[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A Good Troll The OP and many others, including myself, don't believe it is fair to penalize a wealthy person for their success.[/quote] Taxation isn't a penalty. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JohnMarstonDies I don't want a CEO, I want the workers to own the businesses together, and themselves.[/quote] So who fulfils the role of the CEO? [Edited on 07.04.2012 5:42 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A Good Troll [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JohnMarstonDies Look, the rich have more money than they can spend, who cares if you take some of their money to fund health care for a dying child. Or to feed a family.[/quote] The OP and many others, including myself, don't believe it is fair to penalize a wealthy person for their success. Doing so disincentivizes the wealthy from continuing the growth of capital. Imagine if you got a 98 on a test and the rest of your class had an 85 average. How would you feel if some of your points were redistributed to those who did poorly? Are you going to try as hard on the next test? That is essentially what extreme progressive taxes do to the rich.[/quote] 1. I think wealth is unfair, and the fact that CEO's make more money than the workers also unfair. 2. If I were rich, I would want to help other people instead of buying really expensive things. (so do many famous rich people, ex. Stephen King, Bill Gates) 3. (addressing your example) I guess that would apply if I wanted to be rich in the first place, but even so, worker would still do their work, regardless if their CEO had to share his money. (I don't want a CEO, I want the workers to own the businesses together, and themselves.) 4. Still doesn't apply, because sharing scores would render the test moot, and nothing is gained from it. 5. I think I'll exit this thread now, because I don't want to get banned, this is illegal.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JohnMarstonDies Look, the rich have more money than they can spend, who cares if you take some of their money to fund health care for a dying child. Or to feed a family.[/quote] The OP and many others, including myself, don't believe it is fair to penalize a wealthy person for their success. Doing so disincentivizes the wealthy from continuing the growth of capital. Imagine if you got a 98 on a test and the rest of your class had an 85 average. How would you feel if some of your points were redistributed to those who did poorly? Are you going to try as hard on the next test? That is essentially what extreme progressive taxes do to the rich.

That's a pretty stupid reason OP. I mean, if you said you hate Communism because it more or less spirals into a totalitarian dictatorship with oppressive tendencies every time, that's be fine. But you dislike it because you don't want to be helped? Or other people to get help? Because... you have a weird sense of pride..? Look, the rich have more money than they can spend, who cares if you take some of their money to fund health care for a dying child. Or to feed a family.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ErranInfigo Then it isn't a fully socialist state. The definition of socialism is the lack of private ownership. The means of production, homes, businesses, etc. are owned by the community. [/quote] At least when I argue against Socialism, I actually know the definition. Socialism, as a lesser form of Communism, and then the higher stage of Communism, does not take away private ownership of all goods. If you buy a refrigerator in a Communist/Socialist society, you own that refrigerator. That is your personal property. The factory that made the refigerator is a different story - the means of production is state-owned. [Edited on 07.04.2012 5:18 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TilledMule9946 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JFKES Socialism has some really great things about it. The care of the poor is important. All people should have a right to medical health (free of charge).[/quote] I'm not paying taxes so that a 300 lB smoker and alcoholic can get surgery for free.[/quote] What about that little girl in hospital from being hit by a bus whose parents are too much in debt to afford insurance because they are behind on the bills? You going to let her die because of your greed? You can live with that? People dying in your nation every day because of this, some of which are bright and amazing individuals? You dick. Fact is all us other master race western nations have health care and you don't. Your like the kid crying in the corner because he is the only one without pokemon cards (Only it's a national healthcare system that makes the people healthy and happy and the country happy and strong. Pathetic. [Edited on 07.04.2012 5:20 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 Not very consistent, are you? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Socialism screws around with the allocation of resources.[/quote][/quote] Resources include labour. Higher unemployment is partly caused by a misallocation of resources. Very straightforward.

Not very consistent, are you? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Socialism screws around with the allocation of resources.[/quote]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Exactly, so my original point stands. Socialism could take many forms and the OP's vision for socialism is a society governed by equal incomes; a conceivable, if extreme, permutation of socialism. [/quote] You can't argue a general point with a specific example. [/quote] I was arguing hypothetically that a country where all workers earned equal wages (as the OP's outlined) would face high unemployment and/or much lower economic growth, which is completely true. Never did I attempt to define socialism, nor did I state an opinion on socialism in general. I'm done with you. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:26 AM PDT]

Free Market Capitalism is the only system worth having.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Exactly, so my original point stands. Socialism could take many forms and the OP's vision for socialism is a society governed by equal incomes; a conceivable, if extreme, permutation of socialism. [/quote] You can't argue a general point with a specific example. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ErranInfigo Then it isn't a fully socialist state. The definition of socialism is the lack of private ownership. The means of production, homes, businesses, etc. are owned by the community.[/quote] LOL, no, that's not the definition of socialism. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:21 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ErranInfigo There is no such thing as private ownership in socialism.[/quote] Totally wrong. All socialist states have had varying degrees of private ownership. [/quote] Then it isn't a fully socialist state. The definition of socialism is the lack of private ownership. The means of production, homes, businesses, etc. are owned by the community. Besides, it failed miserably in Greece and Spain and Italy are on their way too. They are all socialist states. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:16 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 In your own words they are some of it's 'characteristics', not a summation of it's forms and ideology.[/quote] Firstly, those are Wikipedia's words. Secondly, a definition doesn't need to define all possible 'forms and ideology' within that system. [quote]Socialist states have many different attributes; the redistribution of income being one of the foremost. Where's that in the 'definition'? Like i said, you can't define it succinctly because it has such a broad range of manifestations today and historically. [/quote] No, I can and have defined it, but redistribution of wealth is not a necessary attribute of socialism. Some cows are brown, but you don't have to be brown to be a cow. [quote]They won't be able to find labour in other fields because they won't have the skills. And when firms are forced to hire them out of necessity (prevalent in Brazil currently), they'll be completely out of their depth and lacking in productivity, which makes everyone worse off. [/quote] That's a problem regardless of the control of the means of production.[/quote] Exactly, so my original point stands. Socialism could take many forms and the OP's vision for socialism is a society governed by equal incomes; a conceivable, if extreme, permutation of socialism. You proved my point again; socialism is a multifaceted beast and so our hypothetical discussion is 100% valid. And structural unemployment is always a problem, correct. However, in an economy where a universal price ceiling/floor has been implemented, the price mechanism fails and so the problem escalates dramatically. Simultaneously, firms will hire labour that is incapable of performing the task properly and so will produce less.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jonesy90000 Hmmm that is interesting so were, in your mind, would you hope for our labour force to be redirected in the future and were do you think it will realistically be moved to? I understand you are just as much in the dark as me but I do like to heir other peoples views on society's future as a hole. BTW my political view knows no ties, rather I vary to whatever seems to be the most appealing as a whole and individually at the time.[/quote] I like to look at the economics more than the politics; it's easier that way! The labour force is naturally moving towards services, as it has for decades. It's happened because humanity has become more productive in the basic agrarian and manufacturing style industries. As a result, we have more resources (particularly labour, as capital equipment has replaced many workers). When our material needs are sorted, as they mostly have in developed nations these days, then our demand grows for non-tradable goods - or services. Australia for example has an economy that is comprised of 75% service industries, and the trend is for that to continue expanding in the future. So, knowledge-based industries like the ones you said before will become larger and employ more people. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:15 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 In your own words they are some of it's 'characteristics', not a summation of it's forms and ideology.[/quote] Firstly, those are Wikipedia's words. Secondly, a definition doesn't need to define all possible 'forms and ideology' within that system. [quote]Socialist states have many different attributes; the redistribution of income being one of the foremost. Where's that in the 'definition'? Like i said, you can't define it succinctly because it has such a broad range of manifestations today and historically. [/quote] No, I can and have defined it, but redistribution of wealth is not a necessary attribute of socialism. Some cows are brown, but you don't have to be brown to be a cow. [quote]They won't be able to find labour in other fields because they won't have the skills. And when firms are forced to hire them out of necessity (prevalent in Brazil currently), they'll be completely out of their depth and lacking in productivity, which makes everyone worse off. [/quote] That would be a problem regardless of the control of the means of production. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:08 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mai R0f1C0pt3r Couldn't you say that that's what happens now when (for example) a student can't find a job in their major's field and ends up working at a coffee shop? They can't find anything in their ideal fields, so they go to others, yet by some it's still defined as a major labor problem.[/quote] Obviously that's a labour problem, but that would occur regardless.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 You can't define socialism definitively.[/quote] lol. It's cute that you think that. [quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism]Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy[/url][/quote] [quote]I said employment wouldn't be guaranteed in every field. What's your issue?[/quote] If they can't get employment in these 'ideal' fields, they'll seek it in others. Boom, labour problem solved.[/quote] In your own words they are some of it's 'characteristics', not a summation of it's forms and ideology. Socialist states have many different attributes; the redistribution of income being one of the foremost. Where's that in the 'definition'? Like i said, you can't define it succinctly because it has such a broad range of manifestations today and historically. They won't be able to find labour in other fields because they won't have the skills. And when firms are forced to hire them out of necessity (prevalent in Brazil currently), they'll be completely out of their depth and lacking in productivity, which makes everyone worse off. Perhaps you should educated yourself a little beyond wikipedia. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:02 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jonesy90000 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Socialism screws around with the allocation of resources. If everyone earns the same amount, then there were be an oversupply of labour in some industries and labour shortages in others because [u]people would seek jobs they want, not the ones that society needs them to fill.[/u] This would result in unemployment and shortages of particular products. The price mechanism works to achieve just the opposite, so that each person is placed into the most productive position demanded by the market. Unemployment obviously still occurs, but wages are higher and growth is significantly increased. This means a better standard of living for everyone. That's not to say a dash of socialism isn't healthy, it's just that an excess is toxic. [/quote] Amazingly important point that brings something else to my mind. Currently we live in a society in which we need 'Man'-power to fulfill certain jobs due to them being impossible to finish without human input but what happens when that is to the case? By that I mean, what happens when technology replaces people in the majority of jobs and leaves us unneeded like the oxs that we used to use to plow our fields? Of course I understand there are sine roles that will remain, mainly ones needing creative input but the majority of jobs just require the ability to manage your daily grind. Think about it this way, currently we still mainly use maned tills in shopping centers but the are a lot of do it yourself tills there as well. Now think about the do it yourself tills, there can be any amount of them and they only (currently) require one man to fix them if they break. Well, that just means we have suddenly cut the need for a work force and I doubt it will be long before something is made to replace the guy who fixes the tills. So yer, once again. What happens when the jobs that require a 'grind' are automated and all that is left are creative, exploitative and maybe military jobs such as a Video Game Designer, Field Researcher or Footman? How do we cope with the unemployment caused, do we just leave those that are unneeded to rot? Meh, doesn't effect me... My job is safe. =D[/quote] That's called creative destruction and it's integral to economic development/growth. It's happened for as long as mankind has existed - technology has replaced labour. When this happens, labour is channeled elsewhere to create output in an entirely new field. When the original task is being completed by a machine and the person who had performed the task is now doing something else productive, then overall output is increased and society has more material wealth. The problem you mentioned is called structural unemployment; when labour has skills that are no longer in demand. The only solution is for that person to learn new skills or create a new enterprise. Often this is where governments can step in to assist these people and boost productivity further. [/quote] Hmmm that is interesting so were, in your mind, would you hope for our labour force to be redirected in the future and were do you think it will realistically be moved to? I understand you are just as much in the dark as me but I do like to heir other peoples views on society's future as a hole. BTW my political view knows no ties, rather I vary to whatever seems to be the most appealing as a whole and individually at the time. [Edited on 07.04.2012 3:02 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 [quote]I said employment wouldn't be guaranteed in every field. What's your issue?[/quote] If they can't get employment in these 'ideal' fields, they'll seek it in others. Boom, labour problem solved.[/quote] Couldn't you say that that's what happens now when (for example) a student can't find a job in their major's field and ends up working at a coffee shop? They can't find anything in their ideal fields, so they go to others, yet by some it's still defined as a major labor problem. What's your take on underemployment (as it's called)?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ErranInfigo There is no such thing as private ownership in socialism.[/quote] Totally wrong. All socialist states have had varying degrees of private ownership. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 You can't define socialism definitively.[/quote] lol. It's cute that you think that. [quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism]Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy[/url][/quote] [quote]I said employment wouldn't be guaranteed in every field. What's your issue?[/quote] If they can't get employment in these 'ideal' fields, they'll seek it in others. Boom, labour problem solved.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] jonesy90000 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Socialism screws around with the allocation of resources. If everyone earns the same amount, then there were be an oversupply of labour in some industries and labour shortages in others because [u]people would seek jobs they want, not the ones that society needs them to fill.[/u] This would result in unemployment and shortages of particular products. The price mechanism works to achieve just the opposite, so that each person is placed into the most productive position demanded by the market. Unemployment obviously still occurs, but wages are higher and growth is significantly increased. This means a better standard of living for everyone. That's not to say a dash of socialism isn't healthy, it's just that an excess is toxic. [/quote] Amazingly important point that brings something else to my mind. Currently we live in a society in which we need 'Man'-power to fulfill certain jobs due to them being impossible to finish without human input but what happens when that is to the case? By that I mean, what happens when technology replaces people in the majority of jobs and leaves us unneeded like the oxs that we used to use to plow our fields? Of course I understand there are sine roles that will remain, mainly ones needing creative input but the majority of jobs just require the ability to manage your daily grind. Think about it this way, currently we still mainly use maned tills in shopping centers but the are a lot of do it yourself tills there as well. Now think about the do it yourself tills, there can be any amount of them and they only (currently) require one man to fix them if they break. Well, that just means we have suddenly cut the need for a work force and I doubt it will be long before something is made to replace the guy who fixes the tills. So yer, once again. What happens when the jobs that require a 'grind' are automated and all that is left are creative, exploitative and maybe military jobs such as a Video Game Designer, Field Researcher or Footman? How do we cope with the unemployment caused, do we just leave those that are unneeded to rot? Meh, doesn't effect me... My job is safe. =D[/quote] That's called creative destruction and it's integral to economic development/growth. It's happened for as long as mankind has existed - technology has replaced labour. When this happens, labour is channeled elsewhere to create output in an entirely new field. When the original task is being completed by a machine and the person who had performed the task is now doing something else productive, then overall output is increased and society has more material wealth. The problem you mentioned is called structural unemployment; when labour has skills that are no longer in demand. The only solution is for that person to learn new skills or create a new enterprise. Often this is where governments can step in to assist these people and boost productivity further.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ultratog1028 Communism works in theory. Not in practice.[/quote]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 You don't seem to know what socialism is. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 If everyone earns the same amount, then there were be an oversupply of labour in some industries and labour shortages in others because people would seek jobs they want, not the ones that society needs them to fill.[/quote] >thinking socialism means 'everyone earns the same amount' >thinking employment would be guaranteed in whatever field you wanted to pursue Do any of you know what socialism is?[/quote] You can't define socialism definitively. Don't presume to. If you read the thread, you'd understand the extreme form we're discussing. I said employment wouldn't be guaranteed in every field. What's your issue?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 Socialism screws around with the allocation of resources. If everyone earns the same amount, then there were be an oversupply of labour in some industries and labour shortages in others because [u]people would seek jobs they want, not the ones that society needs them to fill.[/u] This would result in unemployment and shortages of particular products. The price mechanism works to achieve just the opposite, so that each person is placed into the most productive position demanded by the market. Unemployment obviously still occurs, but wages are higher and growth is significantly increased. This means a better standard of living for everyone. That's not to say a dash of socialism isn't healthy, it's just that an excess is toxic. [/quote] Amazingly important point that brings something else to my mind. Currently we live in a society in which we need 'Man'-power to fulfill certain jobs due to them being impossible to finish without human input but what happens when that is to the case? By that I mean, what happens when technology replaces people in the majority of jobs and leaves us unneeded like the oxs that we used to use to plow our fields? Of course I understand there are sine roles that will remain, mainly ones needing creative input but the majority of jobs just require the ability to manage your daily grind. Think about it this way, currently we still mainly use maned tills in shopping centers but the are a lot of do it yourself tills there as well. Now think about the do it yourself tills, there can be any amount of them and they only (currently) require one man to fix them if they break. Well, that just means we have suddenly cut the need for a work force and I doubt it will be long before something is made to replace the guy who fixes the tills. So yer, once again. What happens when the jobs that require a 'grind' are automated and all that is left are creative, exploitative and maybe military jobs such as a Video Game Designer, Field Researcher or Footman? How do we cope with the unemployment caused, do we just leave those that are unneeded to rot? Maybe we would become a creativity driven society, oh god... I dread to picture it now! Meh, doesn't effect me... My job is safe. =D [Edited on 07.04.2012 2:50 AM PDT]

RED CHINESE VICTORY: IMPOSSIBLE! But seriously, OP has a good way of looking at things.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Seggi31 You don't seem to know what socialism is. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sillyboy44 If everyone earns the same amount, then there were be an oversupply of labour in some industries and labour shortages in others because people would seek jobs they want, not the ones that society needs them to fill.[/quote] >thinking socialism means 'everyone earns the same amount' >thinking employment would be guaranteed in whatever field you wanted to pursue Do any of you know what socialism is?[/quote] There is no such thing as private ownership in socialism. If you are a doctor you don't get to have a bigger house, or better clothing or food, even though in Capitalism a doctor can get a better everything than the average worker.