| Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Franchise Low key big hog 
|
Why is this a thing? I can’t understand why anyone would be pushing for this. |
|||||||||||
kargol
|
You've already got it. GWB socialized bank losses so that everyone had a share. |
|||||||||||
nyhack56
|
Seriously, we bail out banks and the auto companies costing billions of dollars. Pharma gets grants from the government to develop a new drug and turns around and extorts profits. We're gonna worry about socialism now? |
|||||||||||
|
Kriss Citizen of nowhere 
|
Your police departments, fire departments, the armed forces and the FBI. Your roads and bridges. All socialist. |
|||||||||||
KGB
|
Kriss wrote: Your police departments, fire departments, the armed forces and the FBI. Your roads and bridges. All socialist. That's nonsense. There's nothing inherently socialist about the government organizing, funding, and controlling certain sectors of the economy that are necessary to the functioning of a nation. Some of the above could conceivably be contracted out to private entities but the headaches involved and the reduced accountability to the people makes that a tough sell. Although, we might see more inept cops fired if they were privatized, so perhaps it's worth a crack? |
|||||||||||
|
gwlee7 Hall Of Famer 
|
I thought the very definition of socialism was when the government organized, funded, and controlled sectors of the economy. Conservatives just get pissed when they (or their causes) aren’t the ones being funded. That’s it. That’s what all the fuss is about. |
|||||||||||
|
Kriss Citizen of nowhere
|
KGB wrote: Kriss wrote:Your police departments, fire departments, the armed forces and the FBI. Your roads and bridges. All socialist. Why not health and education? |
|||||||||||
Principal_Raditch
|
Don't forget how the Gov't also subsidizes farmers. Add in Medicare and Medicaid. Don't forget TIFFs so that private business get property tax abatements for buiding. Oh add in Eminent Domain now extending to private corporations, so that the gov't can steal your land and give it to a for profit entity. |
|||||||||||
Principal_Raditch
|
Tarriff's also set up to artificially create barriers to the free market and manipulate pricing Last edited on Wed Jul 17th, 2019 01:32 pm by Principal_Raditch |
|||||||||||
|
martini Wrestling Classics Owner 
|
Because we are idiots and don't learn from the mistakes of others. |
|||||||||||
|
srossi Hall Of Famer
|
Because even though, thanks to capitalism, everyone (rich and poor alike) live in vastly superior conditions than even 30 years ago, across the globe, even in the poorest countries, people only compare themselves to others and wonder why they aren't as rich as their neighbor. In the absence of that possibility, they want to take the other guy down. A poor person today lives like a king by every conceivable metric compared to years ago, but that's not good enough because there will always be comparative haves and have-nots. So they want to take the whole system down on the off-chance that this one time socialism will finally work and we won't wind up like Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and every other country that has tried it. The selfishness and stupidity is astounding. The fact that our government has unwisely allowed some socialist elements is hardly a reason to go all in on something you know has never worked. And "democratic socialism" is putting lipstick on a pig. Last edited on Wed Jul 17th, 2019 02:04 pm by srossi |
|||||||||||
|
Kriss Citizen of nowhere
|
You could buy a house in the 60s or 70s for about 3.5x the average wage, and a man could support a family with a simple job that he wasn't at constant risk of losing. Today you need 8.5x the combined wage of two people to buy a house. The American Dream is over, and many young people aren't supporting the capitalist status quo any more. |
|||||||||||
|
srossi Hall Of Famer
|
Kriss wrote: You could buy a house in the 60s or 70s for about 3.5x the average wage, and a man could support a family with a simple job that he wasn't at constant risk of losing. Today you need 8.5x the combined wage of two people to buy a house. The American Dream is over, and many young people aren't supporting the capitalist status quo any more. The 3 main problems in runaway costs right now are housing, health care, and college, all caused by government interference in the first place. Health care is the hardest to fix because of the stakes involved. Housing wouldn't be that difficult, after a few pain points, if you eliminate a lot of zoning restrictions. College I could literally fix in 2 years by ending 100% of college loan programs and strongly advising against anyone taking out personal loans. There would be about 1,000 rich kids left across every college campus in the country and within 2 years they'd all either be out of business or they'd have to slash tuitions back to affordable rates for the middle class. Most would choose the latter and be very profitable after cutting back on silly programs and superfluous staff. Simple as that. And unlike health care, no one's life is on the line. An 18-year old would just have to bite the bullet and delay schooling until 20 to basically solve the education problem for generations to come. Hardly a huge sacrifice to avoid a lifetime of student debt. There's never been anything easier to fix, and yet socialists want the opposite "solution" to ensure that costs continue to rage more out of control than ever. They don't get that as long as government is willing to pay for schooling, regular people will never be able to afford it. Even when people default on their student loans, the schools already got paid. There's no incentive to keep costs down. And thus, we're back to the problem with health care... Last edited on Wed Jul 17th, 2019 03:07 pm by srossi |
|||||||||||
kargol
|
We have universal healthcare in the UK. There is also a private healthcare sector. Yet somehow healthcare is generally far more expensive in the US where a market ought to be driving prices down. The problem is that it is not a genuinely free market. But nearly nothing is a genuinely free market. There are always minimum standards and that is a government necessity. Because the free market doesn't have the time to work before everything goes wrong. Compare thalidomide. |
|||||||||||
nyhack56
|
Kriss wrote: KGB wrote:Because there's just too much profit to be exploited from the vulnerabilities presented there.Kriss wrote:Your police departments, fire departments, the armed forces and the FBI. Your roads and bridges. All socialist. |
|||||||||||
KGB
|
srossi wrote: Kriss wrote:You could buy a house in the 60s or 70s for about 3.5x the average wage, and a man could support a family with a simple job that he wasn't at constant risk of losing. Today you need 8.5x the combined wage of two people to buy a house. The American Dream is over, and many young people aren't supporting the capitalist status quo any more. San Francisco is a great example of governmental interference in the housing market, creating a massive spike in prices and actually contributing to the sizeable homeless population in the city. |
|||||||||||
Principal_Raditch
|
Housing will always be out of control on the coasts since you're lacking at least one direction to build in. Toronto faced this problem as you can't build south due to Lake Ontario...so you either build north, or you build up. Here in KC the market has never gone crazy, because there's no impediment to building in any direction. OPen land for miles |
|||||||||||
KGB
|
Principal_Raditch wrote: Housing will always be out of control on the coasts since you're lacking at least one direction to build in. Toronto faced this problem as you can't build south due to Lake Ontario...so you either build north, or you build up. Here in KC the market has never gone crazy, because there's no impediment to building in any direction. OPen land for milesToronto's growth is remarkable. The number of green glass condos going up along the waterfront defies logic, but people continue to move there. A few years ago, I was up at a sister facility of my company in Mississauga and many of the guys working there were living near St. Catherines, suffering through the daily QEW commute, simply because that's where they could afford a home. And these guys were making a decent wage. |
|||||||||||
|
Franchise Low key big hog
|
Growing up my dad had this bumper sticker in the garage that said “el Salvador today El Paso tomorrow” with the hammer and sickle next to it. Dude was America to the bone but he thought it was silly. It’s interesting how relevant it is in 2019. |
|||||||||||
|
Kriss Citizen of nowhere
|
Franchise wrote: Growing up my dad had this bumper sticker in the garage that said “el Salvador today El Paso tomorrow” with the hammer and sickle next to it. Dude was America to the bone but he thought it was silly. It’s interesting how relevant it is in 2019. Socialism and communism aren't the same thing, and neither are inherently bad. They have both been used by leaders to mistreat the people, like capitalism today. |
|||||||||||
|
srossi Hall Of Famer
|
Kriss wrote: Franchise wrote:Growing up my dad had this bumper sticker in the garage that said “el Salvador today El Paso tomorrow” with the hammer and sickle next to it. Dude was America to the bone but he thought it was silly. It’s interesting how relevant it is in 2019. They're just inherently unfair. The gulags and executions are just an unfortunate side effect I guess. Oh well, let's try it again. |
|||||||||||
Principal_Raditch
|
KGB wrote: Principal_Raditch wrote:Housing will always be out of control on the coasts since you're lacking at least one direction to build in. Toronto faced this problem as you can't build south due to Lake Ontario...so you either build north, or you build up. Here in KC the market has never gone crazy, because there's no impediment to building in any direction. OPen land for milesToronto's growth is remarkable. The number of green glass condos going up along the waterfront defies logic, but people continue to move there. A few years ago, I was up at a sister facility of my company in Mississauga and many of the guys working there were living near St. Catherines, suffering through the daily QEW commute, simply because that's where they could afford a home. And these guys were making a decent wage. Now the average 4 bdr has topped a million, and you can't get a house in the city proper for less than 750k. My two sisters who still live there only have their homes because one inherited a rental property from my father when he died, and they took it over, and the other took over my childhood home. If not, there is no way they'd have been able to afford to stay in the city, and would have both moved out to the burbs or further and spent 2hrs a day in traffic commuting. They find it incredulous that you can still buy starter homes in Kansas City for less than 200k or get 4bdr homes for less than 300k. |
|||||||||||
|
Franchise Low key big hog
|
Kansas City sounds a lot like Houston as far as housing. My aunt and uncle from my old neighborhood in California stopped by a few years ago and couldn’t believe the price of housing out here. On the downside though for sale inventory is always very high around here so it’s perpetually a buyers market at least in the 3 years we have been in this house. |
|||||||||||
|
srossi Hall Of Famer
|
Kriss wrote: You could buy a house in the 60s or 70s for about 3.5x the average wage, and a man could support a family with a simple job that he wasn't at constant risk of losing. Today you need 8.5x the combined wage of two people to buy a house. The American Dream is over, and many young people aren't supporting the capitalist status quo any more. Stolen: In that revered "once upon a time," the average home's square footage was less than half what people expect and demand, today. In 1950, the average single-family home was 983 square feet. By 1973, that average had leapt to 1,660 square feet -- and then up to 2,687 square feet by 2015. Interestingly, the average family birth rate was 3.5 children per family in 1950, while down to 1.7 per family by 2015. Taking only these two factors into account . . . tell me what modern family (by average) could NOT become a "one-income" family simply by downsizing to 1950-1970 sized square footage and subsequent mortgage payment requirements? Those "once upon a time" families also didn't spend hundreds per month on a variety of digital technologies being piped in and out of their homes: cable TV, satellite, internet, HBO, Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Spotify, Apple Music, iCloud, Dropbox, Carbonite, smart phones, alarm systems, etc., etc., etc. Their daily caloric intake was significantly lower than today's averages. 3,600 calories, today -- a 24% increase over 1961, when the average was just 2,880 calories. Add to that dietary expense the commensurate increase in health problems associated with our national epidemic of obesity . . . and your prescription meds . . . and your health club membership fees. Most "once upon a time" families had only one car. Their closets had a fraction of the clothes and shoes we now have stuffed into and overflowing our large "walk-in" closets. Not to mention the innumerable other unnecessary luxuries people today now consider "necessary" to a comfortable, modern, "keep up with the Jones's" life -- including thousands of dollars spent per year in entertainment, leisure, travel, vacations, fine dining, craft cocktails, etc. I haven't even scratched the surface . . . How about those student loans? The unnecessary college and degree choices made? Did that student loan facilitate you not having to work while attending college? Because that's how they use to pay for college, (and most everything else) -- work, pay as you go, without debt -- "once upon a time." The fact is, the vast majority of American middle class families can still do exactly what is described in the meme -- IF they are willing to downsize and minimize their lifestyles to something more closely resembling that of the choices made by the typical middle class family of the 1950s/60s/70s. If they could raise 3-4 children in a 1,000 square foot home, you can raise 1-2 in a 1,500 square foot home. That 3,000 square footer, alone, is requiring your spouse to work. Not the "reality of our economy." That $500-$1000 per month in car payments? $250 will get you there just as reliably. P.S. Did you notice I made my case without impugning any political faction in the process? Last edited on Thu Aug 1st, 2019 11:18 pm by srossi |
|||||||||||
nyhack56
|
srossi wrote: Kriss wrote:But we're a mixed economy. We've never been fully capitalist or fully socialist, and we never will be. We need elements of both systems to act as a check on each other. We need an economy that is fair for everyone.Franchise wrote:Growing up my dad had this bumper sticker in the garage that said “el Salvador today El Paso tomorrow” with the hammer and sickle next to it. Dude was America to the bone but he thought it was silly. It’s interesting how relevant it is in 2019. Going either way on the spectrum (and doing it successfully) requires a moral turpitude we as a country will never have. |
|||||||||||
