Hey Sup Forums. Please explain to me why you think socialism is the best shit ever.
And I will try to explain to you why you are dumb.
I think a country needs to be 95% capitalism and 5% socialism.
t. a jew that learned economics and money management for 4 years.
>I think a country needs to be 95% capitalism and 5% socialism.
what does that mean
Also I think socialism is great like I think utopia is great. If it could actually be done it would be brilliant, but it's a goal, not a plan. Socialism is systemized fairness in the rawlsian sense, but in reality, we're not technologically, culturally or managerially there, so trying to bring it about is not just futile, but dangerous and wasteful.
Pure Capitalism is pointless and destructive. You need an overarching goal behind the capitalism. Hence community or identity advancement becomes important. Nation is just a convenient identity to maximize and rally behind.
Socialism under a Sup Forums-ish ideology means regulating the capitalistic market to maximize the nation's benefit. This means curtailing things like obesity by regulating and going after empty calorie foods or regulating media to remove degenerate promotion like Miley cyrus gyrating on a dildo.
Basically capitalism is a runaway monster when it doesn't have nationalism above it and socialism just means maximizing the actual social benefit of capitalism and not having people selling sugar-filled foods and degenerate sex everywhere.
Everyone intuitively understands the borders and citizenship thing but those being valued is obviously important.
America is at the point where it has switched to open border globalist and anti-nationalism capitalist which is why it is degenerating so fast.
>socialism means regressive sugar taxation and only broadcasting government approved media
Long walk. Short pier. You.
>Sup Forums
>socialist
You're in the wrong place, motherfucker.
It means that I believe there are some things everybody should have access to. For example, the ability to sue someone, or to get help from the police if needed.
I never said pure capitalism. I also stated it. Capitalism gives everybody a chance to get rich. If you know how to manage your money well, you won't be poor. That is also the reason most lottery winners are going broke eventually.
Why those things? Why fund a police department but not a health care system, or primary education? What's the bright line distinctin?
You are using low IQ weak logic on capitalism. Idealizing it out instead of looking at reality.
There are many areas of the economy that get enormous benefits from scale or market share. For instance online search gets better as more people use it by virtue of how the algorithm works. Big ad networks like facebook/google also get huge benefits from the enormous amount of data they have.
The idea of competition is kind of stupid in the modern world. Yes, an individual can move up a corporate ladder or stumble upon a new area like online social networks. The vast majority of small business that would account for most of that economic mobility is far less accessible than before and will only get worse.
The advantages of having 100 stores versus 1 store is getting bigger over time due to big data analysis and other new data processing technologies.
The current idea of capitalism is not going to exist in a few decades, although "Value" and currency type ideas will survive. Hence most of the groundwork behind your logic is already outdated.
There's a real "knowledge problem" with socialism and it's one of the biggest reasons that "central panning" will always fail. In "The Use of Knowledge in Society" by Friedrich Hayek he explained that the kind of knowledge that makes the economic world go round is not just scientific knowledge but the detailed and idiosyncratic "knowledge of popular circumstances of time and place" that the millions of people who make up the world economy possess and utilize to perform their unique jobs and live their lives. No government planner could possibly possess, let alone efficiently utilize, such vast knowledge.
For example, consider something as simple as a slice of pizza. What would it take to make a pizza from scratch? Well, the first ingredient would be dough, which would require a wheat farm to raise the wheat that is turned into flour, which in turn is turned into pizza dough. The wheat farm requires all of the engineering know-how that is used to build all of the tractors and other farm equipment; farm tools, fertilizers, irrigation systems, and what not. Then there is the grain storage business and all that goes into it, along with the trucking industry that is used to transport the grain. The transportation industry requires gasoline or diesel fuel, which means more petroleum industry must become involved, including all of the sophisticated engineering knowledge that is used to extract petroleum from the earth and refine it into gasoline.
1/2
So far, considering just one ingredient of pizza--dough--we learn that it requires the efforts of probably hundreds if not thousands of people from all over the world, all with very specialized "knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place" that they use to do there jobs. There's the tomato sauces, the cheese, the pepperonis, and so on. The lesson here is that what makes the economic world--or human civilization itself--possible is the international division of labor and knowledge in which we all specialize in something in the marketplace, earn money doing it, and use that money to buy other things from other "specialists." All of this occurs spontaneously without any government planner consciously dictating how to make pizzas, how many to take, or where pizza parlors should be located.
As Adam Smith once explained, what motivates people to put forth all of this effort and cooperate with each other to give us "our meat and our bread" is no their selflessness or their love of their fellow man, but their concern for their own well being. By pursuing their own self-interest, as though led by an "invisible hand," benefit the rest of society as well. As for socialism, it is worth repeating that no government planner or group of planners with the most powerful computers available could conceivably possess and utilize all of the constantly changing information that is needed to produce even the most common and simple consumer goods, let alone sophisticated products like automobiles and computers.
2/2
There is nothing wrong with my definition. The idea is the democratic population's good is more important than the individual businesses maximal profits. That is still socialism as the democratic system takes control of producers/companies in terms of stopping exploitative techniques like degenerate pop culture or addictive foods.
It's not using the tools to central plan an entire field like healthcare but rather to curtail them while above them on the totem pole.
Wrong. A country needs to be 100% capitalism, cuck.
Government redistributing or welfare is simply not an effective method for lifting people out of poverty, but instead it provides incentives for people to stay in poverty. For example in 2014 the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly analyzed the decisions confronting individuals and families enrolled in various government welfare programs. A single mother with two children ages 1 and 4 earning $15,000 a year through work would be eligible for government benefits (such as Medicaid, housing vouchers and subsidized day care) equivalent to roughly an additional $35,000. Such a scenario puts this woman in a bind. If she finds a better job paying more, she risks losing substantial amounts of benefits. She would make her family worse off even though her paycheck would be bigger. Just to come out even, once taxes are factored in, she would need to find work paying about $55,000 a year. Not many low-skilled workers can make such a leap. This scenario is commonly referred to as the welfare cliff. Fear of falling off that cliff is perfectly rational, but it also serves as a highly effective tool to trap people in a life of poverty.
Many companies actually promote welfare because it indirectly subsidizes their business. A good example of this in action is with government welfare enables companies like Walmart to pay its workers so little in wages. Workers are only willing to accept Walmart's low wages because they know the government 'pick up the rest of the tab.'
Socialism is the best policy for all th... Wait when did I support Socialism?
Nobody, aside from the CTR faggots in pol supports it brosef.
Cause I'm mostly scandinavian and I feel it's better to pay taxes and have some people taken care of than have to know anything about their fucked up lives. Some people just can't get their shit together and they shouldn't have to die or resort to crime and I don't want to have to deal with them personally so it's a win/win.
Who will pay all the cops, the firefighters, teachers, doctors, and so on? Tax money can't cover it all.
The idea of competition is not stupid. The better one gets more costumers. Companies will always try to further develop. There will always be companies that are better than others.
Bump
Yes but pure capitalism is not going to create competition on it's own.
How are all the google competitors doing?
Facebook competitors?
etc
Technology functions differently than the market did in 1920's local cities with small family owned shops.
At what point do you think a german search engine is going to unseat google?
The idea of competition doesn't exist in the same way when it comes to certain technologies that get better with more usage. For instance the massive usage of google improves it's algorithms.
There is no fucking way in hell for another company to ever compete with Google on search in a capitalistic market. The only markets with successful competitors to google had to 100% ban google, aka China.
>There is no fucking way in hell for another company to compete with google.
Yes, it is possible. Google's algorithm is mindblowing, but one day someone may come up with a better algorithm. Your argument is stupid.
What is stopping new competitors to Google or Facebook? Bing is relatively new search engine and it's already captured 21.6% of the market, and in fact it's actually growing at a faster rate than Google. Having a free market doesn't imply that every industry needs to have thousands of competitors, it simply means that everyone should have a fair shot at competing. Let the companies who make the most people happy thrive, and at the moment Google and Facebook are doing that. You could have made this same argument in 2004 but instead used Myspace, and look what happened to them.
Hmm, where's there been pure capitalism?