Ebike prices expected to rise? 25% tariffs.

rumme said:
Socialism cripples people , because it takes away incentives, which results in people having less discipline, drive, will power or desire to do better. The socialism utopia does not exist and would NEVER work well in world of 7 billion humans.

<pseudo rant>
As a long time small "o" objectivist, libertarian, fan of capitalism etc., I've come to the conclusion at the age of 59 that it just isn't that simple. I'd like it to be simple, but it isn't. None of the ideologies get it right.

The fly in the ointment is that while human beans have the capability of being logical and rational, they don't have the propensity for it. The reality is that what we do most of the time is make heuristic estimates, and those estimates are skewed by situational and built-in genetic biases. We often don't see how off-target and biased we are until the error is quite large. And that's where objectivism, libertarianism, and capitalism break down a bit (and for other reasons too.)

So I've pretty much concluded that we will inevitably be stuck with a mix of freedom and capitalism along with a chunk of paternalism and socialism. I do, however, think the mix should skew heavily towards the freedom and capitalism side of things. If you take away too much freedom with socialism, communism, or totalitarianism, you crush the human spirit and the creativity and productivity that it brings to the world. That's why China has injected some capitalism into its ostensibly communist system. You must preserve a big chunk of freedom if you want prosperity. The real debate is not over this fact. The real debate is over how much you should preserve.

And please, lets not kid ourselves when comparing governements and countries. The Netherlands spends less than 2% of GDP on national defense. Think of what could be done for the personal wealth and well being of U.S. citizens if they weren't footing the bill for our HUGE military machine. Also think how vulnerable the Netherlands would be were it not for the U.S. having that huge military machine.

Lets also not forget that the combined government spending of the U.S. (federal, state, and local) as a percentage of GDP is greater than that of the Netherlands and that the Netherlands has been reducing their spending as a percentage of GDP over the years. So which is the more democratic/socialist of the two? Further, China's National government spends a lot less money as a percentage of GDP than either the U.S. or the Netherlands. It is about half!!

So things just aren't as simple and straightforward as we often seem to pretend that they are.
</pseudo rant>
 
wturber said:
rumme said:
Socialism cripples people , because it takes away incentives, which results in people having less discipline, drive, will power or desire to do better. The socialism utopia does not exist and would NEVER work well in world of 7 billion humans.

<pseudo rant>
As a long time small "o" objectivist, libertarian, fan of capitalism etc., I've come to the conclusion at the age of 59 that it just isn't that simple. I'd like it to be simple, but it isn't. None of the ideologies get it right.

The fly in the ointment is that while human beans have the capability of being logical and rational, they don't have the propensity for it. The reality is that what we do most of the time is make heuristic estimates, and those estimates are skewed by situational and built-in genetic biases. We often don't see how off-target and biased we are until the error is quite large. And that's where objectivism, libertarianism, and capitalism break down a bit (and for other reasons too.)

So I've pretty much concluded that we will inevitably be stuck with a mix of freedom and capitalism along with a chunk of paternalism and socialism. I do, however, think the mix should skew heavily towards the freedom and capitalism side of things. If you take away too much freedom with socialism, communism, or totalitarianism, you crush the human spirit and the creativity and productivity that it brings to the world. That's why China has injected some capitalism into its ostensibly communist system. You must preserve a big chunk of freedom if you want prosperity. The real debate is not over this fact. The real debate is over how much you should preserve.

And please, lets not kid ourselves when comparing governements and countries. The Netherlands spends less than 2% of GDP on national defense. Think of what could be done for the personal wealth and well being of U.S. citizens if they weren't footing the bill for our HUGE military machine. Also think how vulnerable the Netherlands would be were it not for the U.S. having that huge military machine.

Lets also not forget that the combined government spending of the U.S. (federal, state, and local) as a percentage of GDP is greater than that of the Netherlands and that the Netherlands has been reducing their spending as a percentage of GDP over the years. So which is the more democratic/socialist of the two? Further, China's National government spends a lot less money as a percentage of GDP than either the U.S. or the Netherlands. It is about half!!

So things just aren't as simple and straightforward as we often seem to pretend that they are.
</pseudo rant>

Ive never been to the Netherlands, but I do know that freedom of speech is limited, along with other things , that we take for granted here in the U,S. There was a discussion forum online, that had its servers based in the Netherlands and certain subjects could not be discussed, because it was considered illegal and punishable with prison time . I do not think having that type of socialism, that takes away the right for humans to talk about sensitive subjects , freedom of speech , freedom to criticize corrupt govts, etc. , is a good alternative.

Is it really worth it, to receive a free $500 check every month, but in order to get it, everyone in society can no longer own a firearm, have freedom of speech and freedom of opinions ? I say its not worth it, and is a very bad way to run a nation.

Just giving citizens free things, their whole life , is not the answer , nor is it sustainable. If people decide to have several children, and they cannot support those children, then it should not be forced upon others, to pay for the mistakes made by other people. Once again, a system works best, when people who make good decisions, get ahead and are rewarded, and people who make bad decisions, are not rewarded....this is how people learn, and then realize they need to stop making bad decisions, so they can improve their lives.
 
Now, to show im not as coldhearted as I may appear to some people...I do think some sort of limited socialism is acceptable, to help people out who are in a bad place in life....but this is just limited support, so those people can get back on their feet, and stabilize their lives. In the location I live, there is a lot of welfare recipients getting a free govt check every month , and most of these people could work a job, but why would they, if they get free money to stay home ? You see, this type of socialism takes away all the incentives to become productive and be independant . I would rather the govt send out free seeds , to these people, so they can grow a garden and produce food on their own. Thats just one idea.
 
Dunno why some folks may be overlooking "the longest undefended border in the world"? :wink:
 
rumme said:
I think the main question is this. Can total socialism, amongst 7 billion humans, really be sustainable and does it result in a ...

It's too bad you can't travel back to the 1930s when this was a real question. I guess, I was born quite a bit later, a week after the Senate censured Joe McCarthy. When I was a kid in the '60s, talk like this was still kind of common, I guess mainly because it looked to a lot of people like the Russians were pushing for world hegemony and had a lot of Marxist rhetoric to go along with it. But the US was already a more or less modern first world state with "socialist" programs like Social Security. Since then, "they" have drifted more towards something not all that far from our corporatist model, so "socialism" has become kind of meaningless - we're all there with some degree of socialism, every country and municipality just has its own mixture. A black and white picture of it is laughable.
 
Yes, we on the left want rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not going to apologize for that. The winners should host the game.

You keep going back to the blighted parts of Chicago as an example of socialism, but that's not what it is. It's an example of the failure of an oligarchy to take care of its citizens. In a democratic socialist society, no part of Chicago would be blighted.
 
donn said:
rumme said:
I think the main question is this. Can total socialism, amongst 7 billion humans, really be sustainable and does it result in a ...

It's too bad you can't travel back to the 1930s when this was a real question. I guess, I was born quite a bit later, a week after the Senate censured Joe McCarthy. When I was a kid in the '60s, talk like this was still kind of common, I guess mainly because it looked to a lot of people like the Russians were pushing for world hegemony and had a lot of Marxist rhetoric to go along with it. But the US was already a more or less modern first world state with "socialist" programs like Social Security. Since then, "they" have drifted more towards something not all that far from our corporatist model, so "socialism" has become kind of meaningless - we're all there with some degree of socialism, every country and municipality just has its own mixture. A black and white picture of it is laughable.


And there lies the crux of the problem. Which version of socialism is best ?


I cannot support the version which strips away freewill and the freedoms of people in a society, in return for a free govt check. Id rather keep my freedoms , and not get free money. The type of socialism that rewards bad decisions, laziness and the " self entitlement" midnset, is quite dangerous IMHO.
 
Chalo said:
Yes, we on the left want rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not going to apologize for that. The winners should host the game.

You keep going back to the blighted parts of Chicago as an example of socialism, but that's not what it is. It's an example of the failure of an oligarchy to take care of its citizens. In a democratic socialist society, no part of Chicago would be blighted.

Maybe chicago is more a example of democratic ideas / policies at work ?
 
Chalo said:
Yes, we on the left want rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not going to apologize for that. The winners should host the game.

My best friend worked for the IRS for 35 years ...he just retired 6 months ago. Ive had this discussion with him, and he assured me, that rich people pay their fair share of taxes...Now, maybe the mega rich { the top .5% } , like the queen of England, the pope, the rothchilds, do not pay their fair share , but socialism aint gonna fix that either.
 
Social security, is not what I consider true socialism. You work for 50 years, you pay into it, and you get your money back when you retire at age 62-68 ,etc. I view S.S., as more of a savings plan , to be used in ones elder years. In some ways, its a good idea, because most people are not good at saving money or investing money.
 
Chalo said:
Yes, we on the left want rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not going to apologize for that. T

Do you also want to take away a persons right to own firearms ? Or take away their right to like/ dislike anyone or anything they want ? Or take away their rights to freedom of speech ? Or take away their rights to own a car, because of phony global warming ? In the sick world of CHALO, its alright if force is used upon others, as long as that force inflicts the agendas CHALO supports. What a looney bird.
 
slacker said:
rumme, again sir kuddos to you.

"Kuddos" to you both, kiddos. :)
 
slacker said:
rumme, again sir kuddos to you.

Chalo deserves credit too. He makes it to easy to reveal his idiotic political agendas and his own hatred of others. :wink:

Whats really funny is, Chalo probably thinks I voted for trump , and he would be wrong again.
 
rumme said:
Chalo said:
Yes, we on the left want rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not going to apologize for that. T

Do you also want to take away a persons right to own firearms ? Or take away their right to like/ dislike anyone or anything they want ? Or take away their rights to freedom of speech ? Or take away their rights to own a car, because of phony global warming ? In the sick world of CHALO, its alright if force is used upon others, as long as that force inflicts the agendas CHALO supports. What a looney bird.

Notice , chalo wont answer the above questions honestly., because it would reveal his desire to control others or take away their rights, for his own political bias/agendas/goals.
 
Whats really funny is, Chalo probably thinks I voted for trump , and he would be wrong again. I am guessing he is wrong quite often.
 
slacker said:
Whats really funny is, Chalo probably thinks I voted for trump , and he would be wrong again. I am guessing he is wrong quite often.

I wasn't happy with either candidate, so I refrained from casting a vote. With that said, Im glad Hillary lost . I didn't like the way things were going under the Obama/Hillary vision, with transgender bathrooms and other bullshit. Sick muthaf#$kers.
 
Bailing out banks which are failing due to unregulated corporate greed isn't socialism?

How about providing food supplements to employees of insanely profitable corporations because despite working full time they still live in poverty?

The same way the guy with 3 million fewer votes winning the election is democracy I suppose.
 
rumme said:
Ive never been to the Netherlands, but I do know that freedom of speech is limited, along with other things , that we take for granted here in the U,S. There was a discussion forum online, ...

I just looked it up online and the Netherlands seems pretty similar to the U.S. with the exception of restrictions on so-called "discriminatory speech." The simple fact is that we are currently heading that direction in the U.S. and I think Canada has recently passed a law of that type.
 
wturber said:
rumme said:
Ive never been to the Netherlands, but I do know that freedom of speech is limited, along with other things , that we take for granted here in the U,S. There was a discussion forum online, ...

I just looked it up online and the Netherlands seems pretty similar to the U.S. with the exception of restrictions on so-called "discriminatory speech." The simple fact is that we are currently heading that direction in the U.S. and I think Canada has recently passed a law of that type.

Yeah, the discriminatory speech laws, are merely a unfair law that usually protect 1 or 2 specific races/ religions, most of all. In a corrupt society, one can find out who the true rulers are , by the laws/social trends which limit who cannot be criticized.

On another note, I can spot the sick hypocrisy here in the U.S . One example is this new Hollywood movie called " WHITE BOY RICK" . Imagine if a big name movie came out called " BLACK BOY TYRONE" or JEW BOY HYMIE" ….the outrage at such a film would be widespread and all over the pathetic news/Talmud tv stations.
 
rumme said:
Chalo said:
Yes, we on the left want rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. I'm not going to apologize for that. The winners should host the game.

My best friend worked for the IRS for 35 years ...he just retired 6 months ago. Ive had this discussion with him, and he assured me, that rich people pay their fair share of taxes...Now, maybe the mega rich { the top .5% } , like the queen of England, the pope, the rothchilds, do not pay their fair share , but socialism aint gonna fix that either.

If you do the simple math on yearly incomes, having the rich pay their "fair share" doesn't affect the bottom line all that much. One of the fundamental problems with taxation and re-distribution of wealth is that everyone has a different idea about what is fair. One of the other fundamental problems is that democracies face the problem of the wealthy skewing results by high powered illogical persuasion that works (media/advertisements/smear campaigns) and on the other hand giving the masses the seeming ability and power to vote themselves into prosperity. Given these issues, it sometimes amazes me that our democracy works as well as it does. I think it comes down to the fact that the vast majority of us (rich and not-so-rich) genuinely want things to work well for everyone.
 
rumme said:
Social security, is not what I consider true socialism. You work for 50 years, you pay into it, and you get your money back when you retire at age 62-68 ,etc. I view S.S., as more of a savings plan , to be used in ones elder years. In some ways, its a good idea, because most people are not good at saving money or investing money.

I see that you have drunk the Kool-Aid on Social Security. Social Security is a generational transfer payment. There are no savings. The money has been spent and will have to be repaid through some general tax. The fact that S.S. exists is one of the reasons it is easier for people to choose not to invest and save money. IMO, it is a real crappy system that never should have existed. It would have been much better to have a system that merely helped those that ran into trouble taking care of things on their own. The notion that the whole country (well... certain Federal employees exempted, of course) needs government assistance is ludicrous.
 
wturber said:
rumme said:
Social security, is not what I consider true socialism. You work for 50 years, you pay into it, and you get your money back when you retire at age 62-68 ,etc. I view S.S., as more of a savings plan , to be used in ones elder years. In some ways, its a good idea, because most people are not good at saving money or investing money.

I see that you have drunk the Kool-Aid on Social Security. Social Security is a generational transfer payment. There are no savings. The money has been spent and will have to be repaid through some general tax. The fact that S.S. exists is one of the reasons it is easier for people to choose not to invest and save money. IMO, it is a real crappy system that never should have existed. It would have been much better to have a system that merely helped those that ran into trouble taking care of things on their own. The notion that the whole country (well... certain Federal employees exempted, of course) needs government assistance is ludicrous.

No kool aid here. The idea of S.S. was to have employees pay into it, then take it back out at retirement. I understand that initial concept has been corrupted, but I dont think it was a bad concept. Humans are usually very bad at fiscal spending, saving on their own. But like most things the govt gets involved in, even .SS. has been corrupted. If done right, S.S. would be a decent idea....most people pay into and it is a automatic savings account to be used in ones retirement years.
 
dustNbone said:
The same way the guy with 3 million fewer votes winning the election is democracy I suppose.

Yes. That is representative democracy. Such outcomes have happened five times in the past. And the vast majority of people don't want to change it despite those five instances. Personally, I'd change it in a heartbeat.

I'd also add that given the fact that campaign strategies and tactics have real effects on voter decisions, the popular vote outcome would likely have been quite different if there were no electoral college. You cannot reasonably assume that if the election were based on the popular vote that Hillary Clinton would have won. Presidential campaigns are specifically designed with the electoral college system in mind and the strategists work to optimize their campaigns to get the most electoral votes. They'd surely do things differently if the goal was to maximize popular vote rather than win the electoral college.
 
rumme said:
No kool aid here. The idea of S.S. was to have employees pay into it, then take it back out at retirement. I understand that initial concept has been corrupted, but I dont think it was a bad concept.

You are confusing the lie(s) that the Federal government told people and what was actually written into law. I think it was in the 60s that it was finally mandated that the Social Security Administration had to stop lying to the public about the nature of the system. If you think the initial concept was good, then you are agreeing with the socialist ideas that you are claiming to be against.
 
Back
Top