The problem with socialism is the high taxes needed to pay for socialistic programs. The key is to adopt some socialistic programs but not so much that taxes are too high.
The problem with capitalism is the high prices needed to pay for shareholder profits and executive bonuses. The key is to adopt some capitalistic programs but not so much that prices increase while quality of goods and services decrease in perpetuity.
Oh, and also end inherited wealth, because it’s antithetical to an egalitarian society.
No, competition prevents high prices. If a company increase prices to increase profits but a competitor doesn’t, it will result in a loss of business. Competition increases quality because a company selling poor quality products will lose business to one providing good quality.
What’s wrong with giving wealth to one’s children?
In competitive markets that’s how it worked. What we have now are mega corporations who build monopolies by buying out the competition or sending them broke by brute force. Then once the corporation has a stranglehold they are free to cheapen their products and services and/or jack up prices knowing they have no competition. That’s why formerly quality brands are constantly becoming poor quality trash.
Inherited wealth leads to spoiled, privileged idiots who have grown up thinking they earned their lives through talent and hard work, when in reality they’ve just been failing upwards while the family money and connections have been covering their asses.
In late stage capitalism, those idiots have amassed enough wealth and power to make them a genuine threat to all of us. If you can’t see that happening already then I have to assume you’re one of the many people who are just beyond help.
Of course, in a free market system, companies strive to beat the competition, but government is required to ensure competition is fair and no monopoly is established.
I’d rather pay half my income in tax to ensure everyone, including my family, the basic dignity and survival of food, housing, education and medical care.
That would be on the electorate voting for that. In a socialist democratic government, the electorate has the power to recall officials anytime with a vote, for unsatisfactory performance and wastefulness. Any fraud, waste and abuse (which currently was estimated at around $135 billion dollars, out of a total budget of $7.1 trillion dollars), accounts for 1.9% of the national budget.
The top two in vulnerability to waste are Medicare and Medicaid, of which a significant portion is payments made to fraudulent payees. The DoD is right up there too, in terms of waste.
It’s VERY hyperbolic to say government programs are incredibly wasteful. 1.9% waste out of the national budget is pretty impressive. Still, there is room for improvement, but if citizens don’t have access to direct democratic process, versus a corrupt Republican capitalist system, change is an uphill battle.
The government is wasteful because it has no competition. Consequently, workers might be overpaid or more than necessary. In contrast, private companies compete with other companies, so they have to be efficient. Of course, government programs are necessary, just be careful that they are truly needed.
We live in the age of AI. Government workers that do menial tasks can be replaced. The governments primary job in a socialist society is to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Various levels of nationalization can exist run by workers. With technology, government programs can run leaner and more efficient than ever, and ensuring that the maximum amount of dollars reach beneficiaries with little to no waste, and much lower overhead cost.
Without competition, the government might not attempt to use AI. Private companies try AI when they think it will give a competitive edge. Workers might own a company but can’t run it. Stockholders own part of a company but don’t run it.
There is no need for competition in a socialist society. You’re trying to view this through a capitalist lens. Socialism isn’t capitalism. People still need and demand goods in a socialist system, and production is driven by this demand. The difference is there is no bourgeois or elite class profiting from the surplus value of goods or services workers produce.
Without competition how will wages and prices be determined? Demand is sometimes created. What would be the motivation for inventing something if there is no profit?
I got an idea, if we stop spending 1.1T per year on the military we can put most of that money towards America and your taxes don’t even need to change
Military spending provides jobs and is necessary to protect against threats. When Germany invaded France in 1940, the Luftwaffe not only outnumbered the RAF and French air forces but the German fighter, the ME 109 outclassed the British and French fighters.
High taxes are fine if it means that I don’t need a savings account to live. No need to save for retirement if my basic needs are met. Need being the operative word, it is important to still have the option at least until we can move to a post-scarcity gift economy, but I doubt we’d be ready for that in the next 250 years.
I have that same problem now, because my healthcare costs so much and I’m young and healthy! If only there was a cheaper way to pay for that like every other developed nation in the world does.
Sure, but why does American healthcare cost 2-5x what it does in other countries, esp. When our care is ranked 9th against them?
My point is it doesn’t matter if what I’m paying is a “tax” or premium, I still have to pay it.
Why put a profiteer between people and access to medical care? How does that benefit society?
Profits motivate medical companies to compete. If there is just one medical company owned by the government, there will certainly be waste. The workers will probably be overpaid and more than needed.
The problem with socialism is the high taxes needed to pay for socialistic programs. The key is to adopt some socialistic programs but not so much that taxes are too high.
The problem with capitalism is the high prices needed to pay for shareholder profits and executive bonuses. The key is to adopt some capitalistic programs but not so much that prices increase while quality of goods and services decrease in perpetuity.
Oh, and also end inherited wealth, because it’s antithetical to an egalitarian society.
No, competition prevents high prices. If a company increase prices to increase profits but a competitor doesn’t, it will result in a loss of business. Competition increases quality because a company selling poor quality products will lose business to one providing good quality.
What’s wrong with giving wealth to one’s children?
In competitive markets that’s how it worked. What we have now are mega corporations who build monopolies by buying out the competition or sending them broke by brute force. Then once the corporation has a stranglehold they are free to cheapen their products and services and/or jack up prices knowing they have no competition. That’s why formerly quality brands are constantly becoming poor quality trash.
Inherited wealth leads to spoiled, privileged idiots who have grown up thinking they earned their lives through talent and hard work, when in reality they’ve just been failing upwards while the family money and connections have been covering their asses.
In late stage capitalism, those idiots have amassed enough wealth and power to make them a genuine threat to all of us. If you can’t see that happening already then I have to assume you’re one of the many people who are just beyond help.
Monopolies are not the result of laissez-faire but the government. The government has the responsibility to stop monopolies.
Inherited wealth could lead to spoiled children, but parents should certainly have the right to give their possessions to their children.
Monopolies are the natural product of capitalism with inadequate regulation. Laissez faire (hands off) is a lack of regulation.
If government does nothing to prevent a negative outcome that it has a duty to stop, it is complicit.
Of course, in a free market system, companies strive to beat the competition, but government is required to ensure competition is fair and no monopoly is established.
So what makes that market free? Or is that just BS marketing?
It means companies compete with each other rather than being controlled by the government.
I’d rather pay half my income in tax to ensure everyone, including my family, the basic dignity and survival of food, housing, education and medical care.
Much of that money would be wasted on inefficient government programs.
That would be on the electorate voting for that. In a socialist democratic government, the electorate has the power to recall officials anytime with a vote, for unsatisfactory performance and wastefulness. Any fraud, waste and abuse (which currently was estimated at around $135 billion dollars, out of a total budget of $7.1 trillion dollars), accounts for 1.9% of the national budget.
The top two in vulnerability to waste are Medicare and Medicaid, of which a significant portion is payments made to fraudulent payees. The DoD is right up there too, in terms of waste.
It’s VERY hyperbolic to say government programs are incredibly wasteful. 1.9% waste out of the national budget is pretty impressive. Still, there is room for improvement, but if citizens don’t have access to direct democratic process, versus a corrupt Republican capitalist system, change is an uphill battle.
The government is wasteful because it has no competition. Consequently, workers might be overpaid or more than necessary. In contrast, private companies compete with other companies, so they have to be efficient. Of course, government programs are necessary, just be careful that they are truly needed.
We live in the age of AI. Government workers that do menial tasks can be replaced. The governments primary job in a socialist society is to ensure everyone has basic needs met. Various levels of nationalization can exist run by workers. With technology, government programs can run leaner and more efficient than ever, and ensuring that the maximum amount of dollars reach beneficiaries with little to no waste, and much lower overhead cost.
Without competition, the government might not attempt to use AI. Private companies try AI when they think it will give a competitive edge. Workers might own a company but can’t run it. Stockholders own part of a company but don’t run it.
There is no need for competition in a socialist society. You’re trying to view this through a capitalist lens. Socialism isn’t capitalism. People still need and demand goods in a socialist system, and production is driven by this demand. The difference is there is no bourgeois or elite class profiting from the surplus value of goods or services workers produce.
Without competition how will wages and prices be determined? Demand is sometimes created. What would be the motivation for inventing something if there is no profit?
I got an idea, if we stop spending 1.1T per year on the military we can put most of that money towards America and your taxes don’t even need to change
Military spending provides jobs and is necessary to protect against threats. When Germany invaded France in 1940, the Luftwaffe not only outnumbered the RAF and French air forces but the German fighter, the ME 109 outclassed the British and French fighters.
High taxes are fine if it means that I don’t need a savings account to live. No need to save for retirement if my basic needs are met. Need being the operative word, it is important to still have the option at least until we can move to a post-scarcity gift economy, but I doubt we’d be ready for that in the next 250 years.
The problem with high taxes is that people have little money to spend.
I have that same problem now, because my healthcare costs so much and I’m young and healthy! If only there was a cheaper way to pay for that like every other developed nation in the world does.
No, your payments subsidize those who are unhealthy such as the elderly, otherwise their payments would skyrocket.
Sure, but why does American healthcare cost 2-5x what it does in other countries, esp. When our care is ranked 9th against them?
My point is it doesn’t matter if what I’m paying is a “tax” or premium, I still have to pay it. Why put a profiteer between people and access to medical care? How does that benefit society?
Profits motivate medical companies to compete. If there is just one medical company owned by the government, there will certainly be waste. The workers will probably be overpaid and more than needed.