This is one thing that always bugs me about the anti-capitalism socialist that always seem to be screaming at the tops of their voices for spreading wealth, health care for all, evil rich people, etc... etc... and no one ever seems to mention it or ask the question.
Why is it not so blatantly obvious to the entire population that socialism is 100% entirely dependent on capitalism and capitalists. With out capitalism and the entrepreneurs that take risk for the dream of becoming business owners and/or independently wealthy there could be no socialism. With out capitalism there is no revenue for the government and therefore no wealth for the government to spread.
Is it really so simple that people just can't grasp the concept or are people just that incredibly stupid?
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
The truth of the matter is that the socialist leaders (the dems in DC) truly believe socialism has failed everywhere else because the wrong people were in charge. Look at Obama's line in his speech, "We're the ones we've been waiting for". The followers of the left are kept in line thru ignorance and class war fare. Their position in life if bad, is due to the man keeping them down. If it's good, it's because government and/or their union is making it good for them.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
These people commit the deadly sin of Pride. If you don't like this medieval analysis then . . . these people exhibit hubris. They over value the wisdom of men, the ability of men. Capitalism does not know what business plan will succeed. Many businesses are created under Capitalism and many fail. Those that survive are the one's we remember and acknowledge to create wealth that improves our standard of living. Capitalism doesn't pick winners and losers -- the market and mere chance makes the choices. And the winner today may be the loser tomorrow. There is no necessity under Capitalism to pck the winners, to favor the winners. The richness of opportunity and the extraordinary creativeness of the Capitalist economy is grounded in the diversity of initiatives. Maybe 9 of 10 fail. Not a problem. The 10th initiative may be the semi-conductor industry or the web browser of Marc Andresson.
Contrast this to centrally planned economies -- the essence of socialism. For this to work, wise men must make decisions about where resources will be allocated and where resources will be denied. They pick winners and losers. If they pick poorly, guess what, the economy and the people in the economy suffer. I do not have sufficient confidence in the infallibility of men to subscribe to socialism. And I don't think I'm any exception to this fallibility -- we are all limited and at best may be able to identify and understand only our narrow self-interest accurately. For many, even this limited task is too much.
Another weakness of socialism is that financial rewards are decoupled from taking risk and working hard and improving oneself. If I do not see a VERY direct linkage between working hard and money in my pocket, I'm not working hard -- I'm not working more than 40 hours/week, I'm not going to be very gung-ho while I'm working those 40 hours, and I'm going to be sure I stretch out my water breaks. This is human nature. On the other hand, when I profit from my initiative, diligence, working extra hours, my drive to improve my skills . . . I do these things. And when I work more hours per week and I work harder during those hours and I work more skillfully, I create more wealth and that wealth lifts the general standard of living. I'm making more money and spending more money. I sure spend more money in restaurants than I used to spend in restaurants when I made less money. I sure go elk hunting out-of-state more often now that I have more money. My spending is raising someone's standard of living out there.
This is a little off track, but it fits in with my last paragraph. It has been my observation that financial rewards in corporations are not tightly coupled to individual excellence and/or performance. When was the last time a corporate employee saw more than a 5% pay increase? When was the last time a corporate employee saw a real distinction in pay increases between the lions and the slugs in the workplace? My guess is that most professionals in that environment -- the corporate environment -- see this and adapt their behavior accordingly. That is, they strive to keep their hours to about 40 hours/week if possible. They don't get too excited or work too hard. Those coffee breaks are frequent and long. This seems to me to suffer from the same problem of socialism I identify in the last paragraph. By not identifying and rewarding excellence and hard work, those who would otherwise produce don't produce. Why produce or strive if one isn't going to receive one's just rewards? Call me selfish, but I didn't see the worth of this. It didn't take too much effort to do well enough to be in the median performance zone or even in the upper 1/3 performance zone. Why do more? To earn a plastic "Employee of the Year" trophy?
The problem with capitalism is capitalist and the problem with socialism is socialism. In other words, when the left likes to try and tear down capitalism, they have to point out the few individuals in their mind that are abusing the system. They can't point to the system. When socialism fails as it always does, it because the system is a failure just as Allsatian pointed out.
On a side note, I got more than a 5% raise this year and there are more bonuses so to be had. What kills me are the hiiring bonuses to be had but no talent to be found.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
It is interesting that the socialists are always pointing to the rich and pointing out how much they put in their pocket versus the poor lowly worker, comparing how much the rich benefit from a tax initiative. I would think the worthy analysis would be to consider how the poor lowly worker fares.
How many people do you know who are not "well to do" own an iPhone and pay the monthly data fee? (I don't I'm too cheap to pay for the data plan -- don't see the value, though I could afford it) How often do those who are not "well to do" eat in restaurants? What do those who are not "well to do" spend on entertainment, such as cable TV, hobbies, and the like? I can't answer that question, but my guess is it is a lot more than their class peers in Cuba spend on these things, or their class peers in North Korea spend on these things, or their class peers in gentler, more westernized socialist states such as Finland, Sweden, Norway. This equates to a higher standard of living for those who are in the lower orders of the economic system.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the biggest socialist grab ever.... federal, state and county forests!! Do you realize what an incredible waste this is? If these lands were turned over to capitalists and entrepreneurs, the amount of revenue they could generate is staggering. Some of the most coveted land in Wisconsin is owned by the government. Turn that land over to private citizens!!
People do not have a god given right to hunt or fish. If they want to engage in that type of activity they should do what I did and purchase land for that purpose. A person who owns the land is going to take care of and its resources much better than a bunch of rednecks who are just out to shoot the first thing they see on land do they do not even own. Nobody ever appreciates something that they don't have to pay for directly.
The first step to ending socialism is identifying what it is. I think nothing better fits the description than land that everybody has access to. It is simply un-American and socialist to allow this disgusting tradition condition to continue.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the biggest socialist grab ever.... federal, state and county forests!! Do you realize what an incredible waste this is? If these lands were turned over to capitalists and entrepreneurs, the amount of revenue they could generate is staggering. Some of the most coveted land in Wisconsin is owned by the government. Turn that land over to private citizens!!
People do not have a god given right to hunt or fish. If they want to engage in that type of activity they should do what I did and purchase land for that purpose. A person who owns the land is going to take care of and its resources much better than a bunch of rednecks who are just out to shoot the first thing they see on land do they do not even own. Nobody ever appreciates something that they don't have to pay for directly.
The first step to ending socialism is identifying what it is. I think nothing better fits the description than land that everybody has access to. It is simply un-American and socialist to allow this disgusting tradition condition to continue.
The land in question can and/or be sold anytime in the future. I'm not really sure how that has anything to do with socialism. Perhaps if they choose to steal it from a private person. However, that's like everything else they steal, it's called private property. Private property is one of our unalienable rights defined as liberty. The fact the Obama wishes our liberty to be resdistibuted to the have nots is socialism.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the biggest socialist grab ever.... federal, state and county forests!! The first step to ending socialism is identifying what it is. I think nothing better fits the description than land that everybody has access to. It is simply un-American and socialist to allow this disgusting tradition condition to continue.
This is "commons" land. Personally I don't see this as socialist. I'll think about it. Much of the public land in the west is land that was obtained by the federal government. For example, the Louisiana Purchase acquired a LOT of land that belonged to the US government. Was this a bad idea or socialism? I don't think so. Much additional land was acquired as an outcome of the Mexican-American War. You can debate whether this was a just war or a war of conquest . . . but I don't see how determining that at least some of that land was owned by the federal government was or is socialism. Alaska was purchased by the US government from Russia. I don't see that as socialism. Again, I suppose there is a lot of public land in Alaska. I don't see that as socialism either.
It would seem that you are suggesting that for the federal government to continue to hold this land in common constitutes socialism. I guess I would need to hear a reasoned argument rather than just an unsupported assertion that this is the case. It is not self-evident that this is socialism.
The question would be, if the government should not own this land as a common property of "The People" what is the appropriate going price for this land? How do you establish a fair market price? Or, more to the point, how do you establish a smart investment disposition of this land? For example, it would not be wise for me to sell my home now -- if I had any flexibility in the matter -- as real estate is not at an optimal state right now. Maybe it would make more sense, from an investment point of view, for me to sit on my property, let the market recover 50%, and sell in 5 years. I'm not saying this pertains to my specific home but am using this as an illustration. It could be argued that selling this land off in big chunks rather than slowly and incrementally is a singularly unwise investment disposition. If you sell this land off improvidently the many are subsidizing the rent of the few, reverse socialism as it were.
I take it as a fundamental premise that any analysis of this commons ownership as being socialism is economic in focus and hence economic analysis of an alternative disposition of the commons would be natural.
Capatalism and socialism
