Socialism

QUOTE]

And do you know how that store comes to exist in a neighborhood? After it has identified scarcity and determined that profit can be driven from that demand.

that only happens thru capitalistic enterprising.


is because of their monopolistic business model. At one point, that was too much for this country.

and yet some of ya are advocating for da government to be da only game in town when it comes to healthcare? :lol:

2 words, rationed care.
 
ninjahood ninjahood

I forgot to mention an even more important omission in your example: what happens to all the goods in that store of yours if nobody has the money to buy them?
 
Meanwhile, Scandinavians ain't squeezing themselves at the doors of USCIS.

Scandinavians aren't socialist and they definitely aren't democratic Socialist... their a market based economy that scores higher than da United States in business freedom...they don't even have a minimum wage.
 
I forgot to mention an even more important omission in your example: what happens to all the goods in that store of yours if nobody has the money to buy them?

do u even Know what money represents? :lol:

someone paid someone to stock that shelf, fill that section, delivery that product, create da logicistic to send it, produce it, think about it to design it.


your whole premise is bunk.
 
and the balance has gotten out of wack, as evidenced by the growing inequality in this country

there's more millionaires in da United States now than ever in history...

reality is inequality is growing because people are moving up.
 
when you go to da store, its fully stocked with any and every flavor of w/e is at your disposal...

Socialism is da anthesis of that type of prosperity.

capitalism makes technology and innovation get cheaper and more attainable, to da point that if you watch a old episode of MTV cribs, 99% of ya can afford da amenities and luxuries that were once exclusively for da well to do, i.e. giant flat screens, high tech gizmos with video/music, cars of that era, etc.
I think you can make an argument that capitalism also stifles innovation and progress.

For medicine, why invent a cure when you can milk the cow.

Why go green, when oil is liquid gold.

So is a double edge sword.
 
there's more millionaires in da United States now than ever in history...

reality is inequality is growing because people are moving up.
Actually not .....

Hence the reason why my initial statement was I dont believe in Socialism, but there has to be a solution for inequity.
 
So you're getting your info from a Cuban refugee my G?

LoL

amongst other places.. what's so funny about hearing firsthand knowledge of da atrocities that socialism brings?

newsflash Bernie Sanders get inflamed for his defense on Fidel Castro on 60 minutes yesterday everywhere.
 
Here's my very not definitive glossary:

Socialist: A person's whose ultimate goal is worker control of the means of production.

Social Safety Nets or Social Solidaristic programs: state run programs which provide value to people with either no regard to their income level (universal programs) and/or programs that help those with low or no income (means tested programs).

Social Democrat: one who wants workers/labor to be the most powerful constituent group within a capitalist economy and a liberal multi party state.

Democratic Socialists: Socialists who want to use elections and labor militancy to create a condition where the working class controls the means of production.

Communist:

1.) In Theory, one who wants to have workers control the means of production and in time abolish the state and the value form (quantifying thing in terms of money and instead organizing production and distribution based on human needs and wants) along with private property (not to be confused with personal property like your primary residence, car, clothes, toothbrush etc)

2.) In practice, it means those who approved of the Soviet Project. Prior to 1917, there were socialists and after 1917 you have democratic socialists who disapproved of the Russian and subsequent Bolshevik seizure of state power in Russia and there emerged communists who did approve of the methods used by Lenin and the other Bolsheviks in Russia.

Marxist: One who believes that material conditions and class conflict is the exclusive or primary driver of history.

Marxist-Leninist: One who wants to destroy the non communist, non socialist state, often times from within, and replace it with a socialist state. Leninist also believe that capitalism in a country leads to that country establishing and advancing imperialist foreign polices.

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist: A Marxist-Leninist who also believes that while there is inequality within countries, there is also inequality among countries and that the most white, Northern, industrialized "core" countries use the plunder of the most non white, southern non industrialized countries' resources to bribe workers in core countries. Therefore, reasons the Maoist, the lynch-pin of socialist and communist revolution is the workers in non industrialized countries. If that group rebels, they can cut off food and raw materials to the northern, industrialized bourgeoisie and the bosses/ruling class in the white and northern countries cannot bribe the workers in those countries and capitalism will collapse.
 
Actually not .....


About half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016. This is virtually unchanged from the 51% who were middle class in 2011. But while the size of the nation’s middle class remained relatively stable, financial gains for middle-income Americans during this period were modest compared with those of higher-income households, causing the income disparity between the groups to grow.

The recent stability in the share of adults living in middle-income households marks a shift from a decades-long downward trend. From 1971 to 2011, the share of adults in the middle class fell by 10 percentage points. But that shift was not all down the economic ladder. Indeed, the increase in the share of adults who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income over that period, a sign of economic progress overall.
 

About half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016. This is virtually unchanged from the 51% who were middle class in 2011. But while the size of the nation’s middle class remained relatively stable, financial gains for middle-income Americans during this period were modest compared with those of higher-income households, causing the income disparity between the groups to grow.

The recent stability in the share of adults living in middle-income households marks a shift from a decades-long downward trend. From 1971 to 2011, the share of adults in the middle class fell by 10 percentage points. But that shift was not all down the economic ladder. Indeed, the increase in the share of adults who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income over that period, a sign of economic progress overall.
Middle class 40k to 120k ......

This is absurd!!!!!

Now subtract
Taxes
Medicare
HealthCare
Mortgage/Rent
Utilities
School loans
Etc

And now you have an American family that is struggling to make ends meet or spending less and less time as a family because they are taking on multiple jobs to survive.

In addition, because they are middle class they dont qualify for **** all while not having enough to pay for anything. Catch 22.

Stop the bull**** go outside and see how **** really is.

This is not equality.
 
And now you have an American family that is struggling to make ends meet or spending less and less time as a family because they are taking on multiple jobs to survive.

newsflash b, economic progress is continuing forward and more people are joining upper middle class and leaving middle class.
 
Based on reported salary or accumulate wealth?



Sure The Middle Class Is Shrinking: 30% Of Americans Are Now Too Rich To Be In The Middle Class
Tim WorstallFormer Contributor

A very interesting report on America’s shrinking middle class shows, once again, that the middle class is shrinking. And, once again, we see that the middle class is shrinking because people are getting too rich to be considered middle class any more. And if we’re honest, the idea that too many people are getting too rich isn’t something that is going to keep us awake at night.

We might worry if everyone were becoming too poor to be middle class. We might even worry if one person gets all the goodies leaving some monstrous multiple of those who remain middle class. But that whole swathes of the society are climbing up out of the petty bourgeois lifestyle into the haute bourgeois one shouldn’t be causing any night sweats.


uncaptioned
Gallery: The World's Richest Countries
15 images
View gallery
It’s actually what we’d like to be happening to everyone in fact. The mixture of capitalism and free markets has meant that, in places which have actually been doing those things for more than a few decades, we’ve entirely destroyed the peasant and then proletarian lifestyles of yore.


Seriously, what is wrong with the idea of a society where more people have the resources to live a decent life?

As the WSJ says:

The latest piece of evidence comes from economist Stephen Rose of the Urban Institute, who finds in new research that the upper middle class in the U.S. is larger and richer than it’s ever been. He finds the upper middle class has expanded from about 12% of the population in 1979 to a new record of nearly 30% as of 2014.


‘Any discussion of inequality that is limited to the 1% misses a lot of the picture because it ignores the large inequality between the growing upper middle class and the middle and lower middle classes,’ said Mr. Rose. The Urban Institute is a nonpartisan policy research group.

I’ve said a number of times that I’m not very worried by inequality but I am worried about absolute standards of living. I would be unhappy if some number of people were getting richer because others were getting poorer. However, that appears not to be the case:

middleclass

That slight decline in the bottom incomes is because these are market incomes. The changes and expansions of the welfare system have more than made up for that over those years. So, all incomes are growing, and some are growing faster than others. That leads to the sizes of the different classes changing:


middleclass1

It is worth pointing out why this is different from Pew Research’s recent results. Pew were measuring middle class as a relative term: 60% of median income to twice median income. Thus the change in the size of the various classes is a reflection of how inequality is changing. Here the measurement is an absolute income level. And thus we’re including both that widening of inequality and also the fact that large parts of the country are becoming richer.

I urge you to read the report.

The truth is that the American middle class is shrinking. But the major cause of this is that large parts of the population are simply becoming too rich to be considered middle class any more. And I think that’s great. I cannot bring myself to complain about 30% of Americans now living better and richer lives than their forbears did.

Besides, isn’t that what we’re all actually trying to achieve? We should be celebrating the evidence that we’re succeeding.
 

About half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016. This is virtually unchanged from the 51% who were middle class in 2011. But while the size of the nation’s middle class remained relatively stable, financial gains for middle-income Americans during this period were modest compared with those of higher-income households, causing the income disparity between the groups to grow.

The recent stability in the share of adults living in middle-income households marks a shift from a decades-long downward trend. From 1971 to 2011, the share of adults in the middle class fell by 10 percentage points. But that shift was not all down the economic ladder. Indeed, the increase in the share of adults who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income over that period, a sign of economic progress overall.


Sure The Middle Class Is Shrinking: 30% Of Americans Are Now Too Rich To Be In The Middle Class
Tim WorstallFormer Contributor

A very interesting report on America’s shrinking middle class shows, once again, that the middle class is shrinking. And, once again, we see that the middle class is shrinking because people are getting too rich to be considered middle class any more. And if we’re honest, the idea that too many people are getting too rich isn’t something that is going to keep us awake at night.

We might worry if everyone were becoming too poor to be middle class. We might even worry if one person gets all the goodies leaving some monstrous multiple of those who remain middle class. But that whole swathes of the society are climbing up out of the petty bourgeois lifestyle into the haute bourgeois one shouldn’t be causing any night sweats.


uncaptioned
Gallery: The World's Richest Countries
15 images
View gallery
It’s actually what we’d like to be happening to everyone in fact. The mixture of capitalism and free markets has meant that, in places which have actually been doing those things for more than a few decades, we’ve entirely destroyed the peasant and then proletarian lifestyles of yore.


Seriously, what is wrong with the idea of a society where more people have the resources to live a decent life?

As the WSJ says:

The latest piece of evidence comes from economist Stephen Rose of the Urban Institute, who finds in new research that the upper middle class in the U.S. is larger and richer than it’s ever been. He finds the upper middle class has expanded from about 12% of the population in 1979 to a new record of nearly 30% as of 2014.


‘Any discussion of inequality that is limited to the 1% misses a lot of the picture because it ignores the large inequality between the growing upper middle class and the middle and lower middle classes,’ said Mr. Rose. The Urban Institute is a nonpartisan policy research group.

I’ve said a number of times that I’m not very worried by inequality but I am worried about absolute standards of living. I would be unhappy if some number of people were getting richer because others were getting poorer. However, that appears not to be the case:

middleclass

That slight decline in the bottom incomes is because these are market incomes. The changes and expansions of the welfare system have more than made up for that over those years. So, all incomes are growing, and some are growing faster than others. That leads to the sizes of the different classes changing:


middleclass1

It is worth pointing out why this is different from Pew Research’s recent results. Pew were measuring middle class as a relative term: 60% of median income to twice median income. Thus the change in the size of the various classes is a reflection of how inequality is changing. Here the measurement is an absolute income level. And thus we’re including both that widening of inequality and also the fact that large parts of the country are becoming richer.

I urge you to read the report.

The truth is that the American middle class is shrinking. But the major cause of this is that large parts of the population are simply becoming too rich to be considered middle class any more. And I think that’s great. I cannot bring myself to complain about 30% of Americans now living better and richer lives than their forbears did.

Besides, isn’t that what we’re all actually trying to achieve? We should be celebrating the evidence that we’re succeeding.
Boy bye!!!
 
this struggle convo disguised as communist socialist deodorant deserves one of my favorite verses...

 

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism


Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (2005) is a three-hour PBS documentary film (sometimes recut as a 3 episodes documental mini-series) hosted by Ben Wattenberg and narrated by Henry Strozier. The series' Executive Producer is Andrew Walworth. The series was produced for PBS by New River Media, Inc. (re-incorporated as Grace Creek Media, Inc. in 2008) and first broadcast as a special edition of the television series Think Tank in June 2005.
Heaven on Earth begins with the pronouncement: "This 3-hour documentary explores one of the most powerful political ideas in history. Socialism spread farther and faster than any religion. Then, in almost the blink of an eye, it all collapsed. What happened?"[1




get educated...seen this a few years ago...its PBS produced from 2006.

spoiler alert: Berlin wall falls.
 
Back
Top Bottom