What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?

[Estro Felino]

Thats all conspiracy nonsense! Last year the Fed paid $107.4 Billion to the treasury on income of $107.8 billion. Thats -$400 million for operating costs.

Conspiracy nonsense which is written in any macroeconomics book people use in law schools.

 

[Revoltingest]

And who owns the FED?
ThE Treasury?

Is that your argument to support the claim....
".... it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity."

 

[Estro Felino]

Is that your argument to support the claim....
".... it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity."

Private property and public property are light years away from each other.

Can I have my question answered, now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Can I have my question answered, now?

Ask me one.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ask me one.

Who owns the FED?
The Treasury?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who owns the FED?
The Treasury?

Perhaps you might not be aware that the words "own"
& "ownership" in English have multiple meanings.
And complexity lies between extremes in a spectrum.

I can illustrate with real estate....
Ownership is called a "bundle of rights". One can have
land with rights to minerals, to a portion of airspace, to
to farm, to water, to fill in low areas, to hunt, to build,
etc, etc.
But one can have title (nominal ownership) to land
without any of the above rights. In fact, if government
takes enuf rights from an owner's bundle, the owner
can sue for inverse condemnation because of denial
of use, ie, government owns land that someone else
has title to.

You use the word "own" incorrectly. It would help
if you considered how much control the federal
government exercises over the Federal Reserve
Bank. Then you'd understand that your claim of
no federal involvement is utterly bonkers.

 

[Stevicus]

And who owns the FED?
ThE Treasury?

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.

So, the question is complicated, though should not be cavalierly glossed over as some people are doing here. The key question is, is the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank a benefit to the United States? Does it discourage or encourage corruption in banking?

One argument I often hear in favor of capitalism is that, if someone is given the right incentives, they'll work harder and be more productive. A similar point is often made in regards to invention, creation, and innovation, but this would all presuppose some sort of tangible, utile product, like something that's mined or grown - or maybe produced in a factory.

When the only product a business offers is "paper pushing," that's a bureaucratic process which should be handled by government. Just like some capitalists say that "government does not create jobs," the same could be said about banks, since they neither create nor produce anything at all.

 

[Estro Felino]

Perhaps you might not be aware that the words "own"
& "ownership" in English have multiple meanings.
And complexity lies between extremes in a spectrum.

I can illustrate with real estate....
Ownership is called a "bundle of rights". One can have
land with rights to minerals, to a portion of airspace, to
to farm, to water, to fill in low areas, to hunt, to build,
etc, etc.
But one can have title (nominal ownership) to land
without any of the above rights. In fact, if government
takes enuf rights from an owner's bundle, the owner
can sue for inverse condemnation because of denial
of use, ie, government owns land that someone else
has title to.

You use the word "own" incorrectly. It would help
if you considered how much control the federal
government exercises over the Federal Reserve
Bank. Then you'd understand that your claim of
no federal involvement is utterly bonkers.

Not answering the question.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

So, the question is complicated, though should not be cavalierly glossed over as some people are doing here. The key question is, is the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank a benefit to the United States? Does it discourage or encourage corruption in banking?

One argument I often hear in favor of capitalism is that, if someone is given the right incentives, they'll work harder and be more productive. A similar point is often made in regards to invention, creation, and innovation, but this would all presuppose some sort of tangible, utile product, like something that's mined or grown - or maybe produced in a factory.

When the only product a business offers is "paper pushing," that's a bureaucratic process which should be handled by government. Just like some capitalists say that "government does not create jobs," the same could be said about banks, since they neither create nor produce anything at all.

It saddens me that the American citizens are duped and cheated like that.
In Europe everyone knows that the Federal Reserve Act has established that the FED is privately-owned, after the so called meeting at Jekyll Island, in 1910.
It's a financial entity divided into 12 branches, which are owned by commercial banks.
Private commercial banks.

NY Federal Reserve Bank, for instance, is owned by JPMorgan, Chase and Citygroup.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not answering the question.

The question is inadequate.
Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Estro Felino]

The question is inadequate.
Have you stopped beating your wife?

I have a boyfriend. I am not a lesbian.

The answer is in post #129.

If the FED was owned by the Department of Treasury, the latter would have the money to fund a free universal healthcare system, like that of Britain.
facts are facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a boyfriend. I am not a lesbian.

Have you stopped assaulting him?

The answer is in post #129.

If the FED was owned by the Department of Treasury, the latter had the money to fund a free universal healthcare system, like that of Britain.
facts are facts.

Ignoring facts is your problem.

 

[Valjean]

It's where those systems inevitably lead at the end.

Totalitarian society.

How so? If the people are in charge, who's the totalitarian?

 

[Stevicus]

It saddens me that the American citizens are duped and cheated like that.
In Europe everyone knows that the Federal Reserve Act has established that the FED is privately-owned, after the so called meeting at Jekyll Island, in 1910.
It's a financial entity divided into 12 branches, which are owned by commercial banks.
Private commercial banks.

NY Federal Reserve Bank, for instance, is owned by JPMorgan, Chase and Citygroup.

All banks should be under governmental ownership and control. Since banks don't make a tangible product, then the standard arguments against socialism don't really apply.

By standard arguments against socialism, I'm referring to a commonly used argument about small business owners. A small shopkeeper or restauranteur might work their tail off to build up a successful business, and the logic is that it's only fair and just that they should keep the lion's share of profits. I get that, but that argument doesn't apply to banks.

In other words, banks don't grow beans, they only count them. Logically, the rewards and incentives should go to those who grow the beans, while the counters are just providing a minor peripheral service. That can be easily done by government.

 

[Estro Felino]

All banks should be under governmental ownership and control. Since banks don't make a tangible product, then the standard arguments against socialism don't really apply.

Or the Central Bank, at least. At least that.

By standard arguments against socialism, I'm referring to a commonly used argument about small business owners. A small shopkeeper or restauranteur might work their tail off to build up a successful business, and the logic is that it's only fair and just that they should keep the lion's share of profits. I get that, but that argument doesn't apply to banks.

Exactly.

In other words, banks don't grow beans, they only count them. Logically, the rewards and incentives should go to those who grow the beans, while the counters are just providing a minor peripheral service. That can be easily done by government.

Exactly.

 

[Valjean]

No. One of the best ways to ensure people have "the ability to participate to the functioning of the economic system," and even more so, to better their lives within that economic system, is to give them the ability to engage in private enterprise.

So socialism forbids private enterprise?
Aren't capitalist monopolies more a threat to private enterprise than socialism?

I haven't seen the evidence that we're overpopulated as a planet. We're overcrowded in some areas.

Apparently you haven't looked.
Oceans are becoming uninhabitable for many species. Biodiversity is decreasing at an unprecidented rate. Climate change threatens to make large areas uninhabitable, and continues unchecked. Above and below ground water sources are drying up. Topsoil depth is decreasing in agricultural areas. Al natural biological systems are in crisis.

Should the State limit how many children people are allowed to have? They tried that in China. How has that gone for them?

It worked great; saved billions of dollars and millions of lives. Increased both individual and economic prosperity. Enabled China's economic miracle. Now that citizens have experienced the benefits, the tradition of large families has fallen out of favor and people are voluntarily having fewer children.

 

[Revoltingest]

How so? If the people are in charge, who's the totalitarian?

Tyranny of the majority is a way.

 

[Valjean]

So what? Africa is gigantic and extremely rich in resources. It's just poor because the US (what we did in Libya), Europeans and now the Chinese keep plundering them and playing games to keep their governments unstable. One of the reasons they murdered Gaddafi and overthrew his government is that he championed the idea of an African Union with its own gold currency to compete with the EU, Euro and American Dollar. Can't have that! (We also dump our electronic waste there, which is messed up!)

Also, a lot of places in Africa are actually underpopulated due to things like conflict and the AIDS epidemic, which is still very serious there.

So what's happening to African biodiversity, with human activities using more and more land?

 

[Valjean]

I also believe that public (not state, but public) ownership of certain utilities and means of production is a good goal to strive for, but that would be parallel to the availability of private enterprise rather than exclusive of it.

I think social democracy could work as a temporary stage at most, which is why I don't describe myself as a social democrat. Even the "Nordic model" has major flaws due to overconsumption and unsustainability, especially if it were to be implemented in many more countries.

In socialism the state is the public. It's government "of, by and for the people," to quote Lincoln.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In socialism the state is the public. It's government "of, by and for the people," to quote Lincoln.

Not all varieties of socialism regard the state as synonymous with the public, and a subset of socialists believe in a state of a small-to-moderate size or even no state at all.

I think treating the state as the public is a recipe for disaster, especially the longer the state has the extensive powers derived from that idea. Human nature makes it so that far-reaching power has a lot of potential to corrupt people, and I don't think socialism or any other ideology can avoid that.