Socialism makes production less desirable, harder to obtain, and impossible to sustain.
this should speed up healthcare reform???
- Thread starter SkaarjMaster
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
- Status
Socialism makes production less desirable, harder to obtain, and impossible to sustain.
How? People still produce things and get paid to do so and they still desire things as well and so spend their money in obtaining them. That they own the means of the production and are compensated thus for their work rather than a top down approach where a rich entity owns the production and hands out wages doesn't make them less in need or want of goods or less able to work. The idea is to decentralize the power so that wages are paid on a more fair basis, it isn't to cease production.
~Jason
By Demonizing industry and everyone involved in making industry succeed you strip from them their desire, and their resources in making production feasible. Which includes owners, workers, investors etc. Everyone is demoralized and fails to see the logic in continuing if they only serve you and not themselves. Without rights to your property, without freedom to make business decisions, own your own business, without the idea to get paid more when you do well, etc you do nothing more then make industry fail.
Last edited:
Regarding my opinion, the harder jobs are typically at the bottom and 2nd/3rd from the top. Except if people figure out a way to be lazy at the bottom (common in offices and service oriented businesses, rare on agriculture, industry, mining). But the truth is that this is NOT opinion dependent. If it's right or wrong, that can be concluded from reports regarding work related health problems, accidents, early retirements, avg hours/week per activity sector, etc...Larkin said:
I get that. It's other form of desire and motivation, like willing to be free, to learn, to fight for an idea or belief, to have sex ...
Ok, about socialism. What I see is that it's about blocking a market distortion. It's hard for me to describe, but let me try.
The faster the money moves from one hand to the other, the higher the motivation to grow, produce, work and spend. That spending becomes someone else's income and so on. That's something that only a free entreprise and capitalism system can provide, right? But for it be sustainable, the money must keep flowing. To improve, there must be added value. Lacking this, is probably one of the reasons why such socialism doesn't work well.
I believe that the reform didn't want to target medical care, just trying to stop the behaviour of insurance companies. They don't bring added value, they just "leech" the money flow preventing it to enter health professionals pockets. They also block money from flowing because they are not re-investing it, just accumulate it or send it elsewhere.
These clowns, these parasites, are as productive and help the economy as much as that guy that stays home just because he doesn't want to work! They have nothing to do with a typical business where you have production, distributors, sales people, technical staff. They do nothing! A functional insurance company collects a fee and in exchance assumes the risk, giving the client peace of mind. But these guys aren't bringing mutualism or safety, because they rise the profit as they want and are free to deny coverage and avoid losses.
Look, I'm glad to contribute to help someone that deserves to be admired for effort and courage, even someone that can't work because he/she is temporary disabled but still makes a best effort. I don't mind to pay in full to a doctor that studied hard and is extremely competent ( in fact I did until 2 years ago or so, 70€ per appointment iirc). But likewise, I'm also frustrated if I have to work for parasites regardless of who they are! Aren't they both destroying my right to keep the money I deserve and worked for??
I don't know what to say to you about the rest. imo you're not wrong when you say or imply that socialism can be very radical. I know that because the communists managed to economically screw the country in 1.5 years as much as the other guy in 48. But think if you're not being too radical on your views and doing the same: supporting ****ers that don't deserve your effort.
Well, the law by the elected government, the local associations and communities, common sense. I don't know what you expect me to say here tbh. But stealing; lying on advertising or ripping people off; trying to push harmful or defective products; charging for something what they want, just because they can; bypassing the market rules; price fixing;
Both as consumer and as competitor that I aspired to be, it's clear that they are screwing my rights and a distortition competition rules. It amounts to the same as getting an aimbot and cheating on UT3, it's unfair advantage
Last edited:
That makes no sense. A socialist system removes ownership from a centralized power and puts it in the collective hands of the workers. If the company does exceedingly well then everyone in the company reaps the profits from that, unlike a capitalist system in which if the company does exceedingly well then the top echelon benefits whereas the majority of the workers see little to nothing from it.
A fantastic example of how this works is United Airlines v Southwest Airlines. United pays pilots higher wages, but doesn't provide any stock sharing, resulting in pilots that care enough to keep their job that are taking in lots of cash (that the company can't spend otherwise). Southwest pays less, but incentivizes with stocks which creates an attitude of wanting to excel so as to maximize their profits. In the end, you have Southwest Airlines which has been in the black since its inception with the workers of the airline reaping the benefits of vastly soared stocks which equals a total higher pay (which further gives them incentive to work harder to make more money), whereas United has been constantly mired in financial debt and it is next to impossible to get the pilots to agree to concessions to lower their pay which the company needs in order to stay afloat because what's in it for them? Nothing. A socialist integration into a capitalistic system is the best of both worlds, fuels hard work and integrity and increases profits.
~Jason
this entire statement demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of socialism on your part.
socialism does not demonize industry at all.
again, you display a consistent ignorance in your understanding of how socialism works.
but that's not how it works.
socialism does not remove the incentive for production. people who work within a socialist system are serving themselves.
socialism does not mean the elimination of private property.
socialism does not mean the elimination of free market enterprise.
Larkin, every time you start talking about why you think socialism is wrong I get this nostalgic feeling. it's as if I am walking around the deep south during the 1950's.
that's because the sum total of your "knowledge" (and I use that term lightly) regarding socialism is rooted in left over, Red Scare propaganda about communism. you clearly do not know anything about socialism in practice. you keep citing these broad theories about how evil it is based on some overplayed garbage you heard from Ronald Reagan.
It is of little material what the workers get out of the job when talking of the survival of the business. Your conclusion is a cluster**** of illogical thought and ignorance. When you give ownership of the business to the workers you don't just strip a right(which you don't give a **** about) but you give the business over to people that care little about the survival of the business and more about what they can get out of it. The only time they even remotely care about the survival of the business is when its about to fail. Usually when that time is over though they go back into not caring. GM is not a one time thing.
Last edited:
way to miss the point entirely.
but that's just like you.
your replies become more nonsensical the deeper we get into your obvious misunderstanding of socialism.
but that's just like you.
your replies become more nonsensical the deeper we get into your obvious misunderstanding of socialism.
just like a child who doesn't want to be told he's wrong, Larkin reverts to an infantile state in a feeble attempt to hide his lack of intellect on the subject.
and now I'm on ignore??wow, you sure do give up easily when you're faced with adversity.
be a man, faggot.
argue with me. it's only the internet.
Last edited:
First, you're an idiot. I'm not talking about stripping ownership from people, I am talking about a different model in which non-centralized ownership is inherent.
Secondly, you are saying that people who depend on the company making money in order to make money themselves wouldn't care about the company doing well? Really? Not only is that illogical, it is flat out wrong. Giving people stock options (ownership), IMPROVES productivity because they are financially motivated to work harder.
I suppose that someone who's source is an unfinished copy of Atlus Shrugged, however, couldn't be bothered with logic or facts.
~Jason
Last edited:
you really have no idea how to construct a sound argument.
I even quoted it.
but you don't reply with logic.
you reply with "OMG YOU'RE TROLLING I'M IGNORING YOU"
I did say.
I even quoted it.
but you don't reply with logic.
you reply with "OMG YOU'RE TROLLING I'M IGNORING YOU"
It not only works, it is a more effective way of conducting and encouraging business and productivity while increasing profits. I have given examples and EAGERLY await your counter examples.
~Jason
are you blind or do you pretend to be stupid in order to annoy people?
it's right here:
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=2406039&postcount=208
I didn't use a single insult in that post.
I pointed out where you were wrong and corrected you.
now I made a comment about you being stuck in 1950, which is sort of an insult.
but that was only to make the point that your ideas about socialism stem from tired, anti-Russian propaganda. not fact.
it's right here:
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=2406039&postcount=208
I didn't use a single insult in that post.
I pointed out where you were wrong and corrected you.
now I made a comment about you being stuck in 1950, which is sort of an insult.
but that was only to make the point that your ideas about socialism stem from tired, anti-Russian propaganda. not fact.
Last edited:
but what else do you want "behind it"?
you want me to dig up and reanimate the corpse of Friedrich Engels so he can tell you in person that your assumptions about socialism are inaccurate?
I'm just pointing out where your assumptions are incorrect and telling you how it actually works. I don't know what else you want.
you want me to dig up and reanimate the corpse of Friedrich Engels so he can tell you in person that your assumptions about socialism are inaccurate?
I'm just pointing out where your assumptions are incorrect and telling you how it actually works. I don't know what else you want.
- Status