging with my biscuts? Apparently yes, 'cause packaging each biscut individually makes them better, somehow. Dosen't matter that there is a huge amount of non-renewable resources and poisionous chemicals in that packaging; it only cost 2c to produce and boosted sales by 7%.

And that not even touching on the worker who made my Nike trainers...

[bradleybadly]

I have yet to recieve an adequate answer as to why any of these are so awesome...

probably because it would be about as likely to convince you as it would be to convince Stalin that killing his own people was wrong.

Congratulations, you have just identified the positive points to capitalism, and completely ignored the negatives.
Capitalism screws over the environment, badly.

You dumbass! Why would anyone making a profit off of the environment hurt it? It would end their ability to make more money. You are just totally wrong on this. Also, the most economically free countries (capitalist) in the world score higher on environmental performance than those who are socialist.

Do I need half a kilo of packaging with my biscuts? Apparently yes, 'cause packaging each biscut individually makes them better, somehow. Dosen't matter that there is a huge amount of non-renewable resources and poisionous chemicals in that packaging; it only cost 2c to produce and boosted sales by 7%.

Poisonous chemicals in your biscuit packaging! EVERYBODY RUN, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! Yet even though you knew this information you went out and bought these biscuits. You are contributing to that 7% boost in sales and releasing poisonous chemicals into the world. How dare you!!!
Oh, the horror that we have unleashed upon the planet through biscuit packaging. Someone save us. LMFAO once again at your stupidity.

[bradleybadly]

Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.

Since you asked nicely:

The 25 most capitalistic countries - Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, UAE, Belgium, Botswana, Kuwait, Oman, Chile, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

Sources: The Frasier Institute, The Cato Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University along with the World Economic Forum & Joint Research Center of the European Commission, and the World Bank

They all team up to produce their annual Economic Freedom Report every year. Come on now I want to hear how these figures are doctored to favor the wealthy countries. It's all a big conspiracy to make socialism look bad. Jay would be proud.

[Frigidus]

Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.

Since you asked nicely:

The 25 most capitalistic countries - Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, UAE, Belgium, Botswana, Kuwait, Oman, Chile, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

Sources: The Frasier Institute, The Cato Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University along with the World Economic Forum & Joint Research Center of the European Commission, and the World Bank

They all team up to produce their annual Economic Freedom Report every year. Come on now I want to hear how these figures are doctored to favor the wealthy countries. It's all a big conspiracy to make socialism look bad. Jay would be proud.

How does this prove that socialism is a bad thing? All of the capitalistic countries exploited weaker countries and are largely responsible for the poor economies of the above socialist countries. The entire idea of capitalism is an economic survival of the fittest. That hardly seems like a humanistic system to me.

[ksslemp]

Socialism: Good for sheep, Bad for Humans

I had to throw some colour in there, Socialists hate that!

[suggs]

Since there has never been a socialist country/state, this question is completely hypothetical.

[ksslemp]

Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.

Since you asked nicely:

The 25 most capitalistic countries - Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, UAE, Belgium, Botswana, Kuwait, Oman, Chile, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

Sources: The Frasier Institute, The Cato Institute, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University along with the World Economic Forum & Joint Research Center of the European Commission, and the World Bank

They all team up to produce their annual Economic Freedom Report every year. Come on now I want to hear how these figures are doctored to favor the wealthy countries. It's all a big conspiracy to make socialism look bad. Jay would be proud.

I'm sorry, i must have still been in Cryo but When did Hong Kong become a Country?

[bradleybadly]

How does this prove that socialism is a bad thing? All of the capitalistic countries exploited weaker countries and are largely responsible for the poor economies of the above socialist countries. The entire idea of capitalism is an economic survival of the fittest. That hardly seems like a humanistic system to me.

Thank you for another lame excuse. That was better than expected. Apparently you prefer the more humane societies whose babies die during infancy and have shorter life spans. Of course we all know it's only because the capitalistic countries are EXPLOITING them! If we could just eliminate rich people we would be living in utopia, praise be to Hugo Chavez!

[Snorri1234]

Congratulations, you have just identified the positive points to capitalism, and completely ignored the negatives.
Capitalism screws over the environment, badly.

You dumbass! Why would anyone making a profit off of the environment hurt it? It would end their ability to make more money. You are just totally wrong on this.

Because they make more money by not caring about the environment? Dumping your toxic waste in the lake nearby or safely getting rid of it makes a huge differenc in price. You act like big bussiness' care about the long term. (More than 50 years.)

Also, the most economically free countries (capitalist) in the world score higher on environmental performance than those who are socialist.

Because of socialist policies. There are no fucking purely capitalist countries on this world. More importantly, capitalism doesn't actually contradict socialists policies. The Netherlands is on the list of most capitalist countries, but we have universal healthcare, a very lenient wellfare system and basically free education.

[ksslemp]

At least if we lived in Venezuela we wouldnt have to wonder what color shirt to wear each morning. and just in case you live in a box, it's RED!

[Snorri1234]

The 25 most capitalistic countries - Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Austria, UAE, Belgium, Botswana, Kuwait, Oman, Chile, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden

All democratic. (At least most of them.)

compared to the 25 most socialist countries - Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Dem. of Congo, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Rep. of Congo, Burundi, Russia, Togo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, Rwanda, Niger, Columbia, Syria, Romania, Chad, Benin, Turkey, Malawi, Madagascar, and Ecuador

Lots of dictatorships. And they're also all fucking poor. Are you suprised that they have worse living conditions? Do you think they got poor because of socialism? And not, saaaaay, thanks to dictators who weren't interrested in leading the country but more in getting rich from it?

[got tonkaed]

bradley although you seem rather convinced of your viewpoint, and im not here to say capitalism is wrong....there is a fair amount of evidence of exploitation and environmental damage out there.

Yes in theory anyone who is making money off the environment, should want to protect so they can make more money off of it. However, it costs money to do so, and sometimes people dont like the bottom line when they are involved in conservation. Obviously the best example of this is the rainforest, where obsecne amounts of acres of land are being cut down year after year, both legally and illegally by people try to make money (in addition to farmers trying to flaten land). Since the bulk of this cutting is done commercially, we would expect these are the same people replenshing, the vital resource that is the rainforest timber. Aside from a few shining examples this is not happening.

Also the famous documentary "the corporation" admittedly a bit slanted to the left, concludes with a pretty interesting insight. One of the ceo's ponders why we shouldnt be able to own every piece of the land, why we shouldnt be able to obtain property rights to it. Now youll forgive me for using a bit of marx i hope, but what he is describing is a use-value. Essentially with the land it becomes something thats value is derived out of how you use it. The problem with this is, when you have a profit based motive, the use-value will always be tied into a process that is short term, ie profit. Historically most individuals and companies have not been able to think long term enough to prevent this from happening. Though some are beginning to start thinking like that now, this only occurs in wealthy areas. In much of the world, where its obtain resource or suffer, they have not understandably gotten their yet.

As to exploitation. there are a lot of different ways to categorize world countries so allow me to offer one which seems to make a degree of sense. There tend to be 3 easy ways to discuss development which allow for a degree of distinction. Core countries - tend to be your G8 countries, your most developed countries all of that jazz. The us would obviously be included. The semi-perphiery countries are the middle income countries that do fairly well on a world standard but still are exploited in some fashion by the core. Mexico would be a good example, and though you may not consider it explotation, the large amount of workers who leave mexico to come to the united states, is both a brain drain and a destroyer of families in many case for mexico. Im not here to say anyone is wrong particularly in the immigration issue, but the us is benefiting from that cheap labor at the expense of mexico not having those workers in the workforce. The periphery countries are the countries that are the least well off and are exploited by pretty much everyone else. You could put the majority of the countries which head the poverty indexs here. The individuals can in some way benefit for having a nike or some other corporation set up a factory in their country. However, nike certainly benefits more than those individuals do for the price of their labor. Likewise, nations from the core and semi periphery tend to have a large ecnomoic advantage both in trade and the right to tariffs without negatively affecting their international credit ratings. These credit ratings in countries which recieve internation assistance, greatly reduce their ability to govern and limit some social programs for the citizenry. The exploitation does exist.

[bradleybadly]

bradley although you seem rather convinced of your viewpoint, and im not here to say capitalism is wrong....there is a fair amount of evidence of exploitation and environmental damage out there.

Yes in theory anyone who is making money off the environment, should want to protect so they can make more money off of it. However, it costs money to do so, and sometimes people dont like the bottom line when they are involved in conservation. Obviously the best example of this is the rainforest, where obsecne amounts of acres of land are being cut down year after year, both legally and illegally by people try to make money (in addition to farmers trying to flaten land). Since the bulk of this cutting is done commercially, we would expect these are the same people replenshing, the vital resource that is the rainforest timber. Aside from a few shining examples this is not happening.

Also the famous documentary "the corporation" admittedly a bit slanted to the left, concludes with a pretty interesting insight. One of the ceo's ponders why we shouldnt be able to own every piece of the land, why we shouldnt be able to obtain property rights to it. Now youll forgive me for using a bit of marx i hope, but what he is describing is a use-value. Essentially with the land it becomes something thats value is derived out of how you use it. The problem with this is, when you have a profit based motive, the use-value will always be tied into a process that is short term, ie profit. Historically most individuals and companies have not been able to think long term enough to prevent this from happening. Though some are beginning to start thinking like that now, this only occurs in wealthy areas. In much of the world, where its obtain resource or suffer, they have not understandably gotten their yet.

As to exploitation. there are a lot of different ways to categorize world countries so allow me to offer one which seems to make a degree of sense. There tend to be 3 easy ways to discuss development which allow for a degree of distinction. Core countries - tend to be your G8 countries, your most developed countries all of that jazz. The us would obviously be included. The semi-perphiery countries are the middle income countries that do fairly well on a world standard but still are exploited in some fashion by the core. Mexico would be a good example, and though you may not consider it explotation, the large amount of workers who leave mexico to come to the united states, is both a brain drain and a destroyer of families in many case for mexico. Im not here to say anyone is wrong particularly in the immigration issue, but the us is benefiting from that cheap labor at the expense of mexico not having those workers in the workforce. The periphery countries are the countries that are the least well off and are exploited by pretty much everyone else. You could put the majority of the countries which head the poverty indexs here. The individuals can in some way benefit for having a nike or some other corporation set up a factory in their country. However, nike certainly benefits more than those individuals do for the price of their labor. Likewise, nations from the core and semi periphery tend to have a large ecnomoic advantage both in trade and the right to tariffs without negatively affecting their international credit ratings. These credit ratings in countries which recieve internation assistance, greatly reduce their ability to govern and limit some social programs for the citizenry. The exploitation does exist.

You sure do like to filibuster. Making a long speech doesn't make it true. It just means you're good at making a long speech.

[heavycola]

bradley although you seem rather convinced of your viewpoint, and im not here to say capitalism is wrong....there is a fair amount of evidence of exploitation and environmental damage out there.

Yes in theory anyone who is making money off the environment, should want to protect so they can make more money off of it. However, it costs money to do so, and sometimes people dont like the bottom line when they are involved in conservation. Obviously the best example of this is the rainforest, where obsecne amounts of acres of land are being cut down year after year, both legally and illegally by people try to make money (in addition to farmers trying to flaten land). Since the bulk of this cutting is done commercially, we would expect these are the same people replenshing, the vital resource that is the rainforest timber. Aside from a few shining examples this is not happening.

Also the famous documentary "the corporation" admittedly a bit slanted to the left, concludes with a pretty interesting insight. One of the ceo's ponders why we shouldnt be able to own every piece of the land, why we shouldnt be able to obtain property rights to it. Now youll forgive me for using a bit of marx i hope, but what he is describing is a use-value. Essentially with the land it becomes something thats value is derived out of how you use it. The problem with this is, when you have a profit based motive, the use-value will always be tied into a process that is short term, ie profit. Historically most individuals and companies have not been able to think long term enough to prevent this from happening. Though some are beginning to start thinking like that now, this only occurs in wealthy areas. In much of the world, where its obtain resource or suffer, they have not understandably gotten their yet.

As to exploitation. there are a lot of different ways to categorize world countries so allow me to offer one which seems to make a degree of sense. There tend to be 3 easy ways to discuss development which allow for a degree of distinction. Core countries - tend to be your G8 countries, your most developed countries all of that jazz. The us would obviously be included. The semi-perphiery countries are the middle income countries that do fairly well on a world standard but still are exploited in some fashion by the core. Mexico would be a good example, and though you may not consider it explotation, the large amount of workers who leave mexico to come to the united states, is both a brain drain and a destroyer of families in many case for mexico. Im not here to say anyone is wrong particularly in the immigration issue, but the us is benefiting from that cheap labor at the expense of mexico not having those workers in the workforce. The periphery countries are the countries that are the least well off and are exploited by pretty much everyone else. You could put the majority of the countries which head the poverty indexs here. The individuals can in some way benefit for having a nike or some other corporation set up a factory in their country. However, nike certainly benefits more than those individuals do for the price of their labor. Likewise, nations from the core and semi periphery tend to have a large ecnomoic advantage both in trade and the right to tariffs without negatively affecting their international credit ratings. These credit ratings in countries which recieve internation assistance, greatly reduce their ability to govern and limit some social programs for the citizenry. The exploitation does exist.

You sure do like to filibuster. Making a long speech doesn't make it true. It just means you're good at making a long speech.

Not reading a long speech doesn't make it false. It just means you are too scared to listen to a response to your own arguments.

[bradleybadly]

Because they make more money by not caring about the environment? Dumping your toxic waste in the lake nearby or safely getting rid of it makes a huge differenc in price. You act like big bussiness' care about the long term. (More than 50 years.)

Thank you for yet another stupid and moronic statement. They make more money by not caring about the environment. So I guess the fact that they actually go out of their way to restore the areas that they use has nothing to do with it. Why - well because they don't care. How the hell do you know the emotions of people you've never met anyway?

Because of socialist policies. There are no fucking purely capitalist countries on this world. More importantly, capitalism doesn't actually contradict socialists policies. The Netherlands is on the list of most capitalist countries, but we have universal healthcare, a very lenient wellfare system and basically free education.

You seem to be in love with stupidity. I never said there were any purely capitalistic countries. I used data from those sources I mentioned which said the most capitalistic countries. You really need to read or else stop trying to change what I said.

You are such a ignorant fool. You don't even understand how your own healthcare system works. It's not universal healthcare. Your country has citizens pay an extra income-related tax that goes to the government, which in turn subsidizes low-income people to be able to afford their own health insurance. That's not exclusive government-run universal healthcare because they know it wouldn't work. That's just telling people they have to buy their own insurance anyway. Secondly, the same stupid idiots who think they're getting truly subsidized healthcare are the same ones paying the tax into the system in the first place. It just gets re-routed back to them through a socialist program! They could just as well pay for the premium in the first place directly to the insurance company but because they're idiots they pay it through a tax which just comes back to them.

Free education, really!!!! Where did the government get the money to provide this free education? From taxpayers. You're a moron.

All democratic. (At least most of them.)

Another brilliant point. All democratic - at least most of them. Why don't you think first before you post?

Lots of dictatorships. And they're also all fucking poor. Are you suprised that they have worse living conditions? Do you think they got poor because of socialism? And not, saaaaay, thanks to dictators who weren't interrested in leading the country but more in getting rich from it?

They're fucking poor because they have socialistic programs. Yeah, when you have policies which allow the government more control over individuals lives of course the tendency will change more towards dictatorships. It doesn't happen overnight. I give up on you. Please think for at least 3 seconds before making a comment.

[radiojake]

You dumbass! Why would anyone making a profit off of the environment hurt it? It would end their ability to make more money. You are just totally wrong on this. Also, the most economically free countries (capitalist) in the world score higher on environmental performance than those who are socialist.

Man, gotta do some homework, really. Have you seen the state of the world environment lately?? Tasmania's old growth forests (with trees over 80 metres high and thousands of years old) are being logged right now to make wood chips!! Thats right, not even decent furniture. Also they just announced a massive pulp mill that will be built in the area, releasing affluent into the rivers and ocean nearby. Also, the most ironic thing, is the mulped wood chips get exported overseas to Japan (they're the biggest purchaser) then they sell it back as Kleenex Tissues over here. Ain't capitalism great. Let's destroy a forest so we can blow our noses on something nice and smooth.

If you honestly believe that the environment isn't being raped in the name of profits, then I will no longer post in this thread, because you will never understand it.

[bradleybadly]

Not reading a long speech doesn't make it false. It just means you are too scared to listen to a response to your own arguments.

I did read it but almost threw up when he mentioned that there's such a thing as a rainforest. There is no such thing. They're called jungles. But I understand that socialists want to rename it so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I wonder what happens in these "rainforests". I'm sure it's just full of natives walking around happy to be wearing loincloths. They probably never commit any sort of crime because they're just so happy to be untouched by greedy corporations. I can see all the wonderful birds just chirping and landing on their shoulders. All is at one! They are also probably able to communicate with the trees.

[radiojake]

Because they make more money by not caring about the environment? Dumping your toxic waste in the lake nearby or safely getting rid of it makes a huge differenc in price. You act like big bussiness' care about the long term. (More than 50 years.)

Thank you for yet another stupid and moronic statement. They make more money by not caring about the environment. So I guess the fact that they actually go out of their way to restore the areas that they use has nothing to do with it. Why - well because they don't care.

Uh, with the reference here sayig 'the fact they actually go out of their way to restore the areas that they use...' are you talking about the plantations they put back up after they just logged an entire forest? Not sure if you realised this, put a plantation which consists of straight lines of the same species of trees is not a forest. You cannot even put them even close to the same category.

[bradleybadly]

If you honestly believe that the environment isn't being raped in the name of profits, then I will no longer post in this thread, because you will never understand it.

The environment is being raped in the name of profit!! Oh heavens to mergatroid!!!! I hope the rapists at least wear a condom. Nice attempt at trying to make the earth look like a person. Yes, the earth is a victim - another common socialist argument.

Perhaps the earth can attend a rapist recovery group with other planets in order to get its self esteem back.

[radiojake]

Not reading a long speech doesn't make it false. It just means you are too scared to listen to a response to your own arguments.

I did read it but almost threw up when he mentioned that there's such a thing as a rainforest. There is no such thing. They're called jungles. But I understand that socialists want to rename it so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I wonder what happens in these "rainforests". I'm sure it's just full of natives walking around happy to be wearing loincloths. They probably never commit any sort of crime because they're just so happy to be untouched by greedy corporations. I can see all the wonderful birds just chirping and landing on their shoulders. All is at one! They are also probably able to communicate with the trees.

Actually, rainforests are full of non human animals and plants living in an extremely diverse eco-system that shouldn't be fucked with just because some humans want to make more money.

No such thing as rainforests??

[radiojake]

If you honestly believe that the environment isn't being raped in the name of profits, then I will no longer post in this thread, because you will never understand it.

The environment is being raped in the name of profit!! Oh heavens to mergatroid!!!! I hope the rapists at least wear a condom. Nice attempt at trying to make the earth look like a person. Yes, the earth is a victim - another common socialist argument.

Perhaps the earth can attend a rapist recovery group with other planets in order to get its self esteem back.

You arn't even trying anymore

[bradleybadly]

You can't argue against people who view the earth as a person.

[bradleybadly]

Save the earth! Save the rainforest!

[radiojake]

You can't argue against people who view the earth as a person.

No but maybe people view the Earth as a living thing. Something you seem to struggle with.