Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Our Socialist trend.....


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 9, 2012 1:55:10 PM PST
M. Emrich says:
If there's one clear, defining trait of socialism, it'd be that folks work for the government rather than private industry. After all, to qualify as socialism requires social ownership of the means of production. Private employers aren't socially owned.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/08/socialist-presidents-who-comes-closer-fdr-obama-or-reagan-short-answer-reagan/

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 1:57:42 PM PST
Katrina says:
Investors own Corporations. That's like Socialism. Well, Socialism for the Wealthy. They 'own' the means of production.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 2:05:14 PM PST
freedom4all says:
Katrina, you can buy stock in companies or mutual funds which own stocks of many companies.

Posted on Feb 9, 2012 2:09:56 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 9, 2012 2:11:24 PM PST
Mende Mui says:
Capitalism now tends to use socialist means to save its self...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 2:13:21 PM PST
freedom4all says:
MM, crony capitalism has always been with us; Hamilton-Clay-Lincoln

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 3:28:46 PM PST
Katrina says:
freedom4all says:
Katrina, you can buy stock in companies or mutual funds which own stocks of many companies.
___________________________________________________________

Sooo...I could buy stocks in Companies. I could become a Socialist,...in a sense. I would be an Owner, a partial one, of the 'means of Production'. Just like the Wealthy. That sounds enticing.

Would I benefit by making the company 'leaner', downsizing as it were? How about kicking out the overpaid union thugs, and replacing them with younger, more 'hungry' workers? I'm all about Profits, you know. I'm starting to rub my hands together just thinking about how much money I could make just sitting here. Hmmmm...how could I increase my Quarterly Distributions? Whoaaa...offshoring! Has anybody given thought to relocating these companies to low wage areas? Preferrably with no regulations to get in the way of Maximizing Profits. Jeez!...I'm starting to drool.

Any suggestions? I think owning the 'means of Production' is a good idea. Well, I mean for the few of us insiders. If everybody was an Owner, where's the Money in that?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 3:44:40 PM PST
freedom4all says:
Katrina, or you can become a an entrepreneur and be sole owner of your own business.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 8:03:40 PM PST
Katrina says:
hahaha. freedom4all.
That sounds like too much work. I like your earlier suggestion. Just laying back, watching the drones do the actual work, trying to figure out how to squeeze another nickel out of their over paid hides. Well, that, and complaining that I have to pay 15% in taxes. 15%!!!! Gee! The drones do the work,...let them pay the taxes. Yes, a lot of leisure time spent THINKING on how to make MORE money. Moving the factories out of the high wage areas is good, a smart move, no doubt about it. I'll tell you, the Distributions from the offshore companies sure beat the S&P 500. The head scratcher is; what to do with the businesses you can't offshore? hahaha, yeah, I know, Mexicans. They're still too expensive. I'm thinking Chinese! China has way too many people, we need cheap labor (not the overpaid Mexicans we're stuck with now), this could be a win-win for everybody (well, except for the American drones). Work with me on this freedom4all, I think we can continue to Maximize Profits. THINK. THINK.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2012 11:23:33 PM PST
A.Rosaria says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:20:50 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 7:24:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 10, 2012 7:25:40 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 10:21:34 AM PST
I have more stuff right now than I can use for the rest of my life. I cannot imagine wanting more or making all of that stuff more permanent. The things that are important to me include my religious freedom, access to information to make good decisions, and my friends and family. The rest is mostly a burden. Yes, I need a place to live, but I have several options in that area.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 11:20:04 AM PST
M. Daniel says:
Katrina says: Investors own Corporations. That's like Socialism. Well, Socialism for the Wealthy. They 'own' the means of production.

It is not socialism because it is private, not government ownership. Millions of Americans have investments in 401(k), IRA, etc. accounts and are not the wealthy. A large number of those workers (refinery, teachers, etc.) now have accounts worth over $1 million if they have been working 30-40 years.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 11:53:12 AM PST
Katrina says:
Daniel.

That's true.

I'm oversimplifying. Trying to point out the difference between the 'Haves', and the 'Have-Nots'.

The 'Have-Nots' seem to do the most work, and seem to be treated the worst.

Socialism would mean the 'Have-Nots' would also be 'owners of the means of production'.

Yes, I know, they could buy shares too. But, since they live hand-to-mouth, that's not likely.

Posted on Feb 10, 2012 12:16:35 PM PST
M. Daniel says:
Katrina says: "The 'Have-Nots' seem to do the most work, and seem to be treated the worst.
Socialism would mean the 'Have-Nots' would also be 'owners of the means of production'.

Most workers are not "have-not's." American workers have a higher standard of living than those in socialist nations. In those nations it is the government, not the workers, who own the means of production and workers have little influence---the former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba are examples. Compare workers in Britain that privatized some of the publicly owned industries. Compare the Postal Service to UPS workers.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 1:17:39 PM PST
Katrina says:
Daniel.
Most 'workers' are 'have-nots'. Just because you're saying they aren't, doesn't make it true. The first people to cash in their 401s and IRAs during the 2008 downward spiral of the economy, were the 'peripheril' workers. They are cashed out. People who don't have jobs, people who are losing their homes and cars, aren't investing in 'the means of production'. They don't have any money.

The 'haves' were buying at the bottom. While many were scrambling to stay in survival mode, the 'haves' were continueing to scoop up 'the means of production' at rock bottom prices. The Goldman Sachs guy, Henry Paulson, the Republican (Government should stay out of business) Secretary of the Treasury, transferred 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to Wall Street in only 3 days. It usually takes 6 months to get a million dollars to build a bridge somewhere. 3 days is pretty impressive, that's Power. The worker drones weren't on the receiving end of that. Hey, I would have loved getting a loan of a million dollars when the Dow was at 6,700. That's almost a 'double' in 3 years. Sweet!

No one is arguing that America isn't a cush place to live. Another poster mentioned 'quality of life', versus 'stuff'. You need 'stuff' to a point, then, it's about quality of life.

PS. why are those people at the Ipad Factory in China jacking up the price with all their nonsense. I mean, really, building a big net around the building to catch the people jumping to their deaths is costly. It's cutting into my Profits, something needs to be done.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 1:37:08 PM PST
M. Daniel says:
You compare the workers to a few very wealthy people. Workers certainly have less than those people, but they certainly are not have-not's. While some did cash-in those retirement accounts, most did not because they cannot touch the money until they retire. Those accounts have largely regained all the losses that occurred in 2008. Those without jobs who are losing their homes that are not sharing the in the means of production are no different than those in socialist nations. Those Chinese workers who are jumping to their deaths are doing so in a socialist country---so the profits of a capitalist system are not the problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 10, 2012 2:27:23 PM PST
S. Evans says:
@MD: "Compare the Postal Service to UPS workers. "

My ex worked (still does) for the USPS. Makes $50K/year, lives in a nice neighborhood, has a decent car and standard of living. He is union. I don't know what UPS drivers make, but the truck loaders used to get paid < $10/hr. and were only PT, typically 4 hrs./shift.

You could also choose to compare our standard of living with other "socialist" countries such as Norway, Austria, Germany, etc. Their standard of living surpasses ours, and has for some time. I personally don't see them as purely socialist, but they are often held out that way by conservatives when they are worrying about Obama leading us down the road to socialist prosperi.... er, doom.

Posted on Feb 10, 2012 4:14:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 10, 2012 4:20:10 PM PST
M. Daniel says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 10, 2012 6:42:00 PM PST
J. Potter says:
!!!---"people choose to work for those wages because it is better than starving. So it is a win-win."--!!!

The capitalists on this thread are doing a terrible job of defending capitalism. Don't they know anything about their own ethos?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 1:08:43 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 2:36:15 AM PST
visionary says:
f4 [[Katrina, you can buy stock in companies or mutual funds which own stocks of many companies. ]]

However widely dispersed stock ownership may have become in recent years, the vast majority of shares are still held by the wealthy. It is this simple, incontestable fact of American life that, more than almost anything else, has permitted the massive skewing of wealth distribution in the last two decades. Stocks are the economic engine that has generally made the rich so very much richer and the rest of us, first through the bull market of the eighties and then through the bull market of the nineties. There is no controversy or secrecy about these facts: an economist as partial to the New Economy as Lester Thurow acknowledges that America's widening inequality can be attributed directly to the rising stock market. A full 86% of the market's advances in the last four years of the bull market, he points out, went to the wealthiest 10% of the population. The majority of the population, not owning any stock, shared in the great money hand out not at all. The booming stock market nineties did not democratize wealth; it concentrated wealth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 2:58:02 AM PST
visionary says:
katrina, Some info for you and the others: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 5:38:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 12, 2012 8:01:51 PM PST
Brian McGregor says:

capitalism needs no defense. who is threatening it, OWS?

everyone knows capitalism produces the max prosperity to the most people.
=======================
to add.
Regardless of how a country is defined. They compete as capitalists on the world stage.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2012 5:42:41 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  43
Total posts:  1165
Initial post:  Feb 9, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 28, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions