socialism - right or wrong?

One of the best-ever statements against Socialism.



An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise...They all failed, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Don't forget the most famous Russian saying "They pretended to pay us.... We pretended to work."

Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) Remember that there is a test coming up. The next election!

That's why it was wrong for the taxpayer to bail out the automakers. Need to keep the reward great. It was socialism that led to free enterprise being saved from catastrophic failure. That was a Huge mistake.

A huge mistake indeed. And we haven't yet seen the true cost of that The USA depression is just beginning. Things should have halted and been exposed fully at that juncture - not mache'd over with fresh paper/cash.

tag


Nine in the second place means:
A dry poplar sprouts at the root.
An older man takes a young wife.
Everything furthers.

Wood is near water; hence the image of an old poplar sprouting at the root.
This means an extraordinary situation arises when an older man marries a
young girl who suits him. Despite the unusualness of the situation, all goes
well.

From the point of view of politics, the meaning is that in exceptional times
one does well to join with the lowly, for this affords a possibility of renewal.

Bickering, name calling and blame is the system that we have right now, but it is called Parliament of a free country, ir called Harper and buddies, or any minority government, and it works just fine, in my opinion.
I have never seen our law makers work so hard to get the voters confidence, and fail! lol

Sources would be nice...

lol....and so early in the morning.... ha ha

That looks like one of those chain emails designed to over simplify things and evoke a response from it's like minded readers. What kind of socialism are we talking about, political or economic? One could argue that socialist (political) countries tend to be the best places on earth to live, just look at the majority of quality of living polls which generally tend to have the 4 Scandinavian (extremely socialist) countries and Canada (yes we tend to have many qualties of socialism in the fabric of our nation) consistantly in the top 5.

What about economic socialism? China seems to be doing not too bad with it's version of market socialism that is slowly but surely killing off the N.American manufacturing sector while creating a new middle class for itself.

Or do you mean Marxism or Stalinism which are both outdated, failed concepts?

This right-wing notion that socialism equals bad, and profit-motive equals good is over simplified hog wash.

grumpyrom wrote:This right-wing notion that socialism equals bad, and profit-motive equals good is over simplified hog wash.

Its not a right wing notion, its the God's honest truth.

We've discussed the merits of socialism as it is known to the Nordic countries here in the sandbox. I believe ton's of statistic's were thrown about that equally proved it sucked/it was the greatest thing.

There are elements of "socialism" that are good. Health and education to name two. But if poorly managed, and God knows ours are, they begin to fray along the edges and start unraveling. That is happening in Canada.

There are elements of "socialism" that are bad. Business being the leading element of bad socialism.

Manitoba Telephone System was slowly spiraling down the proverbial drain. They did not have the capital and expertise to join the new telecoms and their innovation and growth. I'll argue they are now one of the leading telecoms in Canada.

Manitoba Hydro may not be a good example as they are always well capitalized. However, if privatized could Hydro deliver more to the tax-base (like oil in Alberta)? Even if it means Hydro rates increase?

I think there is a fine line down the middle that serves Canada best. A hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism if you will. Socapitalism maybe?

Libertarian government would provide the maximum reward for those who choose to work hard and the least "reward" for those who choose not.

What we have now is a drain on the hard working, which is morally repugnant, IMHO.

grumpy old man wrote:We've discussed the merits of socialism as it is known to the Nordic countries here in the sandbox. I believe ton's of statistic's were thrown about that equally proved it sucked/it was the greatest thing.

There are elements of "socialism" that are good. Health and education to name two. But if poorly managed, and God knows ours are, they begin to fray along the edges and start unraveling. That is happening in Canada.

There are elements of "socialism" that are bad. Business being the leading element of bad socialism.

Manitoba Telephone System was slowly spiraling down the proverbial drain. They did not have the capital and expertise to join the new telecoms and their innovation and growth. I'll argue they are now one of the leading telecoms in Canada.

Manitoba Hydro may not be a good example as they are always well capitalized. However, if privatized could Hydro deliver more to the tax-base (like oil in Alberta)? Even if it means Hydro rates increase?

I think there is a fine line down the middle that serves Canada best. A hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism if you will. Socapitalism maybe?

I'm not so sure that we can be going in two directions at the same time.

I believe in a minimalistic approach from government...one where it is only concerning itself with providing essential type services (streets, sewers, water, health care, law enforcement, etc.)

I also believe in Gates/Buffet (and now Zuckerberg) Socialism.

more or less

Why is health care an "essential service"? I need food far more than I may need health care, but there is no Department of Groceries within any level of government. Just sayin'.

Good one. Just like everybody has a right to a job. And when one is provided/offered - they have a right to not do it. Those kinds of "rights" are fine but the issue in this regard is that we pay people to do nothing - and therein is the problem and it's at the core of our social decay. Society has lots of collective needs. We should be expecting services from tax-recipients after a certain period. Strange how well EI works isn't it? How, after a period, you get cut off and therefore have to advance your life. I'm thankful they cut me off the one time I collected it or I could still be "looking" for work. Look for WorkFare in our near-future. The current anti-reality program known as Welfare is socially unsustainable. It will not be easy to correct now but it is necessary.

Freeman wrote:Why is health care an "essential service"? I need food far more than I may need health care, but there is no Department of Groceries within any level of government. Just sayin'.

One can say the same about roads, sewers and water for that matter, but the point is, a minimal form of government services would actually allow us a better standard of services. It's so diluted now that nothing is done properly imo. Focusing on a few would have obvious effects on those.

I suppose there would be debate about what got on the list, but this is a general discussion thingy.

JTF wrote:I suppose there would be debate about what got on the list, but this is a general discussion thingy.

Thats really my point. Health care has become a sacred cow, as has education. The only discussion allowed is to increase spending otherwise you're a right wing, neo-conservative, capitalist, who cares nothing about the very fabric of our society. Yet, basic survival needs aren't "provided" by the state.

Freeman wrote:Why is health care an "essential service"?.

I am assuming neither you nor anyone you really care about have been truly sick.
Because if you or anyone you really care about did need significant health care you would be singing from a different song sheet.
I am thankful we do have a government funded health care system.
Yes, I know it is really the taxpayers funding health care in Canada.
But I would rather spend the taxes on health care than "monuments".

Bingo.

That fu ucken halocaust momument to A Sker sums it up perfectly.

We could easily afford both health care and education if we dumped sh it like that. imo.

halocaust??

whats that? Someone kill a bunch of Angels?

Outsider wrote:

Freeman wrote:Why is health care an "essential service"?.

I am assuming neither you nor anyone you really care about have been truly sick.
Because if you or anyone you really care about did need significant health care you would be singing from a different song sheet.
I am thankful we do have a government funded health care system.
Yes, I know it is really the taxpayers funding health care in Canada.
But I would rather spend the taxes on health care than "monuments".

Such is the debate.

Of course, I have been sick and used the health care system, but thats not the point I'm making, is it? The same with education, all of my 4 children attended public school, so does that negate my right to criticize the system, which I pay for?

This is the "sacred cow" argument I refer to. As soon as you question, it becomes a personalized, emotional debate.

Guess the government should fund funerals, after all, we're all going to need that eventually too.

Not sure what monuments you think I mentioned, but there were none.

Freeman (Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:13 am) wrote:

Outsider wrote:

Freeman wrote:Why is health care an "essential service"?.

I am assuming neither you nor anyone you really care about have been truly sick.
Because if you or anyone you really care about did need significant health care you would be singing from a different song sheet.
I am thankful we do have a government funded health care system.
Yes, I know it is really the taxpayers funding health care in Canada.
But I would rather spend the taxes on health care than "monuments".

Such is the debate.

Of course, I have been sick and used the health care system, but thats not the point I'm making, is it? The same with education, all of my 4 children attended public school, so does that negate my right to criticize the system, which I pay for?

This is the "sacred cow" argument I refer to. As soon as you question, it becomes a personalized, emotional debate.

Guess the government should fund funerals, after all, we're all going to need that eventually too.

Not sure what monuments you think I mentioned, but there were none.

You did not mention monuments. I did.
To me it seems this thread is about different ways people who believe in socialism could save money.
And my contribution was keeping tax-payer assisted health care and giving up statues and other monuments which are just good for "looking at". Including some (most) historical buildings.

Outsider (Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:48 am) wrote:I am assuming neither you nor anyone you really care about have been truly sick.
Because if you or anyone you really care about did need significant health care you would be singing from a different song sheet.

My sister died of leukemia, my mother of cancer, my father of a stroke as a result of diabetes, my wife was hospitalized for 2 months prior to the birth of my sons as it was a very high risk pregnancy, I have a chronic condition which requires regular injections and daily medication to keep me alive. My song is still that the public health care system is a shambles, costs far more than it should providing only minimal service, and is not the only essential service which I require to stay alive, but the others are not provided by the state.

For the record...the state does pay for the funerals of people who cant afford it.

Not a very nice funeral though so its a good thing we have two tiered deathcare

Jondo (Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:23 pm) wrote:Good one. Just like everybody has a right to a job. And when one is provided/offered - they have a right to not do it. Those kinds of "rights" are fine but the issue in this regard is that we pay people to do nothing - and therein is the problem and it's at the core of our social decay. Society has lots of collective needs. We should be expecting services from tax-recipients after a certain period. Strange how well EI works isn't it? How, after a period, you get cut off and therefore have to advance your life. I'm thankful they cut me off the one time I collected it or I could still be "looking" for work. Look for WorkFare in our near-future. The current anti-reality program known as Welfare is socially unsustainable. It will not be easy to correct now but it is necessary.

Not that I'm a welfare hugger in the slightest, but you can't come up with a bigger money waster to be concerned with? The welfare budget in Winnipeg is something like $50 million, not a small number at all but in comparison that's roughly roughly 15% of our annual police budget or approx. $70 per citizen of Winnipeg. Now how much do you think the police budget would rise practically overnight if one was to hastily cut off all welfare recipients? Would the average law abiding tax paying citizen be better off?

Now remember, I'm not arguing FOR welfare...just stating what should be obvious to everyone, any changes made to a system that has been in place and abused for decades needs to have all the potential consequences thought out. Unless you want to just build a fence around certain neighbourhoods once you withdraw funding.

I like the idea of work fare but again the potential impacts of suddenly bringing 50,000 new workers into the local economy needs to be thought out. What jobs can be found for them that will not potentially displace someone else from the workforce by introducing a new very cheap source of labour to the market? What would the potential ramifications be if this was introduced too quickly? Would we possibly end up in a situation where we basically "offshore" current jobs to a new cheap labour pool within our own society?

Tons of changes could and should be made, but I'd want all the potential impacts looked at before jumping at a knee jerk solution.

I doubt anyone is advocating the complete elimination of welfare. What most people I know abhor is ABUSE of welfare. The chronic, multi-generational, never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives peeps. That is who most peeps want to force off welfare. That is what Ontario did a few years ago. We can and should do so here as well.