Hey friends. I'm a libtard sjw cuck who thinks socialist policies are sensible. Tell me why I'm wrong. If you respond by shitposting at least be funny.
>>65688724
explain the difference between "the 1%" and "the jews"
>>65688724
Libtards don't have any sense of humor so how would you know the shitposting would be funny?
>>65688724
> if shitposting at least be funny
You should have followed your own advice.
>>65688724
You're not wrong.
>>65688724
>>65688724
Hi friend. That quote is fake, as any quick search will tell you.
Some socialist policies are sensible. Which is why you should vote for Trump, who wants universal healthcare coverage and has even spoken fondly of single-payer systems. He also advocates far more trade protectionism than any other Republican, and defends Planned Parenthood.
>>65688792
Lol'd. Unless you're not shitposting I can't tell with /pol/. Don't most of the illuminati level business owners and bankers consider themselves evangelicals?
>>65688724
The problems socialism claims to fix consistently get worse when socialist policies are introduced.
Look at the state of Scotland, look at what happened to Eastern Europe under socialism.
Look what is happening to every current socialist state.
>>65688918
Ok this shitpost is kinda funny.
>>65688951
I know it's fake it was just the only somewhat related picture I could find :^)
>>65689001
This argument has always seemed silly to me because some socialist countries are doing great while others are iffy but doing better than the U.S. with the exception of like Greece, but its failing economy has been blamed more on the shockwaves of the U.S.'s financial crisis causing their major industries to tank and their currency being shit etc. etc. AND their conservative low spending economic policies. There is also no example of a capitalist society quite like the ones conservatives describe to know how good its economy could be. But I actually don't know shit about economics and its hard to avoid information that just reinforces your own biases so I'm actually looking for someone to rip me a new intellectual asshole here
>>65689490
What socialist state is doing great?
Name one.
>>65689490
I should also point out that my not knowing shit about economics means narrowly passing a couple macro econ classes that just seemed to confirm my biases
>>65689556
This
>>65689556
Germany, sweden, norway. Unless theyre not doing great and the jew media and my cuck liberal econ professor is lying to me? (Not shitposting)
>>65689705
Every single one of them is a capitalist country you dumbass cunt
Socialism would be bad for America because that country's whole schtick is being a giant laboratory for business with exceptionally favourable conditions for it. There is not one country on the planet that comes close in this regard. Socialism would probably nerf this crucial American advantage.
And that doesn't even touch on how 'socialism' is generally completely at odds with the underpinnings of US culture and society.
>>65689876
Well yeah every country is a capitalist country by definition. But I guess what I mean ny socialist policies is universal healthcare and free college. Why are those a bad idea.
>>65689705
They are ALL capitalist, especially Germany. FFS Germany built the Eurozone to facilitate it's export-oriented economy, that's pretty damn capitalist.
>>65689001
>>65689556
What I take to be your argument here is that policies labeled "socialist" have led to bad consequences, therefore socialist policies are bad.
My problem with that argument is the same problem I have with the argument when you search+replace every instance of "socialist" with "conservative," "liberal," or anything else. There are a lot of different and incompatible policies that are lumped together under these labels for the sake of convenience in most cases. It's more important to figure out what our values are and look at individual policies and how they can be improved relative to our values than to pick our favorite name for a heterogeneous set of policies and then pretend that they all suffer some fatal flaw allowing us to disregard anything that a person says which falls under that name. Unfortunately, people are too lazy to think very hard about details.
>>65689891
I think your general assessment is partly right but it's also why a lot of Marxists would say that the US is the most ideal place for socialism to flourish, after all it's where the resources are pouring.
>>65689891
Yay arguments that made me think. I guess my counterargument here is that America has a horrific standard of living and is not an easy place to start a small business. Also how would socialism undermine American culture?
>All you have to do to "screw up" the status quo of a free nation, is to borrow ON E false idea from the ideology of a communist or totalitarian government. For the sake of simplicity, I have chosen the idea of "egalitarianism". "People born equal therefore must be equal". Sounds great. But look at yourselves. Were you born equal? Some of you weighed 7 pounds at birth, others 6 or 5 . . . Are you NOW equal? In any way? Physically, mentally, emotionally, racially, spiritually? Some are tall and dumb, others — short, bald and clever. Now, let's figure out what will happen if we LEGISLATE EQUALITY, and make the concept of "equality" a cornerstone and pillar of socio-economical and political system. All right? You don't have to be a great economist or sociologist to foresee that some of the people who are "less equal" would demand as much as those who are "more equal" BY LAW!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZnkULuWFDg
>>65690007
Because America has 327 million people. If you gave free universal healthcare and college the entire economy would be fucked to the absolute highest degree
>>65689705
Germany hasn't been a socialist state since 1991.
The Nordic nations have had to reverse what socialist policies they had because they were running out of money.
Sweden is also on it's way to becoming third world tier;
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.454/sweden-to-become-a-third-world-country-by-2030-according-to-un.html
Socialism is great in a homogenous small nation, where there is a strong natural work ethic.
Socialism was perfect for Scandinavia, but it is getting very strained now because there are too many free riders immigrating into the country.
Socialism is already in the US to a degree - a huge percent of the population is dependant on the Government for their income - I don't know the number off the top of my head, but the amount of American who get their basic FOOD supplies from the government is staggering
But it's not going to work forever as the middle class is shrinking and can't afford it and the debt is rising to scary levels.
I think it's a good idea to help the poor a bit - a small sum can make the difference between crushing poverty and a reletivly decent standard of living… but again, you always get free loaders and it becomes unworkable.
The US situation is more difficult just due to the huge underclass, just the size of it makes it a tough proposition. It's getting unmanagable...
>>65690158
>America has a horrific standard of living
Mate...
>>65690158
>America has a horrific standard of living
Are you fucking retarded? We have the highest on earth
>>65688724
You're a very small part of a very big problem
>>65690216
Though i dont want to watch an hour long video right now, the quote you use seems more philosophical and less based on if socialist policies would actually accomplish what they intend to do. Also slippery slope fallacy.
>>65688724
Why would you ever think that the people who most want socialist policies deserve any part of those robin hood taxes?
>>65690253
How so? The US has more wealth per capita than any country other than Switzerland. Over 50% greater than the UK.
>>65690275
Part of that is due to globalization of the economy. Something most leftists and even people like Trump are against. It ends up exacerbating economic differences in every country, not just the ones that sign the trade pacts.
>>65690316
No we don't. It isn't bad though.
>>65690316
By what standard? So many people die in this country because they cant get healthcare. Compare that to every other "first world" country.
>>65690253
I also want to add that the health insurance industry is a tumor that takes much more wealth from working people than a socialized healthcare system would from taxpayers
>>65690156
My statement is that there is yet to exist a collectivist policy which hasn't failed.
You like universal healthcare?
The reality is that universal healthcare leads to an expensive behemoth with massive waiting times and you end up paying more in tax than you would for private insurance. It's also a handy way for governments to justify more taxes.
Free college?
Every second person here in Scotland has some meme university degree now yet our unemployment and suicide rate is through the roof.
Free tertiary education is a government scam to reduce their youth unemployment figures.
Welfare states?
Have lead to massive unemployment everywhere. The idea that lazy people won't jump through hoops to keep up their laziness is hilarious too.
When we first had unemployment bennies in the UK it was in the form of work houses which worked.
When we started giving money to unemployed people via the church, all the lazy people moved to places where the church was more generous and less people got into work.
The same is still exactly true.
Even loans and insurance rates have been bastardised by socialist policies.
Women now have to pay extremely high car insurance rates because young men get into more accidents and insurance companies can't discriminate.
Everyone in America has to have higher insurance rates because blacks tend to be worse investments.
Can you provide one socialist policy that has had the desired effect?
I also don't really care about what some politically motivated economist says on the matter. Their predictions on everything have been completely wrong more often than not, I'd even go as far as to say that psychologists and sociologists are correct more often than economist (in both of these fields less than 50% of their "major papers" can even be replicated).
>>65690156
>I think your general assessment is partly right but it's also why a lot of Marxists would say that the US is the most ideal place for socialism to flourish, after all it's where the resources are pouring.
I don't disagree it would be an ideal place for socialism to flourish in theory, due to all the resources. However it is clear the American ethos is all about competitiveness in the context of abundant resources and opportunity(compared to the rest of the planet, largely). Socialism just doesn't have that driving force behind it in an American context that it did in say, a Russian context.
I mean, think back to the old Russian Empire. An absolutely gigantic amount of desperately poor people with little-to-no opportunities in life, buttressed by a bloodily oppressive state(makes the US currently look cartoonishly friendly), and limited resources. Socialism has a much bigger push behind it in that context, almost messanic to people with absolutely nothing. America does not compare to this.
>>65690158
>Yay arguments that made me think. I guess my counterargument here is that America has a horrific standard of living and is not an easy place to start a small business. Also how would socialism undermine American culture?
America has wonderful standards of livings, absolutely wonderful. Go do some serious travelling if you think otherwise. And I don't mean northern and western Europe or Canada, elsewhere. It's a fine place to set up a business. My city, Vancouver, has loads of educated people fleeing en mass to the US for work if they aren't going to Toronto. Once I'm done my degree I probably will too.
And it wouldn't undermine US culture per se, it is just at odds with it. US culture is broadly individualist and Socialism very much is not.
>>65688985
No.
>>65690845
>would
Bullshit, it doesn't even manage that in a country of 60million people.
>>65690664
>>65690845
I'm sorry. But I have to conclude you're an idiot, or extremely uneducated and naive when it comes to these things you are advocating. I genuinely don't understand how you could form such strong opinions without understanding barely any of the issues. I apologise if I sound like a dick, but I actually get quite offended when people talk about shit they don't understand, while acting that they do.
>Compare that to every other "first world" country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries
Look at this. America's standard of living is ONE OF THE BEST in the entire world.
>I also want to add that the health insurance industry is a tumor that takes much more wealth from working people than a socialized healthcare system would from taxpayers
You do not understand how socialised healthcare works. You have some idea of what the utopian version is, but you have no grasp on the reality.
Do you realise that the health insurance industry has been making on average MUCH MORE money per person that they cover WHILE they are covering MORE people since Obamacare was introduced? You know, socialist healthcare?
>>65688724
why does clinton dress like Chinese dictators / evil scientists?
having ultra rich people pay for a few safety nets and to keep wages level with inflation is not socialism, idiots. its democracy. if our democracy/elections/media/representatives were not owned by the rich, and people could be informed and vote in their own interest for candidates who want to serve the majority of humans and not the majority of wealth.
>>65690969
The waiting times argument and taxes being higher than insurance rates in my research has just been untrue. Too lazy to navigate my shitty mobile web browsing app for a source while I'm on the shitter. You make a logical jump in your argument about free college calling it a government scam, and other countries with free college seem to be doing fine. And even if a meme degree only meant employment, it seems better than the debt we have in the U.S., lower median income and standards of living. At the insurance thing, women having to pay too much because of men seems better than not getting health insurance because of your background/preexisting conditions. And what you "think" is more accurate than acedemics who disagree with you?
>>65688985
>illuminati level business owners and bankers
try again fag
>>65690969
>waiting times
Is that due to bureaucratic issues, in which case it's an issue that is resolvable, or is it due to there just being lots of people who need health care, in which case many people would think there's a moral obligation nonetheless?
>more in taxes than for private insurance.
Not true. Costs per capita in the US are over double the UK and every other country which has the same or better outcomes than the US.
>college
That's a problem with the nature of the education that's being given and the motivations behind it, not an issue inherent to any socialist education policy.
>welfare
I agree that the welfare state breeds problems but you don't need to be socialist to support those programs and you don't need to support those programs to be socialist. I'd rather have work houses and labor laws which lead to greater autonomy for those who actually work as well as greater ownership of the materials by the workers.
>loans
That seems like more of a product of PC than it is of socialism more generally. The two do overlap but, again, not necessarily so. Also, not completely sure what you're referring to with blacks making worse investments.
>socialist policy that had the desired effect
Social Security was working, still is to some extent, and will continue to work so long if we stop stealing money from it for other things.
>>65691021
What you're describing is exactly what's happening on a much smaller scale with Sanders in the US. People on the far left actually get frustrated by social democrats and centrists because they ease the class tensions instead of allowing them to reach boiling point.
>>65691312
Because she basically is one.
>>65691274
>mfw Saudi Arabia is higher than Russia
>>65690586
So rich people are supposed to pay for poor people's shit. Hey Bernie
>>65691274
Obamacare is actually a GOP bill that forces everyone to buy private insurance "if they can afford it," not a socialist policy.
>>65691860
What are you responding to?
>>65688724
Fake Trump quote, even Snopes had to apologize about it.
0/10, opinion discarded.
>>65691895
first one
>>65691878
And you are right about the Obamacare shit not being socialist but the Aussie is right about it costing a shit ton more for regular people.
>>65691572
Tell you what, you come to the UK and experience the "untrue waiting times argument" first hand.
Can you name a few countries which have state-funded tuition fees?
A meme degree doesn't mean employment. Who has ever gotten a job with their "history of feminism" or their "fine arts" degree?
Student debt isn't a problem if you chose a real subject which will actually get you a job at the end of it. The only time it is a problem is when people chose joke subjects. It's almost as if people having to buy something themselves acts as a deterrent for bad decisions.
>not getting health insurance because of your pre-existing conditions
Yes, an insurance company is not going to pay for your expensive treatment for less than the treatment costs. It's called insurance because you are to buy it BEFORE you get a condition, as an insurance.
Women having to pay higher is not comparable to some people not getting insurance because of a background.
It is comparable to everyone having to pay higher rates because a minority had to pay higher rates.
>>65688724
1.After a point, more members you include in any operation,the less effective the organization becomes per member. Therefore, larger organizations inherently become less productive as time goes on.(Law of marginal utility, but also simple logical problems of communication, transportation and lack of effective organization)
2. By having an absurdly large organization, you will have absurdly large inefficiency as a byproduct.
3. By having an extremely large organization, and running a vast amount of wealth through it, you will have lost such a significant part of the original wealth, that you might have been better off simply not having the organization and letting free market forces determine effective use of resources.
That's really as basic as it gets for me without actually explaining what "socialist policies" are. It's like saying that I think family values are good.
>>65691274
I've already admitted i don't know jack throughout this thread im just offering my counterarguments that come from my education and research which i also have admitted is plagued with confirmation bias. And you being offended with someone who disagrees with you and dismissing it as uneducated is sort of silly. You're offering obamacare as a counter argument which is actually the healthcare system I was refering to in contrast to a socialist system lol. Human growth index isnt the end all be all 9f prosperity and america is still behind socialist countries. It is interesting how the U.S. is ranked higher than it was in my textbook though.
>>65691964
>first one
Wealthier people should pay more taxes to cover costs of health care for all, yes.
>Obamacare
I never disagreed with that part of what he said.
>>65688724
He literally never said this you cunt. It's a blatently false meme that's been making rounds with retards. Please fall off a tall building so we can keep MAGA.
>retards like OP that have clearly overdosed on blue pills will be voting in the coming election for leader of the free world
>>65691723
>What you're describing is exactly what's happening on a much smaller scale with Sanders in the US. People on the far left actually get frustrated by social democrats and centrists because they ease the class tensions instead of allowing them to reach boiling point.
I can see them getting frustrated, but I can't see the boiling point as anything other than being waaaaaay far away. Things would have to get much, much, MUCH worse before they did. I've read loads on the French and more the Russian revolutions. Those people truly has their backs to the walls with no other options. Short of that in the US, social democrats would have to engage in Trump-style demagoguery to enrage people. The only card I see in the left's hand currently that can do that is identity politics but that usually ends up with a movement that will divide and the eat itself.
>>65692202
Tfw people dont look through the thread. Which I guess is fair, but yes I know it's false information :^)
>>65691723
>waiting times
The same reasons that there were shortages in the soviet union.
1. People overusing the service without need since they aren't directly paying for it (just as with le free college)
2. No competition leading to inefficiency in both staff and structure, what do you think causes the problems?
>more in taxes than for private insurance.
You have just stated than the UK is cheaper than the US.
Costs would still go up even higher in the US.
>>college
No, see waiting times, it is exactly inherent in the socialist education policy.
>welfare
You do if you want to force people by threat of imprisonment to pay for them.
>loans
No, this has been a standard policy of every socialist state that has ever existed.
I am referring to the fact that in America these laws first came into place because blacks had higher interest rates than whites because blacks were more likely to default on debts.
>Social Security
In comparison to what?
Do you have a comparison with before/after?
Unemployment and begging went straight up in the UK when we stopped making them work.
whites should rule planet earth
>>65692413
Rule Britannia brother.
>>65688985
>evangelicals
lol...my son most of them are Jews.
Take a look at Goldman Sachs. Even the name says it all...
>>65691878
You're right, the machinations of it aren't socialist at all, but the ideas it originated from are.
I actually liked Obamacare when it was first being legislated, but the cunt was so determined to have a legacy that he butchered it. I still am of the opinion the major reason the GOP let it go through was that they were expecting it to crash and burn in a period where they were most likely to have power.
>>65692098
>being offended with someone who disagrees with you and dismissing it as uneducated is sort of silly
Yes. It is. And it's a failing of mine that has become exacerbated as more and more people have begun to feel the Bern. I say uneducated because you refer to certain countries and their policies as being socialist, as well as you being contradicted on this thread on numerous things.
Also, to address your initial question. Socialist policies aren't sensible for one reason: People.
There are too many of them. And the problem is only going to get worse. We're breeding too fast and unemployment is rising around the world and will rise even faster in the near future thanks to automation.
Socialism is only truly possible and preferable when we are living in a world that is far more technologically advanced than we currently are now. And it is capitalism not socialism that drives the research and ingenuity to get us to that point.
>>65692377
You're probably right. I worry that the boiling point will get here but will ultimately be too late, or humanity will just indefinitely continue desiring its own oppression.
>>65692392
I'm not going to take a parting shot but I also really need to finish some writing and don't have time to respond to everything anymore.
>>65688724
First
>I'm a libtard sjw cuck who thinks socialist policies are sensible.
>friends
Pick one
Second
Why are you like that
>>65689001
Right, however the argument that comes from the Conservatives is silly. Somehow the American economy isnt great because of the workers or the people, but the economic policy. Which is not true. Second, if a country like GB can fair relatively okay with a fairly large social safety net on your subpar economy (in regards to Americas), then why cant the same results work in the US?
I always found it silly how Scandanavian countries managed to produce less goods and less GDP and yet somehow miraculously their social welfare systems somehow work perfectly fine, but wouldnt work at all in America.
>>65692545
>Socialism is only truly possible and preferable when we are living in a world that is far more technologically advanced than we currently are now
I'd argue that it's only possible when humans become a fundamentally different species with a fundamentally different nature.
Like ants.
>>65692599
It's hard to see a boiling point, these usually come at the long end of suffering in the midst of crisis. But I'd never say never. I've read enough history to know that.
In 400 CE Romans wrote in Rome as if it was still at it's height, and nothing amiss. No sign of trouble, and territory secure. Yet, we know by the end of the century the Western half was gone. History moves slowly and quickly at the same time.
>>65692963
>country like GB can fair relatively okay
No, we just have smart people fiddling our data.
Our government doesn't even collect exact figures on unemployment, crime, immigration, economic growth, everything.
They collect guesses then publish them.
The UK is far from being okay.
I don't really care what so-called conservatives might say.
The economy is exactly the product of the labour of the people, the governments income has nothing to do with it. The government is not the country.
The only reason it is seen that way is because we have fiat currency which is dependant on the government.
Hell if a king took out even half the loan our government has taken out the people would (and have in the past) let him go bankrupt or make massive demands from him, the only reason we don't let the government go bankrupt is that 1. we believe government = economy = country 2. fiat currency would die.
