-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When Democrats became Socialist.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm watching the UK right now. It's probably far ahead of the game compared to other free world countries and it's looking more like a potential communist country in the making every decade that passes.
Bethsheba Ashe
Member
I'm from the UK, and I think that assessment ignores the fact that the Tory government has been selling off the NHS piecemeal and other nationalized businesses (like Water, or the Mail), usually to the detriment of the common weel. When Jeremy Corbyn gets in, there's be a re-balancing of the public/private spheres. Certain industries may be nationalized once more because it makes more sense for them to be under government control than in the hands of private business, but the UK will not become communist country.
They have social programs. But have capitalist economies. They are not socialist. They are capitalist.
Not always...
Not exactly a history book is it eh?
Bethsheba Ashe
Member
They're both.
Can't be both.
They are capitalist economies, the means of production are owned privately.
They have a ton of social programs and tax the ever living crap out of the middle and upper class. But still capitalist nonetheless.
Socialism the state owns the means of production. Which this is the path that leads to communism. Eventually the "democratic socialist" state corrupts and then it becomes a communist dictatorship. Because the politicians (shock) start keeping the profits for themselves instead of dividing it like they should amongst the people. Last time I check this has been tried in 110 times, it has failed 108 of those times, so far. That is a 98.2% rate of failure.
I won't lie. Socialism is a nice idea. And if the human race was able to adhere to it, it would probably work. But that's all it is, an idea that realistically can't be achieved because of human nature itself. In fact I've seen socialism/communism work very well, but only within small communities of tightly knit people. Applied to a larger scale country with millions of people and it exponentially spirals completely out of control, mostly due to the large amount of money/greed involved.
I'm all for pragmatic social programs. But not at the cost of handing over means of production to the state.
Capitalism isn't perfect by any means. It's able to be corrupted as well. But it does have a higher success rate and more prosperity. The U.S and Western Europe are prime examples of this prosperity.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The main problem with Socialism, is government never turns a profit. The government never makes the tax payer's money grow. They never give the tax payer a return on their taxes, as a dividend.
The free market, on the other hand, creates wealth, that allows the GNP to grow. You can get a rate of return on our money, that also allows the loaner to make money. The net result is, if the wealth of the country is placed in the hands of the government; Socialism, the pot will get smaller with time. If you place that same wealth in the hands of the free market, the wealth of the nation grows. Wealth is needed to pay for everything.
I can buy a government bond and earn interest. The government loses money, based on the interest they pay me to borrow. The do not even know how to invest my money, to make a profit for themselves, like a bank.
Trump is sort of an exception in that he used Government for trade deals. Thishelped grow the GNP to 3.2% in the first quarter of 2019. This is not how the swamp typically works. The old deals were designed to lower the GNP; huge trade deficits, for national loss.
Socialism can work at the very beginning, when the free market golden goose is healthy and laying eggs; strong growing economy. But as government takes over things, the GNP will shrink, and may even go negative. The government never turns a profit, or even breaks even. This results in the goose, that lays the golden egg, eventually being cooked, to stay afloat for a little longer. Eventually it all breaks down.
If government could turn a profit, Socialism could work. But currently, the US government borrows money, thereby increasing the debt; huge negative profit. No free market business could survive with this strategy. The dummies in government are already under water, making Socialism a suicide pact. It is the free market that is bailing out the sinking ship. If you put government in charge of the bailing, the ship will sink. They will add more water; borrow more.
Unless government can, at the very minimum, balance its budget and beak even, don't even go there. A balance budget has to be the first step to show we have competent people in charge. Only competent people have a shot at holding off the inevitable decline, due to government based negative GNP; deficits, as Socialist government takes over parts of the economy for a loss.
The Green deal, tuition forgiveness, free medical, etc., are all freebie lures for votes. They are not practical, since they require too much money leave the economy; taxes and borrowing. This is done in favor of a government, where wealth will shrink even more. This is the recipe for the death spiral of Socialism.
On the other hand, say we shrunk government to a minimal size. The negative impact of government, on the economy, would be smaller. With more money in the economy, this would maximize the creation of wealth in the private sector. I would ten support free enterprise, paying its taxes, though direct delivering social program benefits, to the citizens. This provides benefits while bypassing, the waste of government, so there is less impact on overall growth, taxes and more benefits.
The free market, on the other hand, creates wealth, that allows the GNP to grow. You can get a rate of return on our money, that also allows the loaner to make money. The net result is, if the wealth of the country is placed in the hands of the government; Socialism, the pot will get smaller with time. If you place that same wealth in the hands of the free market, the wealth of the nation grows. Wealth is needed to pay for everything.
I can buy a government bond and earn interest. The government loses money, based on the interest they pay me to borrow. The do not even know how to invest my money, to make a profit for themselves, like a bank.
Trump is sort of an exception in that he used Government for trade deals. Thishelped grow the GNP to 3.2% in the first quarter of 2019. This is not how the swamp typically works. The old deals were designed to lower the GNP; huge trade deficits, for national loss.
Socialism can work at the very beginning, when the free market golden goose is healthy and laying eggs; strong growing economy. But as government takes over things, the GNP will shrink, and may even go negative. The government never turns a profit, or even breaks even. This results in the goose, that lays the golden egg, eventually being cooked, to stay afloat for a little longer. Eventually it all breaks down.
If government could turn a profit, Socialism could work. But currently, the US government borrows money, thereby increasing the debt; huge negative profit. No free market business could survive with this strategy. The dummies in government are already under water, making Socialism a suicide pact. It is the free market that is bailing out the sinking ship. If you put government in charge of the bailing, the ship will sink. They will add more water; borrow more.
Unless government can, at the very minimum, balance its budget and beak even, don't even go there. A balance budget has to be the first step to show we have competent people in charge. Only competent people have a shot at holding off the inevitable decline, due to government based negative GNP; deficits, as Socialist government takes over parts of the economy for a loss.
The Green deal, tuition forgiveness, free medical, etc., are all freebie lures for votes. They are not practical, since they require too much money leave the economy; taxes and borrowing. This is done in favor of a government, where wealth will shrink even more. This is the recipe for the death spiral of Socialism.
On the other hand, say we shrunk government to a minimal size. The negative impact of government, on the economy, would be smaller. With more money in the economy, this would maximize the creation of wealth in the private sector. I would ten support free enterprise, paying its taxes, though direct delivering social program benefits, to the citizens. This provides benefits while bypassing, the waste of government, so there is less impact on overall growth, taxes and more benefits.