Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

There are no discernable socailist polices On the contrary.
Argentina is owned by outside interests and its resources are sucked out by mostly American business.
It is doubtful is the world financial system is going to allow Argentina to begin to look after its masses, and start paying them for the work they do and the resources they provide on the world stage.

Okay, let's call it Kirchnerism. The trouble with unsustainable welfare programs is that the money runs out. There is no perfect solution, but ever-growing debt can only make things worse unless that debt is an investment for greater productivity.

No the money does not "run out". The source of all money is government. And there is a bottomless pit. The trick is to control how much comes back into the exchequer through taxation. If you allow too much money to sit in offshore accounts, as financial instruments; as crypto; in schemes of r rent seeking behaviour in which money is "earned" through not work it is then that the economy stagnates. People are priced out of housing, they have no ob security; there is lower incentive to build and grow for the people.
The trouble is that it is the people with all the money and power that formulate buxzz phrases like "When you spedn other peoples money it eventually runs out"; or "welfare makes people lazy". None of which is true. It is those with the money and power who earn without working; who are parasitic on society; not the unemployed whom they have created.
This section of the population who have bought the government and control the media rely on poor people to swallow their sound bites and repeat phrases, paricipating in their own oppression. The worst of these is the "middle class" who think they have a chance at the bigtime, admire people who earn through money but do not work. And they can be relied on to say stuff like "Make America Great", or " The trouble with welfare programs is that the money runs out." Both US parties do this. Put the focus on the must vulnerable; be that gay, trans, immigrants, foreigners. The Democrats can't even bring themselves to say the phrase "working class", when it is this class that actally creates all the wealth for those that they have to pay rent/mortgage to.

No, the money pit is not bottomless. When you print more money, it degrades people's savings and ultimately redistributes income upwards, because those at the top can better protect their assets from the resultant inflation.

Note that the money has indeed run out in Argentina. In fact, Argentina has defaulted on its debts four times since 1982.

Economic management is ideally a matter of pragmatically getting the policy balance right to suit the times rather than operating on rigid ideology.

No the "money pit" is another myth. It is fully controlled with targetted taxation.
Have you not noticed how the money put is indeed bottomless when it comes to bailing out the banks? LOL
But there seems to be restrictions on it when it comes to providing basic services?

In the UK after 2009/10 the government manage to find £400billion to hand over the banks.
Larger sums in the USA. It's almost as if things are not being thought through properly.
You'll be telling me next that the deficit is all important.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

I have rarely seen such support for capitalism, expressed so clearly.

But what is a "better" standard of living? And what are its consequences?

And you end with a comment about socialism that would seem to apply equally, or more than that, to capitalism.

If you have rarely seen such support for capitalism, you are living in a leftist bubble that does not permit "heretical" opinions.

It is easy to take for granted the income and lifestyle made possible by capitalism. Would you rather live in China, Cuba, Lao, NK or Vietnam? Can you name me a communist country you'd prefer to live in to a western nation?

OK, OK. My mistake. I shouldn't've introduced my responding post with a personal opinion, before I got to the important questions. This is what I should've written:

****************************************
****************************************

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

But what is a "better" standard of living? And what are its consequences?

[Aside: And you end with a comment about socialism that would seem to apply equally, or more than that, to capitalism. ]

[Mo_reese]

Oligarchies (like the US has had under the neo-liberal Democratic elite) are inherently unstable. This was stated by Aristotle but should be self-evident by now.
Author Thomas Frank points out that populist movements arise to challenge unstable oligarchies. He warned that while populist movements from the progressive Left aim to support the needs of the People, those from the Right deflect from the economic and social problems of the People and tend toward nationalism, racism and bigotry.
Sen Sanders tried to build a progressive populist movement from the Left to challenge the neo-liberal Democratic establishment and the Right Wing nationalistic populism but was soundly defeated by the billionaires of the oligarchy.
However, the Right Wing populist movement, lead by Trump, has handed the Democratic oligarchy a major defeat and taken control of the US government.
It appears that the Democratic oligarchy and their backers would rather see the extreme Right in power than the progressive Left.

If the Dems don't learn after this, which they show little sign of doing from what I've seen, then America is **** imo. But not alone, it's the way things are trending across the wealthy 'western' neo-liberal democracies.

The problem is with the Democratic leadership and those that follow them like sheep. Too many people put their blind faith in leaders in lieu of demanding representation. The followers want so badly to believe because to do otherwise means life is much harder. You have to pay attention, you have to think and take actions like stop giving incumbents a free ride. The current Democratic leadership are very wealthy and think of themselves as aristocratic and have no intention of changing their spots. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dem billionaires and the Repub billionaires don't get together and oust Trump and his hooligans and reign supreme. But no hurry, let Trump destroy all semblance of democracy first.

[Mo_reese]

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

Of course the capitalist countries provide a better standard of living for more people because they loot all the resources from other countries making those countries poorer and looking to socialism to survive. Imperialist are more "successful" than their victims.
As far as communism, I don't believe Marx's communism would work because of human nature, but it hasn't been tried in a major country. China and the USSR called themselves communist but they weren't/aren't. China is currently the greatest capitalist country in the world, as least IMHO.

[Sy Borg]

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

Of course the capitalist countries provide a better standard of living for more people because they loot all the resources from other countries making those countries poorer and looking to socialism to survive. Imperialist are more "successful" than their victims.
As far as communism, I don't believe Marx's communism would work because of human nature, but it hasn't been tried in a major country. China and the USSR called themselves communist but they weren't/aren't. China is currently the greatest capitalist country in the world, as least IMHO.

No. The west is wealthier because they are better managed and less corrupt than the governments that you claim they are "looting". I appreciate that it is in fashion to hate the west and colonialism. It seems that many are in denial that colonialism has been the norm for many thousands of years and is still happening, and it will happen in the foreseeable future.

China and Russia have followed the usual path from communism to totalitarianism.

[Sy Borg]

But what is a "better" standard of living? And what are its consequences?

I suggest that you check out how most people live in Africa, the Middle East and SE Asia.

[Sy Borg]

Okay, let's call it Kirchnerism. The trouble with unsustainable welfare programs is that the money runs out. There is no perfect solution, but ever-growing debt can only make things worse unless that debt is an investment for greater productivity.

No the money does not "run out". The source of all money is government. And there is a bottomless pit. The trick is to control how much comes back into the exchequer through taxation. If you allow too much money to sit in offshore accounts, as financial instruments; as crypto; in schemes of r rent seeking behaviour in which money is "earned" through not work it is then that the economy stagnates. People are priced out of housing, they have no ob security; there is lower incentive to build and grow for the people.
The trouble is that it is the people with all the money and power that formulate buxzz phrases like "When you spedn other peoples money it eventually runs out"; or "welfare makes people lazy". None of which is true. It is those with the money and power who earn without working; who are parasitic on society; not the unemployed whom they have created.
This section of the population who have bought the government and control the media rely on poor people to swallow their sound bites and repeat phrases, paricipating in their own oppression. The worst of these is the "middle class" who think they have a chance at the bigtime, admire people who earn through money but do not work. And they can be relied on to say stuff like "Make America Great", or " The trouble with welfare programs is that the money runs out." Both US parties do this. Put the focus on the must vulnerable; be that gay, trans, immigrants, foreigners. The Democrats can't even bring themselves to say the phrase "working class", when it is this class that actally creates all the wealth for those that they have to pay rent/mortgage to.

No, the money pit is not bottomless. When you print more money, it degrades people's savings and ultimately redistributes income upwards, because those at the top can better protect their assets from the resultant inflation.

Note that the money has indeed run out in Argentina. In fact, Argentina has defaulted on its debts four times since 1982.

Economic management is ideally a matter of pragmatically getting the policy balance right to suit the times rather than operating on rigid ideology.

No the "money pit" is another myth. It is fully controlled with targetted taxation.
Have you not noticed how the money put is indeed bottomless when it comes to bailing out the banks? LOL
But there seems to be restrictions on it when it comes to providing basic services?

In the UK after 2009/10 the government manage to find £400billion to hand over the banks.
Larger sums in the USA. It's almost as if things are not being thought through properly.
You'll be telling me next that the deficit is all important.

It seems that you only think one step ahead. Money does run out. I note that you ignored the fact that Argentina keeps defaulting, and have not retracted your incorrect criticisms of Milei. If the old way of doing things does not work, then a new way is ideally followed. Certainly Milei won't be bailing out businesses that fail.

I do at least agree that inefficient businesses need to be allowed to fail rather than supported with taxpayer funds. The issue is when organisations are so huge that their failure would result in severe consequences such a major job losses and loss of people's super. If the risks are deemed too great, then large organisations that are bailed out should have a rapid timeline for paying all of the money back to taxpayers, plus interest - at the same rate as they charge home buyers.

[Mo_reese]

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

Of course the capitalist countries provide a better standard of living for more people because they loot all the resources from other countries making those countries poorer and looking to socialism to survive. Imperialist are more "successful" than their victims.
As far as communism, I don't believe Marx's communism would work because of human nature, but it hasn't been tried in a major country. China and the USSR called themselves communist but they weren't/aren't. China is currently the greatest capitalist country in the world, as least IMHO.

No. The west is wealthier because they are better managed and less corrupt than the governments that you claim they are "looting". I appreciate that it is in fashion to hate the west and colonialism. It seems that many are in denial that colonialism has been the norm for many thousands of years and is still happening, and it will happen in the foreseeable future.

China and Russia have followed the usual path from communism to totalitarianism.

The US has to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Many of the countries that have lower standards of living have been colonized by the West and ripped of much of their resources. Even today the US sends foreign aid to over 100 countries. That foreign aid is used to bribe those governments to allow US corporations to loot resources. Iraq is struggling to survive after the US destroyed their people, land and government for their oil. The US is helping Ukraine and support a puppet government that will open that country to the US for the valuable minerals. Little is heard of the US program to spend millions to use drone to assassinate suspected terrorists. Why? It makes profits for our arms mfr and their politicians. Our Congress answers to the big money and ignores the people. No healthcare but 50 billion for bombs and death.

[Sy Borg]

Yet it is capitalist countries that provide a better standard of living for more people than socialist ones. Socialist policies may often seem well-intentioned, but the benefits are short-term, soon swamped by unintended impacts.

Of course the capitalist countries provide a better standard of living for more people because they loot all the resources from other countries making those countries poorer and looking to socialism to survive. Imperialist are more "successful" than their victims.
As far as communism, I don't believe Marx's communism would work because of human nature, but it hasn't been tried in a major country. China and the USSR called themselves communist but they weren't/aren't. China is currently the greatest capitalist country in the world, as least IMHO.

No. The west is wealthier because they are better managed and less corrupt than the governments that you claim they are "looting". I appreciate that it is in fashion to hate the west and colonialism. It seems that many are in denial that colonialism has been the norm for many thousands of years and is still happening, and it will happen in the foreseeable future.

China and Russia have followed the usual path from communism to totalitarianism.

The US has to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Many of the countries that have lower standards of living have been colonized by the West and ripped of much of their resources. Even today the US sends foreign aid to over 100 countries. That foreign aid is used to bribe those governments to allow US corporations to loot resources. Iraq is struggling to survive after the US destroyed their people, land and government for their oil. The US is helping Ukraine and support a puppet government that will open that country to the US for the valuable minerals. Little is heard of the US program to spend millions to use drone to assassinate suspected terrorists. Why? It makes profits for our arms mfr and their politicians. Our Congress answers to the big money and ignores the people. No healthcare but 50 billion for bombs and death.

Wrong. Why make blanket statements about verifiable situations without referring to the facts first?

According to Transparency International, the US is the 24th most non-corrupt nation out of 180. That makes it, not the most corrupt country in the world but the 156th most corrupt nation.

[Sculptor1]

No the money does not "run out". The source of all money is government. And there is a bottomless pit. The trick is to control how much comes back into the exchequer through taxation. If you allow too much money to sit in offshore accounts, as financial instruments; as crypto; in schemes of r rent seeking behaviour in which money is "earned" through not work it is then that the economy stagnates. People are priced out of housing, they have no ob security; there is lower incentive to build and grow for the people.
The trouble is that it is the people with all the money and power that formulate buxzz phrases like "When you spedn other peoples money it eventually runs out"; or "welfare makes people lazy". None of which is true. It is those with the money and power who earn without working; who are parasitic on society; not the unemployed whom they have created.
This section of the population who have bought the government and control the media rely on poor people to swallow their sound bites and repeat phrases, paricipating in their own oppression. The worst of these is the "middle class" who think they have a chance at the bigtime, admire people who earn through money but do not work. And they can be relied on to say stuff like "Make America Great", or " The trouble with welfare programs is that the money runs out." Both US parties do this. Put the focus on the must vulnerable; be that gay, trans, immigrants, foreigners. The Democrats can't even bring themselves to say the phrase "working class", when it is this class that actally creates all the wealth for those that they have to pay rent/mortgage to.

No, the money pit is not bottomless. When you print more money, it degrades people's savings and ultimately redistributes income upwards, because those at the top can better protect their assets from the resultant inflation.

Note that the money has indeed run out in Argentina. In fact, Argentina has defaulted on its debts four times since 1982.

Economic management is ideally a matter of pragmatically getting the policy balance right to suit the times rather than operating on rigid ideology.

No the "money pit" is another myth. It is fully controlled with targetted taxation.
Have you not noticed how the money put is indeed bottomless when it comes to bailing out the banks? LOL
But there seems to be restrictions on it when it comes to providing basic services?

In the UK after 2009/10 the government manage to find £400billion to hand over the banks.
Larger sums in the USA. It's almost as if things are not being thought through properly.
You'll be telling me next that the deficit is all important.

It seems that you only think one step ahead. Money does run out. I note that you ignored the fact that Argentina keeps defaulting, and have not retracted your incorrect criticisms of Milei. If the old way of doing things does not work, then a new way is ideally followed. Certainly Milei won't be bailing out businesses that fail.

I do at least agree that inefficient businesses need to be allowed to fail rather than supported with taxpayer funds. The issue is when organisations are so huge that their failure would result in severe consequences such a major job losses and loss of people's super. If the risks are deemed too great, then large organisations that are bailed out should have a rapid timeline for paying all of the money back to taxpayers, plus interest - at the same rate as they charge home buyers.

Do you know where money comes from?

[Mo_reese]

Of course the capitalist countries provide a better standard of living for more people because they loot all the resources from other countries making those countries poorer and looking to socialism to survive. Imperialist are more "successful" than their victims.
As far as communism, I don't believe Marx's communism would work because of human nature, but it hasn't been tried in a major country. China and the USSR called themselves communist but they weren't/aren't. China is currently the greatest capitalist country in the world, as least IMHO.

No. The west is wealthier because they are better managed and less corrupt than the governments that you claim they are "looting". I appreciate that it is in fashion to hate the west and colonialism. It seems that many are in denial that colonialism has been the norm for many thousands of years and is still happening, and it will happen in the foreseeable future.

China and Russia have followed the usual path from communism to totalitarianism.

The US has to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Many of the countries that have lower standards of living have been colonized by the West and ripped of much of their resources. Even today the US sends foreign aid to over 100 countries. That foreign aid is used to bribe those governments to allow US corporations to loot resources. Iraq is struggling to survive after the US destroyed their people, land and government for their oil. The US is helping Ukraine and support a puppet government that will open that country to the US for the valuable minerals. Little is heard of the US program to spend millions to use drone to assassinate suspected terrorists. Why? It makes profits for our arms mfr and their politicians. Our Congress answers to the big money and ignores the people. No healthcare but 50 billion for bombs and death.

Wrong. Why make blanket statements about verifiable situations without referring to the facts first?

According to Transparency International, the US is the 24th most non-corrupt nation out of 180. That makes it, not the most corrupt country in the world but the 156th most corrupt nation.

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index is based on perception. Those that are surveyed are upper socio-economic business people. I hardly think they would have the same views of corruption and and average person. For example I believe that the corruption involved in the US invasion of Iraq and the Bank Bailout of 2008 may not even be considered corruption to the wealthiest 10%, yet I believe that the sheer magnitude would move the US to the top of the charts. I also doubt that those surveyed would view the foreign aid the US provides to over 100 countries as corrupt. The wealthy have a different definition of corruption than the average person. I think the New York Times is corrupt, don't you?

[Sy Borg]

No. The west is wealthier because they are better managed and less corrupt than the governments that you claim they are "looting". I appreciate that it is in fashion to hate the west and colonialism. It seems that many are in denial that colonialism has been the norm for many thousands of years and is still happening, and it will happen in the foreseeable future.

China and Russia have followed the usual path from communism to totalitarianism.

The US has to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Many of the countries that have lower standards of living have been colonized by the West and ripped of much of their resources. Even today the US sends foreign aid to over 100 countries. That foreign aid is used to bribe those governments to allow US corporations to loot resources. Iraq is struggling to survive after the US destroyed their people, land and government for their oil. The US is helping Ukraine and support a puppet government that will open that country to the US for the valuable minerals. Little is heard of the US program to spend millions to use drone to assassinate suspected terrorists. Why? It makes profits for our arms mfr and their politicians. Our Congress answers to the big money and ignores the people. No healthcare but 50 billion for bombs and death.

Wrong. Why make blanket statements about verifiable situations without referring to the facts first?

According to Transparency International, the US is the 24th most non-corrupt nation out of 180. That makes it, not the most corrupt country in the world but the 156th most corrupt nation.

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index is based on perception. Those that are surveyed are upper socio-economic business people. I hardly think they would have the same views of corruption and and average person. For example I believe that the corruption involved in the US invasion of Iraq and the Bank Bailout of 2008 may not even be considered corruption to the wealthiest 10%, yet I believe that the sheer magnitude would move the US to the top of the charts. I also doubt that those surveyed would view the foreign aid the US provides to over 100 countries as corrupt. The wealthy have a different definition of corruption than the average person. I think the New York Times is corrupt, don't you?

It's relative. Yes, Iraq was inexcusable but you are only looking at the US and ignoring the enormous corruption of other nations. There are many nations that require palms greased to do anything, and police will pull people over simply to extract bribes.

[Sy Borg]

No, the money pit is not bottomless. When you print more money, it degrades people's savings and ultimately redistributes income upwards, because those at the top can better protect their assets from the resultant inflation.

Note that the money has indeed run out in Argentina. In fact, Argentina has defaulted on its debts four times since 1982.

Economic management is ideally a matter of pragmatically getting the policy balance right to suit the times rather than operating on rigid ideology.

No the "money pit" is another myth. It is fully controlled with targetted taxation.
Have you not noticed how the money put is indeed bottomless when it comes to bailing out the banks? LOL
But there seems to be restrictions on it when it comes to providing basic services?

In the UK after 2009/10 the government manage to find £400billion to hand over the banks.
Larger sums in the USA. It's almost as if things are not being thought through properly.
You'll be telling me next that the deficit is all important.

It seems that you only think one step ahead. Money does run out. I note that you ignored the fact that Argentina keeps defaulting, and have not retracted your incorrect criticisms of Milei. If the old way of doing things does not work, then a new way is ideally followed. Certainly Milei won't be bailing out businesses that fail.

I do at least agree that inefficient businesses need to be allowed to fail rather than supported with taxpayer funds. The issue is when organisations are so huge that their failure would result in severe consequences such a major job losses and loss of people's super. If the risks are deemed too great, then large organisations that are bailed out should have a rapid timeline for paying all of the money back to taxpayers, plus interest - at the same rate as they charge home buyers.

Do you know where money comes from?

You may find this video helpful in trying to understand current economic challenges facing the US. "Kicking the can down the road" by not addressing debt is an imposition on the next generations. There are no pain-free solutions to this, only least worst options.

[Sculptor1]

No the "money pit" is another myth. It is fully controlled with targetted taxation.
Have you not noticed how the money put is indeed bottomless when it comes to bailing out the banks? LOL
But there seems to be restrictions on it when it comes to providing basic services?

In the UK after 2009/10 the government manage to find £400billion to hand over the banks.
Larger sums in the USA. It's almost as if things are not being thought through properly.
You'll be telling me next that the deficit is all important.

It seems that you only think one step ahead. Money does run out. I note that you ignored the fact that Argentina keeps defaulting, and have not retracted your incorrect criticisms of Milei. If the old way of doing things does not work, then a new way is ideally followed. Certainly Milei won't be bailing out businesses that fail.

I do at least agree that inefficient businesses need to be allowed to fail rather than supported with taxpayer funds. The issue is when organisations are so huge that their failure would result in severe consequences such a major job losses and loss of people's super. If the risks are deemed too great, then large organisations that are bailed out should have a rapid timeline for paying all of the money back to taxpayers, plus interest - at the same rate as they charge home buyers.

Do you know where money comes from?

You may find this video helpful in trying to understand current economic challenges facing the US. "Kicking the can down the road" by not addressing debt is an imposition on the next generations. There are no pain-free solutions to this, only least worst options.

I asked you , because you do not seem to know. I was not asking for a lesson. I know where money comes from.

[Sy Borg]

It seems that you only think one step ahead. Money does run out. I note that you ignored the fact that Argentina keeps defaulting, and have not retracted your incorrect criticisms of Milei. If the old way of doing things does not work, then a new way is ideally followed. Certainly Milei won't be bailing out businesses that fail.

I do at least agree that inefficient businesses need to be allowed to fail rather than supported with taxpayer funds. The issue is when organisations are so huge that their failure would result in severe consequences such a major job losses and loss of people's super. If the risks are deemed too great, then large organisations that are bailed out should have a rapid timeline for paying all of the money back to taxpayers, plus interest - at the same rate as they charge home buyers.

Do you know where money comes from?

You may find this video helpful in trying to understand current economic challenges facing the US. "Kicking the can down the road" by not addressing debt is an imposition on the next generations. There are no pain-free solutions to this, only least worst options.

I asked you , because you do not seem to know. I was not asking for a lesson. I know where money comes from.

You received a lesson because you obviously needed it, and I figured that others would find the video interesting.
If you understood money, you would not speak as if higher tax rates always bring higher revenues.