OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess Topic

You haven't explained anything at all, because you still haven't answered the simple question I posed in the post above:

In your proper socialist system, who builds the new factories?  Where does expensive equipment come from?  Who digs oil wells?  It's all well and good for socialists to reiterate over and over again that people will work harder if they have a bigger stake in the companies they work for, and it's probably true.  But that first requires them to have jobs, and it's hard to argue that job creation frequently requires large-scale investment.  Where does that come from in your system?
10/29/2012 4:26 PM
Put a different way, we're arguing cause vs. results, and in the end you seem more concerned about motivations and I'm more concerned about outcomes.  I didn't say that the reason why people built business infrastructure and invested in R&D to fund innovation WASN'T because they wanted to make more money.  Of course it is.  My point is that I don't care.  The end result is that people get jobs as a result of increasing corporate infrastructure and innovation occurs.  Where, in your system, is the funding for innovation coming from if the people who build the products resulting from innovation are the ones who are going to profit from it?  Where does the funding to build a new factory come from if the workers are going to make most of the money?  I'll point this out again - a bunch of unemployed people aren't going to get together and build a factory so they can work in it.  They don't have the resources to make it happen.
10/29/2012 5:50 PM
In a proper socialist system, people are given motivation to help facilitate job creation. There are many ways this can be done, from a payroll tax that goes toward funding for such purposes to giving other incentives to those who voluntarily contribute to the creation of businesses. People would also be willing to do more of this kind of thing once they see that it works - jobs are not only created, but they are better jobs than our current system provides. Once people see firsthand that something works, it takes a lot less motivation to get them to buy into helping it continue to work.

Even if not right away, eventually the funding for a factory would come from those who want to fund it for the good of themselves and everyone else. They and others make more money and have better lives if they contribute toward projects like building of factories.

The beauty of a proper socialist system is the government supplies the resources to make things like this happen, and as I said, eventually people want to contribute when they see the benefits.

10/30/2012 8:32 AM
That's where it breaks down.  I don't buy for a second that people will start voluntarily contributing to job creation for other people when they're adequately employed.  And I absolutely HATE the idea of the government being in charge of job creation.  That, to me, is the biggest reason a socialist system will always fail, and why we view socialism as what happened in the USSR.  It's always going to go that way.  You put the government in charge of deciding what industries are important and require expansion you ultimately will wind up with some people in charge who are power hungry, abuse it, and focus on building their own power and influence.  The free market system allows the greedy and selfish nature of a number of wealthy individuals to keep one another in check.  Your socialist system ultimately nucleates the power, so as soon as you get anyone without the purest of intentions at the top there's no check.

10/30/2012 1:46 PM
If people are educated they do decide to contribute to job creation, even if they are "adequately employed", because they don't keep that employment for long if they don't.

You simply institute the proper incentives within companies to drive them to employ only those who are willing to help the company expand through job creation efforts, both inside and outside the company. Companies won't want to keep someone on their payroll who isn't willing to help the company grow (and could actually cause the company to suffer), so any time someone refuses to help foster job creation, they'll put their own job at risk over time.

To put it more simply: If your pay is based upon how well the company does overall and one of your co-workers decides to take action (by not contributing to job creation efforts inside and outside the company) that causes sanctions to come down on the company, you and your other co-workers are going to become angry at that person because they are hurting everyone. If they keep doing that, they will probably lose their job (and maybe more than that depending upon how angry those co-workers are), especially when there are people who would love to have that job if they don't want to play ball.

The argument putting government in charge will foster abuse of power is extremely myopic. These things don't happen when proper checks and balances are in place.

Have you considered that modern capitalism actually allows the same type of abuse of power? It simply replaces government entities with private wealthy individuals. They abuse power the same, and yet it is actually encouraged. Funny, people who preach against the evils of socialism never mention the evils of capitalism.

If you honestly believe "the greed and selfish nature of a number of wealthy individuals" keeps one another in check, then you are either uneducated on these matters or you are delusional.  There is very little "keeping in check" when it comes to the wealthy in the modern system. In fact, the terrible actions of the wealthy contributed significantly to the current economic downturn, and yet within modern capitalism, there was no reason for them not to do what they did. They had every reason and incentive to attempt to exploit the system unmercifully with little in the way of negative effects on them. No, it was the middle and lower classes and the economy as a whole who paid for the sins of those greedy people at the top.

After what I've seen and learned in all the work I've done and been a part of, I'm fully convinced capitalism is a deadly destructive force which only benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  In fact, I believe there is a great deal of evidence which suggests capitalism will eventually doom America's economy causing America to fall from its place in the world status.

10/30/2012 3:13 PM (edited)
The other thing I wanted to say and didn't yet is this:

You say "you can't tell people how to spend their money" and yet your position indicates you feel as though you COULD effectively tell people "if you don't have enough money, you deserve to suffer and/or die".

So your position seems to be that it's okay to tell people they're worthless and should suffer and die if they're poor, but you absolutely draw the line and say it's not okay to tell people how to spend their money.

You're saying it's okay to make people suffer, it's okay they should die even though modern medicine can save them, but it's not okay to tell people how to spend their money.

No offense, honestly, but I've never met a more backward ideology in terms of priorities.

11/2/2012 8:57 AM
You just put a LOT of words in my mouth.  In fact, I don't see where I said anything you just claimed I said.  Please feel free to point it out.
11/2/2012 6:58 PM
Although to an extent I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, I'd rather have the government allow a small subset of people to suffer than have the government infringe more than absolutely necessary on the free will and freedom of action of the entire population.  I absolutely think there are things that can and should be done to support the impoverished segments of society, but if you force it to a strict dichotomy I would take the option that promotes small government and maximal freedom.
11/2/2012 7:01 PM
I don't have time to go back through the entire post right now, but I know someone said "you can't tell people what to do with their money" and I was sure it was you. If it wasn't, I apologize.

I'm personally in favor of anything that makes the statement "all men were created equal" to be more true for everyone. The founding fathers of America didn't really mean that when they said it, but I believe in the inherent truth of that statement and will support anything that promotes that truth.

11/5/2012 9:19 AM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9
OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.