What does Socialism Add to the Economy?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what-does-socialism-add-to-the-economy

I don't know what you mean when you use that word, but I mean collecting and spending taxes to improve life. Socialism isn't there to improve the economy, just overall well-being, although I think that having infrastructure and developing human potential do help the economy

This is from a post that's now a week old:

"Personally, I support a well-regulated capitalist economy tempered with socialism to support the commonwealth (infrastructure, military, police), support human development (free public education, small business start-up loans, public health care, GI bill) and for the unlucky (disabled, mentally ill, homeless)."

That's why Nanny State has to spank one's naughty bottom. Those people deserve a spanking by Nanny. In fact , they should have two good spankings, or maybe three , or maybe go for four.... five. .....perhaps six even?

The nanny state is in full force now. Nannies are telling you what books you can read, what sports you can play and which bathrooms you can use, who you can love (and formerly, marry), that you can't have an abortion, contraception, of access to IVF.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The nanny state is in full force now. Nannies are telling you what books you can read, what sports you can play and which bathrooms you can use, who you can love (and formerly, marry), that you can't have an abortion, contraception, of access to IVF.

It's a mechanism I fear that isn't going to go away now that both Democrats and Republicans are using it. It's going to be a rock and a hard place for common citizens to be able to make almost any choice for themselves as it seems year after year government makes for a tighter grip around people's throats (and wallets) through expansion of the nanny state.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what-does-socialism-add-to-the-economy

I don't know what you mean when you use that word, but I mean collecting and spending taxes to improve life. Socialism isn't there to improve the economy, just overall well-being, although I think that having infrastructure and developing human potential do help the economy

This is from a post that's now a week old:

"Personally, I support a well-regulated capitalist economy tempered with socialism to support the commonwealth (infrastructure, military, police), support human development (free public education, small business start-up loans, public health care, GI bill) and for the unlucky (disabled, mentally ill, homeless)."

That's why Nanny State has to spank one's naughty bottom. Those people deserve a spanking by Nanny. In fact , they should have two good spankings, or maybe three , or maybe go for four.... five. .....perhaps six even?

The nanny state is in full force now. Nannies are telling you what books you can read, what sports you can play and which bathrooms you can use, who you can love (and formerly, marry), that you can't have an abortion, contraception, of access to IVF.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you didn't have a system in place where the tax payers pay your hospital bills, who do you think should pay for it?

The exact same as if we didn't have a system in place where the tax payers pay the fire department bills: the one making use of the service.
Then the patients (or the people whose house is on fire) become the "customers" of the medical service (or fire department).

Problem with universal health care in a country like the USA is we have 10 million illegal immigrants crossing the border who aren't paying into the pot, but will be taking from the pot when they get hurt. IMO we would have to fix our border problems before even thinking about Universal Healthcare. Problem is there are a lot of people in positions of power who don't want it fixed.

I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument.
Over here in Belgium, hospitals and doctors etc require my belgian identity card to "plug me in" to the system of universal healthcare.
If, say, a tourist goes to a doctor here, he doesn't enjoy those benefits.

Illegal people don't have any papers and while certainly anyone will get minimum treatment in case of say a car crash or alike, it's not at all the case that they can make full use of all medical attention.

For example, I had shoulder pains some time ago. I went to a doctor who sent me to a specialist. Specialist said I required surgery to fix the problem properly. After surgery I had 40 sessions of revalidation fysio therapy (well, 20... extended afterwards with another 20).

This was not life threatening at all. I wasn't in any danger. It was just "supraspinatus tendonitis", which in reality is just "discomfort". An illegal person would not get any of this treatment.


Having said all that: I'll be bold and claim that even if those "illegal immigrants" all could make full use of the universal health care, then still americans would be better off and the government would still pay less per capita then they do today. Privatized unregulated health care and privatized health insurance is a mega money sink, with all kinds of unnecessary third parties all taking a "piece of the pie" which raises prices without actually contributing to the actual health care.

 

[PureX]

?

It is not society’s purpose to “add to the economy”. It is the purpose of “the economy” (commerce) to add to the well being of the society engaging in it.

“The economy” is not our god, that we must serve it as our master.

 

[Nakosis]

It is not society’s purpose to “add to the economy”. It is the purpose of “the economy” (commerce) to add to the well being of the society engaging in it.

“The economy” is not our god, that we must serve it as our master.

If we don't master the economy then it will master us.

 

[Stevicus]

If we don't master the economy then it will master us.

You make it sound like the economy is some sort of wild beast that has to be tamed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You make it sound like the economy is some sort of wild beast that has to be tamed.

And as if there is an universal we and only one way to do an economy.

 

[Kfox]

The exact same as if we didn't have a system in place where the tax payers pay the fire department bills: the one making use of the service.
Then the patients (or the people whose house is on fire) become the "customers" of the medical service (or fire department).

So to answer the original question, why would the person charging for his services feel ashamed and be unable to sleep at night if such a system were not in place, and he had to charge those who use his services?

I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument.
Over here in Belgium, hospitals and doctors etc require my belgian identity card to "plug me in" to the system of universal healthcare.
If, say, a tourist goes to a doctor here, he doesn't enjoy those benefits.

Illegal people don't have any papers and while certainly anyone will get minimum treatment in case of say a car crash or alike, it's not at all the case that they can make full use of all medical attention.

For example, I had shoulder pains some time ago. I went to a doctor who sent me to a specialist. Specialist said I required surgery to fix the problem properly. After surgery I had 40 sessions of revalidation fysio therapy (well, 20... extended afterwards with another 20).

This was not life threatening at all. I wasn't in any danger. It was just "supraspinatus tendonitis", which in reality is just "discomfort". An illegal person would not get any of this treatment.


Having said all that: I'll be bold and claim that even if those "illegal immigrants" all could make full use of the universal health care, then still americans would be better off and the government would still pay less per capita then they do today. Privatized unregulated health care and privatized health insurance is a mega money sink, with all kinds of unnecessary third parties all taking a "piece of the pie" which raises prices without actually contributing to the actual health care.

In Sanctuary cities in the USA Illegal Immigrants are given driver’s license and other documents allowing them to drive, even vote(even though they aren’t supposed to vote, there is nothing in place preventing them). I’m sure they would be given whatever cards necessary to plug them into the system of Universal healthcare in such cities. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it can’t be done here, I’m just saying things would have to be changed from how they are now and done more like it is done in Belgium in order for us to do this

 

[Stevicus]

And as if there is an universal we and only one way to do an economy.

Yes. For the most part, when people talk about the "economic system," it's really a discussion of the political system.

 

[Kfox]

It is not society’s purpose to “add to the economy”. It is the purpose of “the economy” (commerce) to add to the well being of the society engaging in it.

I disagree. It is the job of society to add to the economy, without a thriving economy, society can't survive. And when you put an economic system in place that rewards laziness and discourages accomplishment and innovation, that hurts society; not help it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. It is the job of society to add to the economy, without a thriving economy, society can't survive. And when you put an economic system in place that rewards laziness and discourages accomplishment and innovation, that hurts society; not help it.

There is more to society than that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So to answer the original question, why would the person charging for his services feel ashamed and be unable to sleep at night if such a system were not in place, and he had to charge those who use his services?

That wasn't your original question. Your original question only asked who should pay for the medical bills. There was no mention of shame or being able to sleep at night from the point of view of the medical practitioner. Nor do I have any particular opinion about that.

I just think it's better for everyone if health care is treated more like a public service instead of a luxury product.
For me, health care falls in the same category as public safety, traffic infrastructure, fire safety, etc. I would also add education to that list.

In Sanctuary cities in the USA Illegal Immigrants are given driver’s license and other documents allowing them to drive, even vote(even though they aren’t supposed to vote, there is nothing in place preventing them). I’m sure they would be given whatever cards necessary to plug them into the system of Universal healthcare in such cities. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it can’t be done here, I’m just saying things would have to be changed from how they are now and done more like it is done in Belgium in order for us to do this

Illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses and voting rights etc... that's quite insane.

Imo illegals should be put in a center, cared for in humane ways (shelter, food, clothing, medical attention as needed even perhaps some schooling for kids...) and processed asap. And "processed" means either given papers and turned legal (after which they can leave the center and start their lives as free legal citizens or temp refugees or what-not) or deported to the country of origin.

I don't mind immigrants at all, but being illegal helps nobody... not the society and most definitely not the illegals themselves.
Processing is essential.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree. It is the job of society to add to the economy, without a thriving economy, society can't survive. And when you put an economic system in place that rewards laziness and discourages accomplishment and innovation, that hurts society; not help it.

This.

The southern part of our country (the french speaking region called Wallonie) suffers from this problem.
Unemployment wellfare checks are so high that the difference between working (at minimum wage) and not working is ridiculous. Like 200 bucks or something.
So staying unemployed, is like going on an infinite paid vacation.

Unsurprisingly, Wallonie has the highest number of unemployed people in Belgium.
The socialists have been in power in the french region for decades and this was like some holy grail for them to leave untouched.
Finally they suffered an election defeat now and there's a golden opportunity for the liberals the break that down.
The new federal government will more then likely put into law something akin to losing unemployment benefits after 1 or 2 years - or at least drastically lowering it.
That + a whole bunch of other things that make "working" worthwhile as opposed to not working.

Wallonie has been a real money drain for the federal budget for decades. It's in part also the ammunition of the far right nationalists of Flanders.

 

[Stevicus]

I disagree. It is the job of society to add to the economy, without a thriving economy, society can't survive. And when you put an economic system in place that rewards laziness and discourages accomplishment and innovation, that hurts society; not help it.

As I mentioned early on in this thread, the economy is the people as an aggregate whole - and the same idea applies to "society" as well. So, basically, this statement is "it is the job of the people to add to the people."

Also, I would question the notion that one can "put an economic system in place." A "system" is really just an ad hoc bundle of laws, policies, practices, procedures, structures, rules that people tend to follow for whatever reason. Oftentimes it's influenced by culture, which in turn influences the voting public and political system. They don't just "put an economic system in place" in a single step. Our system is the result of centuries of trial and error - and one wonders if we're ever really going to get it right.

 

[wellwisher]

Socialism adds debt, mediocrity and corruption as witnessed by the Harris and Biden administration. The National debt borrows from the future to pay for all the inefficiencies of socialism. Now the interest on the national socialist debt is more than what we spend on national defense. The interest on the debt is now at $892 Billion annually.

This house of card looks appealing as long as you go not look at the bottom line and realize this house of cards is not sustainable. The Democrats have this tendency to bury their heads in the sand, like they are doing with the Harris campaign; ignored the problems and they appear to go away.

 

[wellwisher]

As I mentioned early on in this thread, the economy is the people as an aggregate whole - and the same idea applies to "society" as well. So, basically, this statement is "it is the job of the people to add to the people."

Also, I would question the notion that one can "put an economic system in place." A "system" is really just an ad hoc bundle of laws, policies, practices, procedures, structures, rules that people tend to follow for whatever reason. Oftentimes it's influenced by culture, which in turn influences the voting public and political system. They don't just "put an economic system in place" in a single step. Our system is the result of centuries of trial and error - and one wonders if we're ever really going to get it right.

That is not exactly true due to the ever growing national debt and the interest on that debt. Borrowing from the future adds things that could not be added if we needed to have a balanced budget. The borrowing creates a house of cards that can pervert that "system". Without the debt the tax revenue or budget could only expand if the economy is growing. Socialism drags down the economy, unless we borrow from the future with a house of cards. That is not sustainable.

We need to stop borrowing and then trim the fat of socialism. If the Government is not borrowing, there is more money for the economy to borrow, where it can turn a profit instead of Government depreciating the tax dollar by -22.7 % last year. If Government could not borrow, then more money for borrowing is in the economy. This will lower interest rates, since the borrowing supply will exceed borrowing demand and the rates will come down to help stimulate investment, like borrowing for home ownership.

 

[metis]

Both what?

No; the real question is what do these socialist leaders do to add to the economy.,

Obviously, you don't much understand even basic macro-economics, such as even the "Law of Supply & Demand".

 

[metis]

The National debt borrows from the future to pay for all the inefficiencies of socialism.

The single largest deficit created in U.S. history was Trump's massive tax cut that went mostly to the well-healed and they were not and are not paid for.

 

[Stevicus]

That is not exactly true due to the ever growing national debt and the interest on that debt. Borrowing from the future adds things that could not be added if we needed to have a balanced budget. The borrowing creates a house of cards that can pervert that "system". Without the debt the tax revenue or budget could only expand if the economy is growing. Socialism drags down the economy, unless we borrow from the future with a house of cards. That is not sustainable.

We need to stop borrowing and then trim the fat of socialism. If the Government is not borrowing, there is more money for the economy to borrow, where it can turn a profit instead of Government depreciating the tax dollar by -22.7 % last year. If Government could not borrow, then more money for borrowing is in the economy. This will lower interest rates, since the borrowing supply will exceed borrowing demand and the rates will come down to help stimulate investment, like borrowing for home ownership.

I agree that we should not have saddled ourselves with such heavy debts. But the political positions and the parties which are responsible for those debts are/were far from anything resembling socialism. The corrupted bureaucracy seems more interested in feathering their own nests. They want to be rich, just like capitalists are rich. They don't appear to have any genuine interest in the social good of society.