[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you agree that capitalism also cannot exist without some form of government.

RTFT. I have said so repeatedly.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem was not capitalism

Correct.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

but unchecked capitalism without safeguards to prevent this sort of fraud and abuse.

WRONG by defintion.

What we had was not "unchecked capitalism". We had (and still have) corrupted capitalism / cronyism / stateism / corporatism, and, to be honest, Faschism.

NONE of that can be fixed easily with regulation or laws, because the chief problem is that existing laws are NOT enforced and skirted by the power elite.
The problem are politicians and banking elites that do whatever they well damn please. That's NOT capitalism.
One of their playbooks is to give Capitalism a bad rap, in order to give them more powers (disguised as Socialism). Nothing changes, they just cement their power base.

-t

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What we had was not "unchecked capitalism". We had (and still have) corrupted capitalism / cronyism / stateism / corporatism, and, to be honest, Faschism.

existing laws are NOT enforced and skirted by the power elite.
The problem are politicians and banking elites that do whatever they well damn please. That's NOT capitalism.

How is that any different from 'unchecked capitalism'?

I get the sense that you are a little too attached to the notion that capitalism = good, socialism = bad to the point where if capitalism goes bad you decide not to call it capitalism and if socialism gets good you won't call it socialism any more. Is there any reason for this beyond the usual partisan lines?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How is that any different from 'unchecked capitalism'?

I get the sense that you are a little too attached to the notion that capitalism = good, socialism = bad to the point where if capitalism goes bad you decide not to call it capitalism and if socialism gets good you won't call it socialism any more. Is there any reason for this beyond the usual partisan lines?

No. I have the feeling that many of you just want to give Capitalism a bad rap.

I don't deny that there are things in true Capitalism that need boundaries and regulation.
But the problems we have (corrupt banks, corrupt government, huge debt to bail out cronies...) has NOTHING to do with missing boundaries or regulation.

To call it Capitalism is disingenuous or misleading.

-t

[el chupacabra]

My god so much stuff to go over and clear up for you guys and only a few minutes

Originally Posted by gradient 

I've never understood why so many westerners, especially North Americans and most often (it seems) Americans, treat the ideals of socialism like it's one of the worlds great evils. Not only is it derided commonly but when the word is spoken and read by many, the word itself is meant to imply a level of unacceptability that continually astounds me.



Why is this? I'm genuinely interested. ......

Anyone care to weigh in?

Here's some reasons:
1. Union soviet socialists repbulic
2. China
3. I'll add to the list later...

I'm talking about the ideals of socialism, not a full-scale all-encompassing implementation. Again, I'm not looking for a thread about the merits/disadvantages of a socialist system. I'm looking to find out why the the ideals themselves are treated so negatively by so many.

What are these specific ideals youre talking about?

Waragainstsleep I'd laugh in their face if someone called me a liberal as an insult, but then I know what the word actually means and don't just consider it a political label.
It strikes me as quite an easy wrong to write since the opposite and therefore probable alternatives to being liberal are being intolerant, bigoted, closed-minded, prudish. There are many and I struggle to think of one that isn't predominently negative.

As for socialism, I suspect Subego is right. In particular I think it has probably been tainted by association with communism.

It's funny you'd laugh in the face of people like they just don't know this stuff yet talk like it's strange that socialism is associated with communism; (they kind of go together according to the people who invented the whole concept (marx))

lpkmckenna

The welfare state is not socialism. The welfare state was invented by liberals to mitigate poverty while at the same time keeping the poor from embracing socialism. In the west, this political strategy worked. Socialism is a dead ideology here.

Many parties in the world that were historically socialist have abandoned that ideology in favour of advocating a larger welfare state. This has confused many conservatives into believing the welfare state is a socialist concept. It isn't, and it never was.

No, it's the liberals who are confused. When the word socialism became tainted people in power (politians/corporations) needed a new clever way to slide society into communism without being so obvious. The welfare state is the answer. It creates the rationing system required in socialism/communism; and paves the way for communism. We can see it happening already. Idealy the government/corporations want all but a few to be on the rationing system; they've cleverly conviced liberals it's free money given out the goodness of their hearts to help them get back on their feet.

turtle
Taking money from peopel and give it to others is NOT optional in Socialism. It's what Socialism is at the core. So don't tell me there is Socialism w/o redistribution. And you can't philosophically discuss this either.

I completely disagree with the idea that a government should do this.
I believe in communities taking care of people on a VOLUNTARY basis (neighborhoods, churches, families, etc...). This works, because when it's voluntary, you can stop things when they get out of control or get abused.

Once government runs this, it just ever expands, enriches a few insiders, and drains the whole system.

Absolutly correct; turtle has obviously done his homework before picking a political ideology.

...I only have time for the 1st page of the thread.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its a preposterous statement.

Those who are so unwaveringly against all forms of socialism are perfectly happy to take everyone else's money for their own pleasure, this is how anyone gets rich. Its just a matter of whether you can justify to yourself whatever it is you do for several hours a day in exchange for getting rich.

One way is at least theoretically supposed to take from those hwo can afford it to provide necessities for those who cannot. Sure its not perfect, but its basically the difference between ruthless selfish greed and altruism.

No you can choose to not do business with with the big bad rich / corporations and hence not give them your money. They don't "take it" as you say. There is only one entity that TAKES your money; the government; the government also can force you to do business with the worst corporations and hence allow them to take your money.

[el chupacabra]

[QUOTE=besson3c;4155566]The problem was not capitalism, but unchecked capitalism without safeguards to prevent this sort of fraud and abuse.
QUOTE]

oh mann another one.

If there had truly been government free capitalism taking place most the large corrupt business would have put themselves out of business; where they belong. It is government that got involved and created the financial crisis. No government intervention economic manipulation = no financial crisis. No bank would have given 30 year loans or traded derivitives without government backing.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No bank would have given 30 year loans or traded derivitives without government backing.

I think you're being very naive if you believe this. I also think you are probably confusing 'backing' 'not outlawing'.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No, it's the liberals who are confused. When the word socialism became tainted people in power (politians/corporations) needed a new clever way to slide society into communism without being so obvious. The welfare state is the answer. It creates the rationing system required in socialism/communism; and paves the way for communism. We can see it happening already. Idealy the government/corporations want all but a few to be on the rationing system; they've cleverly conviced liberals it's free money given out the goodness of their hearts to help them get back on their feet.

There's no point in arguing with someone who is so irrational that they actually believe this crap. But I'm gonna do it anyway....

The welfare state is not "paving the way" for anything. Specific policies are adopted to accomplish specific goals. The goal of unemployment insurance is to mitigate the ills of unemployment; it is not to smooth the way to communism. The goal of social security is to mitigate the tragedy of impoverished elderly; it is not to smooth the way to communism. The goal of universal health care is to ensure everyone has health care; it is not to smooth the way to communism. The fact that this has to be spelled out for you is really sad.

There is no "slippery slope" to communism. You live in a state of delusion paranoid if you think there is. Not a single communist government on Earth was established by smoothing the way with a welfare state.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No. I have the feeling that many of you just want to give Capitalism a bad rap.

This statement just adds more weight to my assertion that you are a bit hung up on labels.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But the problems we have (corrupt banks, corrupt government, huge debt to bail out cronies...) has NOTHING to do with missing boundaries or regulation.

The bail outs and the cronies are certainly a separate issue but the bank corruption has everything to do with unregulated capitalism. Corrupt government is also a direct result of allowing big corporations to get too big for their boots.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

To call it Capitalism is disingenuous or misleading.

Moreso than making socialism interchangeable with communism? Back to the labels again.

I am struggling to find consistency in your position.
A government run public service funded by taxes is socialist, but not when its the military but it is if its healthcare. (What about schools?)
Socialism is always bad except when it funds the military which isn't socialist anyway even though it is because the military is good but capitalism is good and better than socialism except when its completely unregulated when it ceases to be capitalism because then its bad and capitalism is always (mostly) good.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

It's funny you'd laugh in the face of people like they just don't know this stuff yet talk like it's strange that socialism is associated with communism; (they kind of go together according to the people who invented the whole concept (marx))

They can and often do go together but I think some of the point of this discussion was to ask if they really have to?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No you can choose to not do business with with the big bad rich / corporations and hence not give them your money. They don't "take it" as you say. There is only one entity that TAKES your money; the government; the government also can force you to do business with the worst corporations and hence allow them to take your money.

I get the impression that you (in fairness its not just you) seem to think that you are still living in the wild west. Or that you wish you were.

[Athens]

Wow you are so bad at this....

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

From your link;
Badry said in 2007 she inadvertently signed up with Universal Energy, after she found a flyer on her doorstep saying she could go online and sign up to win a free TV.

You're kidding right? Other interesting tidbits;

• Badry was one of 135,000 customers who signed on with new companies after the province opened the natural gas market up to competition.
• Unlike fixed mortgages or cellphone contracts, rules set by the regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), do not allow consumers the option of paying a penalty to get out of their contracts.

Oops! Seems your precious regulators screwed ya on that one huh? They opened the market and some lady trying to win a free TV failed to read the flyer and was unwittingly switched over to the new provider.

You totally missed the point and on purpose. Public utility goes private and the market deregulated and surprise surprise the prices went up and by a lot. Who gives a damn about free TVs or not being able to get out of contracts. The point was the price to the consumer went UP by a lot the second a public utility was privatized and a market deregulated.

Blogs and documentaries again? Okay... I'll use a source provided by one who commented on your article then; per the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual commercial pilot salary for the year 2008 was $65,340 although in the 10% highest-earning bracket earned almost $130,000 that year.

Interesting. According to this link regarding Canadian Airline pilot salaries; Will fly for food, First-Year Capt. and First Officer paid annual salary of $37,300 per year. Second-Year First Officer paid annual salary of $42,400 per year. Second-year Embraer 175 and Embraer 190 Captains paid $42,400 per year.

You might want to look at the site you posted again

Pilot Pay Rate Comparisons

Compare with this chart from that site.

This is a perfect example of what I mean by classic Canadian xenophobia. You're so busy trying to indict the US for maltreatment of certain occupations that you botched the wages of US garbage collectors, you botched the wages of US airline pilots, and then you attempt a lame-assed argument from bogus information related to the US pay structure for various occupations by claiming that US gargage collectors earn more than US airline pilots without realizing that per your own information, it's no different in Canada. Your documentaries and blogs are doing you a great disservice here. I'm now reminded why I've pretty much been ignoring you for the past several months.

I don't think you have been ignoring me for the past several months, I haven''t been on here for the last few months. But its good to know you ignore battles you just can't win.

All I did is say the private company garbage people probably make a lot less then the city garbage collectors. Was not even intended to be a Canada vs US thing, though I did point out that garbage collectors seem to make more then first year American Airline Pilots and you decided to bring in this Canada vs US stuff again. Sign of a weak mind that cant argue?

Actually, there's no problem at all with my geography skills. What happened here is your audience becoming fatigued with your line of reasoning resulting in little more than skimming your words. Okay, so it wasn't Vancouver you were avoiding because of colored people and foreigners, it's Vancouver Island. Thanks for the correction.

Due to cost of ferries which has doubled since being privatized.

On behalf of the Americans reaping the rewards of your Canadian labor, thank you. Your choice of employers is likely as discriminating as your choice in reading and viewing material.

:|

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Correct.


WRONG by defintion.

What we had was not "unchecked capitalism". We had (and still have) corrupted capitalism / cronyism / stateism / corporatism, and, to be honest, Faschism.

NONE of that can be fixed easily with regulation or laws, because the chief problem is that existing laws are NOT enforced and skirted by the power elite.
The problem are politicians and banking elites that do whatever they well damn please. That's NOT capitalism.
One of their playbooks is to give Capitalism a bad rap, in order to give them more powers (disguised as Socialism). Nothing changes, they just cement their power base.

-t

Define what true capitalism is supposed to be, both the market side and government side then.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

My god so much stuff to go over and clear up for you guys and only a few minutes


Here's some reasons:
1. Union soviet socialists repbulic
2. China
3. I'll add to the list later...


What are these specific ideals youre talking about?


It's funny you'd laugh in the face of people like they just don't know this stuff yet talk like it's strange that socialism is associated with communism; (they kind of go together according to the people who invented the whole concept (marx))


No, it's the liberals who are confused. When the word socialism became tainted people in power (politians/corporations) needed a new clever way to slide society into communism without being so obvious. The welfare state is the answer. It creates the rationing system required in socialism/communism; and paves the way for communism. We can see it happening already. Idealy the government/corporations want all but a few to be on the rationing system; they've cleverly conviced liberals it's free money given out the goodness of their hearts to help them get back on their feet.

Absolutly correct; turtle has obviously done his homework before picking a political ideology.

...I only have time for the 1st page of the thread.

I gotta ask you this, do you agree the 2 can work side by side in one country.

Things such as roads, fire protection, police protection, ambulances, basic education, bridges, ferries, highways, all fit under the socialism because its paid or subsidized by tax dollars. The very size or nature of many of these things make them monopolistic where capitalism wouldn't work.

I will use police as a example, in a capitalistic system every person would be responsible for hiring a police force for protection of property, in cases of being out and about and needing the protection of a different police force or out of network police force will face per usage bills for protections. Mean while some would elect not to higher any police protection. Under a capitalistic system these different security/police forces compete for business. (Here is where im making a assumption of cost) with each police force competing for business each has a smaller customer base. Factor in not every one will even buy into a police coverage even as a private business that can operate more efficiently then say a city run, state run or national run police service, how can it be any cheaper for people even if they can shop around then a taxed paid and funded single police force. Its not any safer.

I guess the other option is competing private companies who are paid for by the city or state to render a service but this would be no different when it comes to socialism of the city or state running its own police force because its still tax money collected from every one into a service no one can opt out of. I hardly see how it can be cheaper for the city or state using private police companies to police the streets because the profit factor has to be included into it as well. So tax dollars are now going into the private coffers of private companies at inflated prices from what the city could have done itself for a service that is needed not really a luxury.

I would like to know from capitalists how policing would work under a full capitalistic way or if some parts of our society do in fact need socialism elements.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No you can choose to not do business with with the big bad rich / corporations and hence not give them your money. They don't "take it" as you say. There is only one entity that TAKES your money; the government; the government also can force you to do business with the worst corporations and hence allow them to take your money.

And how do you get away with monopoly situations when voting with your dollars no longer has a effect because you are stuck with one choice. The last 20 years this is exactly what corporations have been doing. They merge or buy the competition out. Cut market capacity to create less supply so they can raise prices and make more profits. They market different brands to the public for the illusion that customers still have choice.

This is why capitalism is failing because the competition for both the consumer and the job seeker is gone or shrinking. In every industry the choices are slowly going away. When a company no longer has to compete for workers the wages go down. When a company no longer has competition from the market it no longer has to offer lower prices. All the big players have been doing this for a couple decades.

Look at how Monsanto used patents to force most farmers to use its products.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The bail outs and the cronies are certainly a separate issue

Yes

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

but the bank corruption has everything to do with unregulated capitalism.

No. The laws and regulation are in place.

THEY ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.

With existing laws, you could throw all the top bankers in jail and put all the big banks under receivership.
That this is NOT being done has NOTHING to do with lack of regulation.
It's lack of enforcement. You can not fix lack of enforcement with more laws and regulation.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Corrupt government is also a direct result of allowing big corporations to get too big for their boots.

*sigh*

Yes, politicians were more than willing to declare them TBTF.
But please don't paint politicians as honest and humble civil servants that were fooled by crony bankers and big corporate companies.
Politicians know very well what they were doing, and gladly took all the money for their election campaigns.
They also were more than happy to endulge in massive insider trading with proviledged information, enriching themselves.

Again, NONE of this can be fixed with more laws and regulation as long as existing laws are not enforced.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But please don't paint politicians as honest and humble civil servants that were fooled by crony bankers and big corporate companies.
Politicians know very well what they were doing, and gladly took all the money for their election campaigns.
They also were more than happy to endulge in massive insider trading with proviledged information, enriching themselves.

Again, NONE of this can be fixed with more laws and regulation as long as existing laws are not enforced.

-t

Who do you think puts these politicians in power, and who do you think owns them. Corporations flourishing under capitalism. If anything the economic model is what dictates what government is in power not the other way around. Corrupt politicians is just a bi product of capitalism, not corrupt politicians corrupting capitalism.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Define what true capitalism is supposed to be, both the market side and government side then.

It's a trap *duck*

I'm not even going to attempt to get to an all-encompassing definition.

But let me state two things:

1) Capitalism and Free Markets needs enforcement of the Rule of Law.
Some regulation and limitations are required, but those are already in place.
What lacked (and is still lacing) is to hold people and companies accountable.

2) Capitalism is all about letting things fail. Whatever mistakes (honest mistakes or fraud) companies make, they need to be severly punished by letting businesses fail. This is the only way to bring disciple into the markets. There would have never been TBTF if politicians didn't start protecting and codling corporations.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Who do you think puts these politicians in power

Dumb citizens. Let's not blame anyone else.

Every f*cking American citizen has the choice of writing in Ron Paul and put an end to the Wall Street / Beltway corruption. There is nobody else to blame.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Corporations flourishing under capitalism. If anything the economic model is what dictates what government is in power not the other way around. Corrupt politicians is just a bi product of capitalism, not corrupt politicians corrupting capitalism.

More f*cking *sigh*

As if there are no corrupt corporations and politicians in Socialism.

Seriously.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's a trap *duck*

I'm not even going to attempt to get to an all-encompassing definition.

But let me state two things:

1) Capitalism and Free Markets needs enforcement of the Rule of Law.
Some regulation and limitations are required, but those are already in place.
What lacked (and is still lacing) is to hold people and companies accountable.

2) Capitalism is all about letting things fail. Whatever mistakes (honest mistakes or fraud) companies make, they need to be severly punished by letting businesses fail. This is the only way to bring disciple into the markets. There would have never been TBTF if politicians didn't start protecting and codling corporations.

-t

I can agree with all of that. Does letting things fail include letting a company fail to its end, not allowing companies to buy other companies?

And where does police, fire, roads, and other national or state or township infrastructures come into play?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I can agree with all of that. Does letting things fail include letting a company fail to its end, not allowing companies to buy other companies?

Not necessarily. In the event of liquidation, assets as well as IP can be sold to other companioes in order to satisfy creditors. It all depends on how widespread corruption in that company was.
The more widespread it was, the less likely it is that other companies want to buy such an complete entity.
If you slice it up enough, you kill the power structures that enabled corruption and fraud.

Originally Posted by Athens 

And where does police, fire, roads, and other national or state or township infrastructures come into play?

I don't understand the question. I'm not an anarchist, we need public infrastructure & safety.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Not necessarily. In the event of liquidation, assets as well as IP can be sold to other companioes in order to satisfy creditors. It all depends on how widespread corruption in that company was.
The more widespread it was, the less likely it is that other companies want to buy such an entity.



I don't understand the question. I'm not an anarchist, we need public infrastructure & safety.

-t

Should police services and fire services, bridges, roads, and such be 100% private companies for operation which is a monopoly paid by the tax payer but with profit built in which should cost more then socialistic approach which is the city, state, government runs these services.

As for the first part I have issues with companies buying companies. I can see total failure closed, out of business the assets being bought, but fully functioning working company being bought or merged with is where I have issues. Because this is what creates the monopolies we are seeing today.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Should police services and fire services, bridges, roads, and such be 100% private companies for operation which is a monopoly paid by the tax payer but with profit built in which should cost more then socialistic approach which is the city, state, government runs these services.

I'm ok with basic services being tax funded (police, fire, roads).
There might be combined models (public-private partnerships) that make sense for other things (some highways, some briges).

I never took the time to develop a full personal "policy" on how to best run public services.
But I am convinced that it needs to be locally funded, run and overseen.

Nobody in Washington should decide how a township in Iowa runs their fire department.
(Not that this is done today, I'm just saying.)

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm ok with basic services being tax funded (police, fire, roads).
There might be combined models (public-private partnerships) that make sense for other things (some highways, some briges).

I never took the time to develop a full personal "policy" on how to best run public services.
But I am convinced that it needs to be locally funded, run and overseen.

Nobody in Washington should decide how a township in Iowa runs their fire department.
(Not that this is done today, I'm just saying.)

-t

We seem to agree on most things here. Im sure the part we wont agree on is on Energy, public transit, Ferries, Medical those BIG things that profits just add cost to things that should be run at (in my opinion should be run) at cost.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No. The laws and regulation are in place.

THEY ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.

With existing laws, you could throw all the top bankers in jail and put all the big banks under receivership.
That this is NOT being done has NOTHING to do with lack of regulation.
It's lack of enforcement. You can not fix lack of enforcement with more laws and regulation.

The fact remains, there were laws and regulations in place that were removed that allowed this recent mess to happen.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, politicians were more than willing to declare them TBTF.
But please don't paint politicians as honest and humble civil servants that were fooled by crony bankers and big corporate companies.

Oh no no no no. I was only implying that the way things are set up, meaning campaign donations and lobbying is what facilitates the corruption. I suppose this in itself is not really capitalism, but in most capitalist countries this corruption is present to some extent. Over here politicians hand government contracts to companies belonging to their old boarding school chums and now and then they sell titles or peerages when they think no-one is looking (they got caught doing that so perhaps not so much now) but I get the impression without being any sort of expert that government corruption is far worse in the US.

The absolute last thing I would ever do in all the world is try to claim that any politician is honest or humble. As far as I'm concerned, You can't trust a single one of them as far as a 6 year old with no arms could throw all of them. In the history of the world. At the same time. At the bottom of the deepest ocean on Earth. If the 6 year old in question was long dead. And all the politicians were wearing suits made of 3" thick Uranium. With mountains chained to each ankle. Several mountains. You get the idea.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm ok with basic services being tax funded (police, fire, roads).
There might be combined models (public-private partnerships) that make sense for other things (some highways, some briges).


-t

You socialist commie.

Guess Turtle finally caved and contradicted his original argument that socialism cannot coexist with democracy and capitalist ideals.


Turtle lost.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm ok with basic services being tax funded (police, fire, roads).

So we agree completely: basic services should be supported with taxes.

Except most people think education and healthcare are basic services. The US is awash in public hospitals and public schools, which you would shut down in the ideological pursuit of libertarian paradise.

Frankly, libertarians are lucky anyone pays any attention to them at all. Hell, outside of the American internet sites, no one does.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Every f*cking American citizen has the choice of writing in Ron Paul and put an end to the Wall Street / Beltway corruption.
-t

Agreed. Why do you suppose they don't do this?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm ok with basic services being tax funded (police, fire, roads).
There might be combined models (public-private partnerships) that make sense for other things (some highways, some briges).
-t

So, basically, *limited* socialism is ok? As with ebuddy, you're opposed to *increases* in socialism, but socialism to some degree is acceptable.

At this point, the debate isn't Capitalism vs. Socialism, but rather over what is considered a "basic service". Different people are going to have different opinions on this question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Wow you are so bad at this....

Bad at what? *To see if you remember what you were talking about.

You totally missed the point and on purpose. Public utility goes private and the market deregulated and surprise surprise the prices went up and by a lot. Who gives a damn about free TVs or not being able to get out of contracts. The point was the price to the consumer went UP by a lot the second a public utility was privatized and a market deregulated.

I'm afraid you missed my original point by responding with anecdotes that supported it. I claimed you get more choices. You scoffed at the notion before posting an article claiming as much. You complained about monopolies and duopolies and I responded that it is the regulatory environment that chooses winners and losers. Utility for the win! Your article affirmed my point. You complained that, since privatization, folks were stuck in the contracts when your article clearly cited the regulator's direct role in their predicament.

You might want to look at the site you posted again
Pilot Pay Rate Comparisons
Compare with this chart from that site.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to argue a new point every post and have completely lost sight of any of your numerous redirects Athens. You started off claiming US pilots make less than US garbage men. I used your article to refute the argument. Worse, are you sure the futile exercise of looking over all pilot salaries per airline, per rank above isn't just going to affirm the fact that US pilots earn more than US garbage men?

I don't think you have been ignoring me for the past several months, I haven''t been on here for the last few months. But its good to know you ignore battles you just can't win.

All I know is I had a great sense of peace and a sudden disturbance in it. This may explain the problem. If it's any consolation to you, I'm working towards developing my ability to avoid disturbances like these and thought I was further along in my exercise.

All I did is say the private company garbage people probably make a lot less then the city garbage collectors. Was not even intended to be a Canada vs US thing, though I did point out that garbage collectors seem to make more then first year American Airline Pilots and you decided to bring in this Canada vs US stuff again. Sign of a weak mind that cant argue?

Going all-out dishonest now eh?

Originally Posted by Athens

Your private garbage collectors make more then first year US Airway pilots?

Why would you go out of your way to cite some irrelevant drivel like the above regarding US occupations anyway? A little flame-bait perhaps? C'mon man. All I did was throw it back in your face.

Due to cost of ferries which has doubled since being privatized.

You never answered my question. Why go from public to private? Why, when faced with the opportunity to switch would they? I mean, they weren't all duped by free TVs right?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You never answered my question. Why go from public to private? Why, when faced with the opportunity to switch would they? I mean, they weren't all duped by free TVs right?

Right Wing Government, ideological reasons.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

What are these specific ideals youre talking about?

In a nutshell, the concept that the resources of a society should be pooled to maintain the well being of the citizens of said society as a whole, ensuring a minimum (if not equal) standard of living for everyone.

Again, though, I'm not saying that I'm in favour of this being implemented full-scale as it obviously has major repercussions, which is what much of this thread has been arguing about. I just don't quite get why this line of thought, which is verging on utopian, causes such instant backlash amongst many people.

You, and a couple of others here, are probably right in saying that it's simply the association that it has with totalitarian regimes throughout the last century that has caused this, with the slippery slope principle being quoted over and over until it seems impossible for many to envision anything but a dictatorship at the bottom of the proverbial hill.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Absolutly correct; turtle has obviously done his homework before picking a political ideology.

It was not absolutely correct, actually, because he completely missed the point of the question I had posed and just went right back to hammering on what he doesn't like about socialism. I'd like to know why the response was so emotional and where the implied assumption came from that "people like me" who support socialist ideals are looking for a free buck.

He did come right out and state that it's impossible to have a philosophical discussion on the topic, though, so I get the impression that he's just not capable of having a real adult conversation. There are things worth discussing beyond politics and economic principles.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by gradient 

It was not absolutely correct, actually, because he completely missed the point of the question I had posed and just went right back to hammering on what he doesn't like about socialism. I'd like to know why the response was so emotional and where the implied assumption came from that "people like me" who support socialist ideals are looking for a free buck.

He did come right out and state that it's impossible to have a philosophical discussion on the topic, though, so I get the impression that he's just not capable of having a real adult conversation. There are things worth discussing beyond politics and economic principles.

LOL, you're in denial.

As soon as somebody picks apart your romantic notion of Socialism, you just declare that they "missed the point" and "not capable of having a real adult conversation". Very weak.

Originally Posted by gradient 

There are things worth discussing beyond politics and economic principles.

WTF ? In a thread about Socialism in the PWL, you expect a discussion beyond politics and economic principles ? That's some crazy shit.

Originally Posted by gradient 

I'm talking about the ideals of socialism

Yes, keep talking. I wish you happy wet dreams.
But please never ever bother to demand any of it implemented or tried.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, basically, *limited* socialism is ok? As with ebuddy, you're opposed to *increases* in socialism, but socialism to some degree is acceptable.

I guess we have different ideas about what Socialism constitutes, and that's fine.

Let me state it a different way: I'm not against tax paid services that benefit most (if not all) people in more or less the same manner.

The issue I have with most ideas of Socialism is that they never ever effectively limit fraud and abuse.
See, nobody sets his house on fire more often because the fire department is free.
Nobody calls the police more often because it's free. Nobody drives down roads w/o any reasons, just because the roads are free (well, some teens might do that).
For all these basic services, there is no secondary market, and no way to "hoard" those things and sell them at a gain.

Many ideas about Socialism open the door wide for fraud and abuse.
As soon as you hand out free goods, people will take more than they need, stockpile them, sell them on the black market etc. As soon as there are free goods and services provided by the government, the free market for same goods sold for money dries up. Suppliers know that the government will pay almost any price, so prices are driven up; free market discipline and true price discovery based on supply and demand is impossible.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

At this point, the debate isn't Capitalism vs. Socialism, but rather over what is considered a "basic service". Different people are going to have different opinions on this question.

Yes.

-t

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by gradient 

In a nutshell, the concept that the resources of a society should be pooled to maintain the well being of the citizens of said society as a whole, ensuring a minimum (if not equal) standard of living for everyone.

1. This concept doesnt appeal to everyone. For most part of the excitement of life is to rise above the average person. Not everyone wants to have "each according to their ability, each according to their need". How boring is that?

2. It's unrealistic, that concept promotes waist in society; and assumes everyone is going to work hard with no clear cut self gain attachted to their work ethic. Just look at the socialist structured programs now... Money pooling for medical (insurance), a high priced failure, a rationing system. Not everyone can have top of the line medical care because the resources simply don't exist. And with no price shopping due to the "pooling" concept, waist is promoted. Everytime you pool resources there is massive waist. Look at how people waist oil because they got used to cheap prices for so long. Much of the problems we are now facing as a scoiety have to do with government involved in subsidizing things in order to manipulate market prices down; People dont seem to realize the massive repricussions this has down the road in shaping the way we live. The price of oil alone can shape the whole way a city is built and the way people live. I would be fine with our socialist government stepping in to solve the problem. But they have had their chance over and over and proven themselves a failure. They only appeal to the short sightedness of stupid masses. "RARRRARA RAR AR WE WANT CHEAP GAS!!1!!!!!11! DRILL BABY DRILL!!! WAIST WAIST" These are progressive ideas. This is why I call most people who are members of the repub or democrat party liberals. This is why Im so anti-big-government.

.......... I just don't quite get why this line of thought, which is verging on utopian, causes such instant backlash amongst many people.

because in most cases when people bring up utopian concepts it's to try and convince us to try it out. It's against human nature; it's impossble. It's not that conservatives are against utopia. We just dont need anymore people trying to push something on us that always results in a dictatorship.

You, and a couple of others here, are probably right in saying that it's simply the association that it has with totalitarian regimes throughout the last century that has caused this, with the slippery slope principle being quoted over and over until it seems impossible for many to envision anything but a dictatorship at the bottom of the proverbial hill.

That is because a dictatorship is the only thing to envision. You are giving too much power to the government; it will always seek more; it is itself a corporation and a mofia that has no reason to answer to anyone. What are you going to do? vote someone out? It is human nature of the masses to always vote for the candidate with the most short sighted, rediculous utopian plan.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think you're being very naive if you believe this. I also think you are probably confusing 'backing' 'not outlawing'.

No, I mean backing. I mean the government subsidizes; pays for; insures; people's houses. The houses that government played the most roles in are the one's with the most forclosures. Big Government market manipulation is a failure.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, you're in denial.

As soon as somebody picks apart your romantic notion of Socialism, you just declare that they "missed the point" and "not capable of having a real adult conversation". Very weak.

I don't have a romantic notion on the subject that you can pick apart. I don't believe that anything close to pure Socialism can be implemented without dire effects. I actually agree with much of your reasoning on the subject, so I really don't have much to discuss on the topic of the merits/disadvantages of a Socialist system (as I already mentioned). The fact of the matter is that you have missed my point.

WTF ? In a thread about Socialism in the PWL, you expect a discussion beyond politics and economic principles ? That's some crazy shit.

I didn't post in a thread. I started the thread, and laid out what I was looking to discuss (and what I wasn't looking to discuss) quite specifically so I'd think it's perfectly reasonable to hope for exactly that. I'm not at all surprised by the conversation that has ensued, of course; I didn't actually expect much different, but flaming me for trying to stay on topic is a bit off base.

Yes, keep talking. I wish you happy wet dreams.
But please never ever bother to demand any of it implemented or tried.

I haven't and never will, at least in the context that I think you're talking about, and that wasn't the point of this thread at all.

[turtle777]

Alright then, I'll shut up then, because I have no desire to discuss the "theoretical merits" of Socialism.

My guess is that most people here are not interested in that type of discussion anyways.

-t

[gradient]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

1. This concept doesnt appeal to everyone. For most part of the excitement of life is to rise above the average person. Not everyone wants to have "each according to their ability, each according to their need". How boring is that?

2. It's unrealistic, that concept promotes waist in society; and assumes everyone is going to work hard with no clear cut self gain attachted to their work ethic. Just look at the socialist structured programs now... Money pooling for medical (insurance), a high priced failure, a rationing system. Not everyone can have top of the line medical care because the resources simply don't exist. And with no price shopping due to the "pooling" concept, waist is promoted. Everytime you pool resources there is massive waist. Look at how people waist oil because they got used to cheap prices for so long. Much of the problems we are now facing as a scoiety have to do with government involved in subsidizing things in order to manipulate market prices down; People dont seem to realize the massive repricussions this has down the road in shaping the way we live. The price of oil alone can shape the whole way a city is built and the way people live. I would be fine with our socialist government stepping in to solve the problem. But they have had their chance over and over and proven themselves a failure. They only appeal to the short sightedness of stupid masses. "RARRRARA RAR AR WE WANT CHEAP GAS!!1!!!!!11! DRILL BABY DRILL!!! WAIST WAIST" These are progressive ideas. This is why I call most people who are members of the repub or democrat party liberals. This is why Im so anti-big-government.

because in most cases when people bring up utopian concepts it's to try and convince us to try it out. It's against human nature; it's impossble. It's not that conservatives are against utopia. We just dont need anymore people trying to push something on us that always results in a dictatorship.


That is because a dictatorship is the only thing to envision. You are giving too much power to the government; it will always seek more; it is itself a corporation and a mofia that has no reason to answer to anyone. What are you going to do? vote someone out? It is human nature of the masses to always vote for the candidate with the most short sighted, rediculous utopian plan.

I agree with much of what you've said here, though I'm not sure where Conservatives fit into the equation as I've never though of this as a Conservative/Liberal argument.

Something that stands out to me, though, is that I think the majority (or maybe it's closer to 50/50, who knows) of people who have a very negative emotional reaction to the term Socialism don't have the intelligent background rationale that you and others here do to back up their feelings on the subject, so I wonder if the old cold war propaganda still has a lingering effect along with the general tension between the US and China (to go along with the rampant human rights violations that leak out of China).

I also don't get the impression that most people see (or are willing to see) that the ideals don't need to be taken literally across the board and can have a positive impact on society as a whole. See the discussion about 'basic services' a little further back in the thread.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There's no point in arguing with someone who is so irrational that they actually believe this crap. But I'm gonna do it anyway....

I don't belive it, I know it, because I've read my history books. You can start with nazi history (There are actually many paths to oligarchy/dictatorships). People always asks "how did they convince millions of people to believe in this awful ideology and carry out these awful deeds?" Well I see the frog (you the people) boiling slowly and acting like these programs are to "help" everyone.

The welfare state is not "paving the way" for anything. Specific policies are adopted to accomplish specific goals. The goal of unemployment insurance is to mitigate the ills of unemployment; it is not to smooth the way to communism.

It is very clearly paving the way for oligarchy as we speak, and communism is a form of oligarchy. To me it really doesn't matter what kind of oligarchy we get it's all the same.

The goal of social security is to mitigate the tragedy of impoverished elderly;

No it just prevents people from saving so that they're dependent on the government rationing system which is going bankrupt anyway, in which case the elderly will be impoverished if they ever were. A good moral government would have just forced people to save into a retirement account that can't be "dipped" into. Managing your own savings is the only answer. A poor person can get rich simply by saving. I've watched it happen in 3rd world countries everywhere, thats why I laugh at rich american liberals who act like they have real problems and then want a government nanny state solution for all this made up petty issues. How laughable it is when americans who averaged 40k/yr end up poorer in retirement than many people who lived impoverished for most their life

it is not to smooth the way to communism. The goal of universal health care is to ensure everyone has health care; it is not to smooth the way to communism. The fact that this has to be spelled out for you is really sad.

Cost is drivin by demand vs available resources. The health care problem is a resource problem. Universal healthcare has not addressed this, it only feeds money into the system to either inflate prices or diffuse quality of care to the many. The fact I have to spell this out for you is really sad.

There is no "slippery slope" to communism. You live in a state of delusion paranoid if you think there is. Not a single communist government on Earth was established by smoothing the way with a welfare state.

Re-read your history books then...

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

No, I mean backing. I mean the government subsidizes; pays for; insures; people's houses. The houses that government played the most roles in are the one's with the most forclosures. Big Government market manipulation is a failure.

So you think that by agreeing to back these bad deals the government is more to blame than the companies pushing them in the marketplace? Those same companies that were making all the money from these deals?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess we have different ideas about what Socialism constitutes, and that's fine.

Let me state it a different way: I'm not against tax paid services that benefit most (if not all) people in more or less the same manner.

The issue I have with most ideas of Socialism is that they never ever effectively limit fraud and abuse.
See, nobody sets his house on fire more often because the fire department is free.
Nobody calls the police more often because it's free. Nobody drives down roads w/o any reasons, just because the roads are free (well, some teens might do that).
For all these basic services, there is no secondary market, and no way to "hoard" those things and sell them at a gain.

Many ideas about Socialism open the door wide for fraud and abuse.
As soon as you hand out free goods, people will take more than they need, stockpile them, sell them on the black market etc. As soon as there are free goods and services provided by the government, the free market for same goods sold for money dries up. Suppliers know that the government will pay almost any price, so prices are driven up; free market discipline and true price discovery based on supply and demand is impossible.



Yes.

-t

That's mostly true. You can see that difference between the Canadian medical system and the American medical system. Canadians on average see family doctors or use walk-in clinics 2 to 3 times more often then Americans. And we are more likely to make use of hospitals as well. Because cost isn't factored in for visits and for checkups and minor problems, it is used more often. Even with good coverage in the US with co-pays and % based coverage a lot still end up paying something out of pocket to see a doctor so with a price involved some hold back or don't go.

Good or bad, I'm not sure. Our system does cost little less then half to run but that's because of major differences in negotiated prices, single payer system that requires a lot less administrative overhead. I'm sure if the price of everything was the exact same in Canada and the US and you exclude overhead from the insurance companies the higher usage here has a higher cost. BUT under long term its also debatable that it reduced cost. Many medical problems that start out as something small and trivial, something you wouldn't want to spend $50.00 or whatever a deductible amount to check because it seems like nothing can develop into a very major and costly things. So something that would have been cheap and easy to fix early on was missed over a co-pay or deductible causing some one to second guess getting checked out only to require A LOT more medical attention down the road.

So while its true (Free) health care that we have gets used more often because we don't have the associated cost for using it, I would be willing to bet a lot of costly treatments are also avoided because of early intervention to. So while some would see the over use here as abuse, it might not be bad that it is abused when you consider how expensive it is to miss things early on.

But I fully see your point about abuse when things are offered for free even though its not technically free as its paid for by the tax payer. I don't agree with your point but I understand it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

That's mostly true. ...
So while its true ...
But I fully see your point ...

I don't agree with your point but I understand it.

What part do you not agree with ?

Seems to me you agree that there is a lot of waste and abuse, but you'd just like to go with it anyways, and hope for the best.

Newsflash, this "hoping for the best" has not panned out. Most Western countries are hopelessly overindebted, mainly because social programs ran for a long time unchecked, and were always expanded.

There WILL be a day of reckoning, where everyone will have to pay the price for this reckless abuse. At that point, those that the social systems tries to "protect" will be shit out of luck. Actually, that's putting it midly, they will be f*cked.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What part do you not agree with ?

Seems to me you agree that there is a lot of waste and abuse, but you'd just like to go with it anyways, and hope for the best.

Newsflash, this "hoping for the best" has not panned out. Most Western countries are hopelessly overindebted, mainly because social programs ran for a long time unchecked, and were always expanded.

There WILL be a day of reckoning, where everyone will have to pay the price for this reckless abuse. At that point, those that the social systems tries to "protect" will be porn out of luck. Actually, that's putting it midly, they will be f*cked.

-t

Why isn't Canada facing a lot of debt then?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What part do you not agree with ?

Seems to me you agree that there is a lot of waste and abuse, but you'd just like to go with it anyways, and hope for the best.

Newsflash, this "hoping for the best" has not panned out. Most Western countries are hopelessly overindebted, mainly because social programs ran for a long time unchecked, and were always expanded.

There WILL be a day of reckoning, where everyone will have to pay the price for this reckless abuse. At that point, those that the social systems tries to "protect" will be shit out of luck. Actually, that's putting it midly, they will be f*cked.

-t

That over usage is abuse and waste. I don't agree that it is abuse or waste. I see your point about free = more usage and for some cases could be considered abuse and waste but overall I don't see higher usage of something free as abuse or waste. That's what I mean about not agreeing. If one person is good seeing a doctor every 2 years while another person who has some issues sees a doctor every 3 months, I wouldn't consider that person seeing a doctor every 3 months as abusing the system.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Let me state it a different way: I'm not against tax paid services that benefit most (if not all) people in more or less the same manner.

The issue I have with most ideas of Socialism is that they never ever effectively limit fraud and abuse.
See, nobody sets his house on fire more often because the fire department is free.
Nobody calls the police more often because it's free. Nobody drives down roads w/o any reasons, just because the roads are free (well, some teens might do that).
For all these basic services, there is no secondary market, and no way to "hoard" those things and sell them at a gain.

Many ideas about Socialism open the door wide for fraud and abuse.
As soon as you hand out free goods, people will take more than they need, stockpile them, sell them on the black market etc. As soon as there are free goods and services provided by the government, the free market for same goods sold for money dries up. Suppliers know that the government will pay almost any price, so prices are driven up; free market discipline and true price discovery based on supply and demand is impossible.

-t

This is a fantastic post. I never realized how much this element has been influencing my opinions until I saw it just now, but it's just so undeniably true. The line between what works and what doesn't is "hoardability."

It even explains the military "contradiction." The military is bordering on giving things out for free: while it doesn't invite abuse by civilians, it does invite abuse by members of the military and contractors, and abuse is exactly what we see. Even among those people that should be the best of our society (those that volunteer to risk their lives to defend the rest of us), abuse is rampant. It gets a pass because it's limited in scope (to non-civilians), and because there's simply no other way to have a military. But it still shows us the dangers, in a microcosm.

Props, turtle

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why isn't Canada facing a lot of debt then?

We are?

We are facing medical cost problems in the provincial level. Americans face it at a personal level. We both face high cost problems. Ours can be dealt with in budget cuts of other services, or higher taxes. For Americans it means personal bankruptcies or no coverage.

Our problem is because of the spike in baby boomers, and family class immigrants that have contributed absolutely nothing into the system and are making heavy use of the system. 50% of the entire BC budget goes towards Medical but like I said above baby boomers are a large part of the massive increase over the years and will continue to be a problem for the next 10-20 years.

But there are massive differences in cost structure in Canada and the US. Overhead is a big one. American doctors have to hire a small staff just to deal with billing, and insurance because they have to deal with so many different companies. They have to validate some ones insurance, find out what that insurance will pay for and what it will cover and go from there. Canadian doctors (everything I say is related to BC Medical since each province has its own) BC doctors only have to worry about MSP most of the time. Extended insurance here is mostly over eyes, hearing, and dental. Because pre-existing conditions is not part of the package here, doctors do not need to check to see if a person can get something or not. All people in BC are entitled to the same level of service so no checking. And things not covered by MSP, like experimental treatments can still be prescribed by a doctor IF the doctor thinks it is medically needed and MSP will still cover it. Not sure if other provinces work like that. So a Canadian doctor generally has a single assistant to take bookings, bill MSP and so on. That is the overhead side of things. When it comes to procedures MSP negotiates a price structure for most things so the same procedure more or less costs the same at every BC hospital. And they also negotiate bulk purchases of drugs at discount prices which keeps medications lower as well. The cost of some medications are 150% less here because it was negotiated at that price in a bulk purchase. Because its only MSP, companies don't have much bargaining room to charge outrageous prices for drugs. That keeps the material cost of things lower.

The one place the US has the advantage is in more equipment. You have more MRI's per person in the US and more xray's per person and so on because private companies competing with each other resulted in a lot of excess capacity in the market for these things. But its hard to justify a million + machine for a clinic in a town of 400 people, we have a bigger logistical problem because of how spread out the country is. If our drugs and procedures cost the same as the US our system would be using up even more money then it does now.

What happens in the US is insurance companies negotiate prices with hospitals or run there own hospitals to save on costs. But if you go to a out of network hospital you might find yourself not covered or paying a big fee over it. And because every insurance company has a list of what it covers and what it does not, a doctor just cant assume what he is about to order for his patient is covered so they have to check with the persons policy and depending on the persons ability to pay adjust treatment options over that. But if a person has the coverage for a MRI, and can afford the deductible or co-pay they will get that MRI, a week or 2 faster then we can or if you live in the north months quicker. But how much does that person pay out of pocket for a MRI and how much do they pay month for coverage in the first place.

The American system costs so much because of built in profit above everything else as well. So you have higher over head, retail pricing for drugs and equipment, plus profit added in makes for a system that is twice as much as ours.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why isn't Canada facing a lot of debt then?

Who said they don't ?

Their debt/GDP ratio is about 84% (est.). Sure, not as bad as the US or Greece, but still high.
And this doesn't account for future liabilities, because governments all over the world hide their real obligations by using cash accounting.

Btw, household debt is even worse:

Household debt has surged three time faster than income in recent years and now stands at a record high of more than $1-trillion. Put another way, Canadians owe about $1.47 for every dollar of disposable income.

Canada's brewing debt storm - The Globe and Mail

So, really, saying that Canada is SOOOOO different is just not the case.
Thei saving grace in the last years has been their natural resources, which helps offset the effects of inflation.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is a fantastic post. I never realized how much this element has been influencing my opinions until I saw it just now, but it's just so undeniably true. The line between what works and what doesn't is "hoardability."

It even explains the military "contradiction." The military is bordering on giving things out for free: while it doesn't invite abuse by civilians, it does invite abuse by members of the military and contractors, and abuse is exactly what we see. Even among those people that should be the best of our society (those that volunteer to risk their lives to defend the rest of us), abuse is rampant. It gets a pass because it's limited in scope (to non-civilians), and because there's simply no other way to have a military. But it still shows us the dangers, in a microcosm.

Props, turtle

Whats the problem with $20 000 for a toilet seat, and $5000 for 100 rolls of toilet paper. Its fare market value in a war zone