bartock Posted November 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 Um many visions of socialism use a free market economy to realize the socialist enviornment. Its just about what the government should and should not do to limit "market failure" and how the government is actually encouraging market failure in many cases with current policies. Market failure is the only thing which keeps everyone from being paid the same amount in a free market economy.thats what i think too. the gov is there to make sure there is no coercion, that no one cheats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
count_demitri Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Then explain the rise of America, and the fall of Russia. after ww2 all of the communist countries were boycoted by the capitalist ones. also russia wasn't a real communist country. they weren't following the real communist ideals. in a real communist society it is not the government that controls everything but the people themselves. people must also understand that communist ideals rose when the working class had almost no rights. in order to return the land and businesses to people the government has to take it from the priveteers. and then gradually return it to people. now this is where many of the countries failed. instead the government kept control and this is where communism gets it's wrong name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartock Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 thats what i think too. the gov is there to make sure there is no coercion, that no one cheats.i will corect myselfi ment the gov is there to makesure that people get their rights.people dont get deprived of what is lawfuly theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriminal99 Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 In a free market economy, the government has no roll. Well many economies like ours are called free market where the government still controls some things. I think however that alot of the thingst that the government currently does causes more harm than good. For example public secondary education goes a long way to control the way people think in my opinion for the worse. Rather than our education being geared towards what makes us the most capable of accomplishing our goals in the world (which is why we would choose the people we do to give it to us), we are exposed to social pressure to accept education which best agrees with the majority of the current academic community in that field... A very communist concept: A few people's inept ideas of what is correct and useful rather than what is determined by a self governing system. However I do not believe in completely hands off. I believe the goal in any governmental policy should be to allow self governing systems to control everyhting. So for example no monopoly is good, enviornmental policies where they do things like sell permits to allow pollution with supply being based on how much pollution the country can handle and demand coming from producers is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 Glad to see USA at the tops of the socialist counties now with the government owning near everyone's home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 9, 2008 Report Share Posted September 9, 2008 Where did you get the idea the government owns most peoples home? And is that your definition of socialism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 15, 2008 Report Share Posted September 15, 2008 Where did you get the idea the government owns most peoples home? And is that your definition of socialism? Well I am a "stirrer" (Oz term) at heart.But with your government taking over Fannie May (Who thought up that name? In Oz Fanny refers to Country matters) and Freddie MacYou have the Federal Government owning you.Even Russia has a much higher home ownership rate than the USA My definition of socialism cant be stated in a sentence. It refers to fair distribution of community resources, social justice, human rights and public ownership of essential services (like water)Here is a site that will show you some of the issues socialist are concerned withGreen Left - Cover Story: Jobs for women: how BHP was made to change its tune http://www.greenleft.org.au/cartoons/2007:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 15, 2008 Report Share Posted September 15, 2008 Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) The government does not own our homes. We personally own our homes by deed and the lenders own the promises to pay (notes). If you pay your mortgage payments on time, the government has no claim on it. When you discuss the best system of economics, why not consider who are the winners and who are the losers. In Capitalism, the smarter and harder you work, the more you win. Losers are those who will not work. In socialism, everyone wins a little, but nobody wins much. This destroys the need for better education, ambition, hard work, integrity and all those things which make a better person. This is why socialist countries are never leaders for very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) The government does not own our homes. We personally own our homes by deed and the lenders own the promises to pay (notes). If you pay your mortgage payments on time, the government has no claim on it.Semantics the Government owns Fannie may When you discuss the best system of economics, why not consider who are the winners and who are the losers. In Capitalism, the smarter and harder you work, the more you win. Losers are those who will not work.This is the great lie/fairytale of pure market capitalismYou can work all you life, study hard and still live in penury. In socialism, everyone wins a little, but nobody wins much. This destroys the need for better education, ambition, hard work, integrity and all those things which make a better person. This is why socialist countries are never leaders for very long.Nonsense; Yank brainwashing/propaganda.What brand of cell phone do you use?Where does it come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Get your facts correct: The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a publicly owned government sponsored enterprise (GSE). It is a stockholder-owned corporation authorized to make loans and loan guarantees. Fannie Mae is the leading participant in the U.S. secondary mortgage market, which serves to provide liquidity to the primary mortgage market to ensure that mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies have enough funds to lend to home buyers. As of 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) own or guarantee about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market. As a result, the corporations were particularly affected by the housing market downturn and credit crunch that began in 2007. You are obviously an America hater, with a warped and incorrect idea of how we operate. Instead of reading the gloom and doom liberal views of the country in which nothing ever goes well, why not read some business articles about success. If we are such bumpkins, why have we had the leading economy in the world for the last 100 years. If you only read information from unsuccessful losers, you don't get the truth. ''This is the great lie/fairytale of pure market capitalismYou can work all you life, study hard and still live in penury''Maybe this is your life's story, but that is rare in America. I assume your answer here is to not work, not study, and hope a more successful person picks up the slack? ''Nonsense; Yank brainwashing/propaganda.What brand of cell phone do you use?Where does it come from?'' I use a Motorola, an American company. This company was founded in 1928and proves that work, study, ingenuity lead to success. If we are to believe your theory, work, study, and ingenuity lead to failure. What is your formula for success? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 QuestorYou are obviously an America hater, with a warped and incorrect idea of how we operate.How do you hate a county? That's silly. Counties are made up of people some good some not so. I have opinions about USA policy, most have, as it has such a central role in world affairs. If you can't stand the criticism stay out of the kitchen. "Warped"?, no- possibly ill-informed, as I don't live there. Although you seem to be wrong about Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae (see below) I don't see the USA through Rose coloured, patriotic glasses as many Yanks do. Seeing from a distance may have some advantages.More US socialismFed to Give A.I.G. $85 Billion Loan and Take 80% Stake In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve agreed Tuesdayto take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giantinsurance company, the American International Group, inexchange for an $85 billion loan. Read More:The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia48 Hours That Reshaped Wall Street - Mergers, Acquisitions ..It began on Tuesday, just two days after the Bush administration took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants. ...The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve had been preparing for a failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for months.. . .The government had committed about $30 billion to supporting JPMorgan’s emergency takeover of Bear Stearns and just last weekend put up $200 billion in its rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/business/16reconstruct.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&dbk=&adxnnlx=1221625110-jihsFH/B+y+LbmDNTWb57w5 Days of Pressure, Fear and Ultimately, FailureThe government had committed about $30 billion to supporting JPMorgan Chase’s emergency takeover of Bear Stearns, and just last weekend put up $200 billion ... EditorialBailout Hide and Seek On Friday, less than a week after the government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the White House announced that there is no reason at this time to account for the companies in the federal budget. That is great news for officials who prefer to hide the cost of the bailout since it is due, in large part, to their failure to adequately regulate the financial markets and steward the economy. But it is an insult to taxpayers, whose money is at risk, and it is a reckless gambit. The Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday that the government’s finances are deteriorating rapidly: the budget deficit for this year is expected to reach $407 billion, more than double last year’s shortfall, and to exceed $500 billion in 2009. The takeover of Fannie and Freddie, necessary though it is, will add to the deterioration. Airbrushing that away will only open the door to uninformed — or negligent — decisions on spending and tax cuts. The White House says that the extent of the government’s control of Fannie and Freddie does not warrant including the companies’ operations in the budget. That is absurd. The government has seized the companies, firing their executives and installing new ones, offering to invest up to $200 billion in the companies if necessary, and most significant, making an ironclad promise to pay their trillions of dollars in obligations, if need be. The White House also claims that the risk to taxpayers is not yet serious enough tohttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14sun1.html?scp=1&sq=government%20takeover&st=cse LOSS OF $2,000,000 IN GOLD RESERVES; Decrease of $5,000,000 of Gold in Vault Also Shown by Reserve Board's StatementLOSS OF $2,000,000 IN GOLD RESERVES; Decrease of $5,000,000 of Gold in... - Article Preview - The New York Times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 17, 2008 Report Share Posted September 17, 2008 I don't believe you understand the term ownership as relates to personal property. I also don't know why you waste so much of your time criticising the USA which is a country not a county. We get plenty of deserved criticismfrom our own populace and as you will soon see, we will come out of this crisis with better ways to control our economy. Recognition and correction of problems is healthy and productive. Constant down -in-the-mouth negativityabout problems helps no one. We have people who construct and those who destruct. The constructors keep our society going in spite of the destructors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 18, 2008 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 I don't believe you understand the term ownership as relates to personal property. What is there to understand?However if the government wants your land for a dam, railway, defence base etc. How much private ownership do you think you will have?I also don't know why you waste so much of your time criticising the USA which is a country not a county. It amuses me + you (USA) are such a powerful force in world affairs, as I said. "The US sneezes and the world catches a cold"We get plenty of deserved criticism from our own populace and as you will soon see, we will come out of this crisis with better ways to control our economy.Good I hope you are the better for it. When are you going to respect International Human Rights and close detention centres? Recognition and correction of problems is healthy and productive. Constant down -in-the-mouth negativityabout problems helps no one. We have people who construct and those who destruct. The constructors keep our society going in spite of the destructors.Does not compute??? I guess I find the USA paranoia and fear about socialism amusing, Considering there is not a democracy on earth that is not part socialist. Socialism smooths out the hard edges of pure market capitalism.All governments subvert the market system because of cronyism, special interest groups or fear of not being re-elected.EG US History Encyclopedia:Government OwnershipAccording to American economic and political ideology, government is supposed to keep its distance from the private sector, and on the whole it does. The government owns much less in the United States than in Europe, where many countries have taken over airlines, mines, and telecommunications systems. Nevertheless, the United States has never been a perfect haven for private interests. Each of the 90,000 American governments (federal, state, county, city, water district, etc.) owns something, be it land, buildings, resources, or a business. The government can own entities that it runs as regular departments (such as local sanitation departments), or it can own what are known as public enterprises or government corporations, which are created and wholly or partly owned by the government but are run essentially as businesses (for example, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority). Government ownership is as old as the United States.Government corporations, which are created by government but run as businesses, took off during the New Deal. The pioneering Tennessee Valley Authority (1933), which still provides electric power, forced energy companies to lower costs. In the late 1990s, there were more than 6,000 government corporations in existence, including the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Amtrak, the Legal Services Corporation, the Empire State Development Corporation, and the United States Postal Service (converted from government department to corporation in 1971). These public enterprises compete with private lenders, transit companies (such as Greyhound), lawyers, real estate developers, and shipping companies (for example, United Parcel Service, FedEx).Government Ownership: Information from Answers.com Gov Ownership of Private Property & Means of Production - Is the US going Communist?PopModal - Gov Ownership of Private Property & Means of Production - Is the US going Communist? Only a fraction of the values that workers create are passed on to them in the form of wages. The rest goes as profits to shareholders and the purchase of new equipment intended to reduce the number of workers employed still more and further increase profits.The Guardian U.S. Government Incentives Hinder Local Ownership of Solar U.S. Government Incentives Hinder Local Ownership of Solar . . .The government tried a new tack. In 1973, U.S. farmers began receiving assistance in the form of federal "deficiency" payments, which were designed to work like the parity price system. To receive these payments, farmers had to remove some of their land from production, thereby helping to keep market prices up. A new Payment-in-Kind program, begun in the early 1980s with the goal of reducing costly government stocks of grains, rice, and cotton, and strengthening market prices, idled about 25 percent of cropland. Price supports and deficiency payments applied only to certain basic commodities such as grains, rice, and cotton. Many other producers were not subsidized. A few crops, such as lemons and oranges, were subject to overt marketing restrictions. Under so-called marketing orders, the amount of a crop that a grower could market as fresh was limited week by week. By restricting sales, such orders were intended to increase the prices that farmers received. In the 1980s and 1990s By the 1980s, the cost to the government (and therefore taxpayers) of these programs sometimes exceeded $20,000 million annually. Outside of farm areas, many voters complained about the cost and expressed dismay that the federal government was actually paying farmers NOT to farm. Congress felt it had to change course again.Outline of the U.S. Economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Get your facts correct: ''This is the great lie/fairytale of pure market capitalismYou can work all you life, study hard and still live in penury''Maybe this is your life's story, but that is rare in America. I assume your answer here is to not work, not study, and hope a more successful person picks up the slack? ''Nonsense; Yank brainwashing/propaganda.What brand of cell phone do you use?Where does it come from?'' I use a Motorola, an American company. This company was founded in 1928and proves that work, study, ingenuity lead to success. If we are to believe your theory, work, study, and ingenuity lead to failure. What is your formula for success?Motorola is owned by about 300 companies but I'll pay (= concede) that one. Recipe for success (Not the Protestant Ethic)1. Choose the right parents.2. Go to the right school.3. Have the right social network.4. Be very lucky (essential).5. Have the right genes6. Don't believe the world always wants a better mousetrap eg Beatamax, Apple OS.7. Be opportunistic and ruthless.8. Be born in the right country.9. Have a very high opinion of your own worth10. People give you money when you ask. Otherwise how do you explain Bush?;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 20, 2008 Report Share Posted September 20, 2008 Recipe for success (Not the Protestant Ethic)1. Choose the right parents.2. Go to the right school.3. Have the right social network.4. Be very lucky (essential).5. Have the right genes6. Don't believe the world always wants a better mousetrap eg Beatamax, Apple OS.7. Be opportunistic and ruthless.8. Be born in the right country.9. Have a very high opinion of your own worth10. People give you money when you ask. Right out of the loser's playbook. Yes, there are quite a few Americans that believe this. They are the poor, lazy ones waiting for # 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Right out of the loser's playbook. Yes, there are quite a few Americans that believe this. They are the poor, lazy ones waiting for # 10.You really do have the entrenched Yank's prejudice against the poor, don't you?Is this because it shows up your system to be the dog's dinner that it is?One that supports the rich with tax cuts and welfare while letting the poor freeze in the streets? Now If I go to the races and bet on a hourse, it wins I take my winnings. Your president is now organising things for corporate America so that the system pays them both when their bets win or loose.No one gives that sort of money to the poor Here are few more rational less prejudicial reasons for povertyThis is a huge site on poverty in AmericaPoverty in America - MahaloPoverty is not just caused by individual experiences but by major inequalities built into the structure of society. Some of the main causes of this inequality and poverty are access to work and income, education, housing, health and services.Many people working and trying to support a family on the minimum wage struggle to meet basic costs of living each week. Despite lowering official unemployment rates, there are also high numbers of people who are out of work or only have a few hours of work per week.(Of course you don't beleive this. you beleive anyone who wants ajob can get one) Low education levels are linked to unemployment and subsequently the risk of living in poverty. Families with low education levels often can not afford to better educate their children and so givethem a better chance of a job:(• People who have not completed high school have an unemployment rate of 11.3% compared with 3% of people with a bachelor degree.) People on low incomes rarely own homes and rent is often unaffordable in major cities.(where the jobs are more likely to be) Housing impacts on a person’s ability to find work, education and training – regions and cities withjobs often have high housing prices and rental rates. Poor housing can also negatively affect a person’s health and wellbeling. People living in poverty commonly suffer greater levels of physical and mental illness. The high stress associated with living in poverty can also contribute to behaviour which leads to health risks such as smoking, substance abuse and poor diet. Increasing costs for patients in the health care system makes it harder for people to afford health care. In addition, people with disabilities oftenhave higher costs of medication, equipment or aids, appropriate housing, transport and personal care and other services. # Droughts and Flooding: Besides the immediate destruction caused by natural events such as hurricanes, environmental forces often cause acute periods of crisis by destroying crops and animals. # Natural Disasters: Natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes have devastated communities throughout the world. Developing countries often suffer much more extensive and acute crises at the hands of natural disasters, because limited resources inhibit the construction of adequate housing, infrastructure, and mechanisms for responding to crises. Absolute poverty involves people and their children having extreme difficulty in merely surviving. Such poverty at its worst can involve hunger amounting to starvation, often combined with inadequate shelter or housing and clothing. Absolute poverty has been common in more primitive societies, and is still common in many Third World countries in Africa, Asia and South America especially where it can afflict the majority of the population. But many of today's richer societies like the USA and UK have a poor who are a minority and suffer relative poverty - which generally involves the inability to obtain social necessities available to the majority and is often intensified by social exclusion. In a society where 90% rely on their own computer and car, then those who cannot afford these things may function badly and are poor and may well be ostracised or socially excluded (unlike someone rich who chooses to not have such things and may merely be considered eccentric). Hence poverty does come in different forms and extents,. . . Poverty can also be very harmful to society as a whole, insofar as it can maintain a divided conflict society where the poorer conflict with the richer and acceptance of poverty generally encourages social badness rather than goodness.(and the USA has more of its people in jail than any other western democracy)World Poverty http://www.acoss.org.au/upload/publications/factsheets/340__Causes%20of%20Poverty%20Factsheet.pdf Causes of PovertyThis is an especially good site for starting to learn about international povertyCauses of Poverty ? Global IssuesegNumber of children in the world 2.2 billionNumber in poverty 1 billion (every second child)andGlobal Priority $U.S. BillionsCosmetics in the United States 8Ice cream in Europe 11Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17Business entertainment in Japan 35Cigarettes in Europe 50Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105Narcotics drugs in the world 400Military spending in the world 780 And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:Global Priority $U.S. BillionsBasic education for all 6Water and sanitation for all 9Reproductive health for all women 12Basic health and nutrition 13 Source 31 BTWThis is one of many of Bush's private schoolsPhillips Academy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaEven then he barely scraped byI think the school is just putting in their third ice-skating rink. He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.Proverbs (ch. XIX, v. 17)Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. Psalms (ch. XLI, v. 1) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essay Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 We have people who construct and those who destruct. The constructors keep our society going in spite of the destructors. It recently occurred to me that this oversimplified view must predominate with conservatives. I was led to this conclusion after a thought experiment:What would happen if all the poor people did pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? Well fine, but who would clean up after all the constructors, who would buy all their constructions, who would care for them and serve them? It's nice to see yourself as superior, and those inferior as having the potential and hope to rise up to your level; but the world would be unbalanced. There is a need for the vast masses that clean up after, and care for and serve, the constructors, as well as the dynamically balanced destructors.=== ...sorry if I'm repeating something, I haven't read thru the 17 pages, but.......just what do you think is the motivation of these destructors?...or how about the motivation of terrorists? ~ ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.