Socialism I could live with
"the average American income could increase from today's ~$35,000/y-person to more than $150,000/y-person."
That got my attention. It's from the following senate testimony-
Lunar Power
I've never really liked socialism because current examples would seem to result in me having more taxes, less money, and less choice. That said, if someone can present a socialist approach that improves my life, wealth, and choice, I'll give it some consideration.
The lunar power station may seem a little sci fi, but presuming it could work, what are the reasons why we, as a country, shouldn't invest in something that would increase our general wealth?
That got my attention. It's from the following senate testimony-
Lunar Power
I've never really liked socialism because current examples would seem to result in me having more taxes, less money, and less choice. That said, if someone can present a socialist approach that improves my life, wealth, and choice, I'll give it some consideration.
The lunar power station may seem a little sci fi, but presuming it could work, what are the reasons why we, as a country, shouldn't invest in something that would increase our general wealth?
Comments
But what does this have to do with socialism? Anyway, the socialist dream. . . I've heard it many times. It's nice to think that everyone would be making 150,000, but that just results in rampant inflation anyway, unless you plan to control that too. Socialism doesn't work. It requires too much control.
Plus, I'd be pissed if I wouldn't have the chance to get monstrously rich. It takes away the motive of most of the people that drive technology forward in this country.
And Socialism is working fine in the countries that are considered the best countries to live in the world: human development index
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
And Socialism is working fine in the countries that are considered the best countries to live in the world: human development index
I don´t see any socialist countries in that list.
Originally posted by Anders
I don´t see any socialist countries in that list.
I think stupider...likeafox, is referring to the fact that Sweden's economic system is often described as socialist, since the government owns the power, gas, telephone, some transportation and others, etc. Other than Sweden, I don't know what other countries he might be talking about.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
"the average American income could increase from today's ~$35,000/y-person to more than $150,000/y-person."
Well, yeah. I expect to be buying my 10 dollar loaf of bread in 50 years too.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The people driving technology forward in the US are, and always have been, people doing government funded basic research. (The fact that companies are often allowed to patent and make obscene profits from this research while denying medince to control infectious disease in the third wold is a different matter
And Socialism is working fine in the countries that are considered the best countries to live in the world: human development index
On that note about government funded research. . . um, no. There are groups that do research and get government money, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that government hands out too much money. If SBIR wanted to give you money, you'd probably take it. But the generation of ideas is mostly a profit-seeking endeavor. For some odd reason, the private sector always manages to get it done better and faster than the public sector.
If you want to live in a socialist country, there are plenty to choose from, so why mope about the US needing to be more socialist? Lastly, in welfare states you'll notice that the per capita income is usually lower than in the US, and the unemployment rate is much higher. So you have this big drain on society. That's inefficient.
But the big concern, and the day that I'm going to laugh myself halfway to death, is the day when the negative rate of natural increase in France yields too small a population to maintain the tax base even at 100% tax. Then I'm going to go ahead and buy a huge chunk of land there when the going is good.
As for third world countries, we were all living in caves at one point. The most compassionate thing to do is end subsidies to 1st world farmers so that these 3rd world farmers can actually grow staples and not have to rely on UN relief all the damn time. It's socialist nations and their protectionist mentalities (and bullshit American politics too) that impoverish 3rd world nations. If simple labor like farming and mining, etc, were outsourced to the 3rd world as the natural market would dictate, they could buy their own vaccines.
Originally posted by Anders
I don´t see any socialist countries in that list.
Any country where someone is paying more than 50% of his income to the government, I argue, is socialist. That's my definition, based on the fact that I would be the owner and mighty hand of judgment of a company if I own more than 50% of it. So if the goverment owns more than 50% of you, that's socialism.
Yeah, the definition is gray, but I like mine.
I think some of the confusion about the connection between the lunar power station and socialism is that some people immediately started applying all their conceptions of full blown, all-out socialism. As I said in the beginning, I've never been in favor of the tax me more, give to other people kind of socialism. That is why the lunar power station seemed so interesting.
How is it socialism? Well, clearly we would have to pool our collective resources (taxes) to initially get this thing going, but then we would all derive an equal benefit from a natural resource. Given the apparantly prodigious amount of excess energy it would most likely destroy the other private energy companies. So the government would essentially control the value of natural resources and distribute them to the equal benefit of it's citizens. Sure sounds like socialism to me.
I don't think the run-away inflation argument holds water since I know there are other countries that distribute the value of their resources to their citizens. Kuwait (although the monarcy hoards the lion share), and I think either norway or iceland or some place like that socialized the oil reserves.
Originally posted by alcimedes
except don't US citizens already pay over 50% in taxes on average? (counting alcohol, gas, income, SS etc)
I actually consider America to be a borderline socialist nation.
Originally posted by alcimedes
except don't US citizens already pay over 50% in taxes on average? (counting alcohol, gas, income, SS etc)
Don't forget property taxes