The difference between socialism and capitalism in one photo

as for the raising revenue...a bit of logic does a pretty good job of that.
example we are going to build a new NFL Stadium..we have or will soon a balanced budget...how will they pay for the cost? they will raise some taxes...and oddly this raise in taxes will pay for the stadium...aside from your world where the tax money we take in will not actually go up.

unless the raise in taxes is 100% offset by a decrease in gdp directly related to that tax rate...income will in fact go up. Just like when Bush Decreased taxes, but the GDP did not go up so high as to cover it, the Debt went Up.
 
Werbung:
socialism
sztalinvaros.jpg


capitalism
queensbridge_houses_8feb04.jpg
 
No dumbass - the socialist housing looks like that EVERYWHERE in backward socialist countries.

But the capitalist housing doesn't all look like what you posted?

Actually, no, it doesn't, which makes me wonder why you chose that particular picture.

Why not post something like:

110001572_1.jpg


or
A11003231_1.jpg


??

But, it is difficult to find much "socialist" housing any more. The Soviet Union is no more, China has adopted capitalism, who is left?

Cuba and North Korea.

So, we're going to compare North America, Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. to Cuba and North Korea, and say, what? Socialism doesn't work?

Just who is arguing that it does?

Oh, and lay off of the name calling, or I'll have to put my moderator hat on again.
 
yea odd that apartments would be ...like block shaped

you know what else looks the same? all the houses in the gated communities around here...

Where do you live - cuba? Again, we see your distorted perception of reality. Look at the gated community houses in say Newport Beach, and then look at cuban tenements - not repaired since the revolution. The history and nature of socialism is clear to all who will but look: drab dreary poverty and state-enforced uniformity at best, mass starvation at worst.
 
Where do you live - cuba? Again, we see your distorted perception of reality. Look at the gated community houses in say Newport Beach, and then look at cuban tenements - not repaired since the revolution. The history and nature of socialism is clear to all who will but look: drab dreary poverty and state-enforced uniformity at best, mass starvation at worst.

Of course, but why is that some Americans can see and understand this, but others can't? And, those including our favorite HOP liberal who can't see, feel compelled to defend socialism. Why would any American defend socialism?

And, where dilapidated buildings and homes exist in America, you generally will find liberals who have pushed socialism in charge. For example, run down cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Newark, Philly, etc...

But, logic and liberalism do not know each other.
 
Of course, but why is that some Americans can see and understand this, but others can't? And, those including our favorite HOP liberal who can't see, feel compelled to defend socialism. Why would any American defend socialism?

And, where dilapidated buildings and homes exist in America, you generally will find liberals who have pushed socialism in charge. For example, run down cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Newark, Philly, etc...

But, logic and liberalism do not know each other.

Can you link to a post in which someone is advocating a system in which the government owns the means of production?

I think we all agree that socialism doesn't work, don't we? Who wants to establish the sort of economic system that prevails in North Korea or in Cuba? Socialism has all but died out worldwide.
 
Can you link to a post in which someone is advocating a system in which the government owns the means of production?

I think we all agree that socialism doesn't work, don't we? Who wants to establish the sort of economic system that prevails in North Korea or in Cuba? Socialism has all but died out worldwide.

Whoa! First time I heard THAT from a leftwinger!
 
I think your at times ignorant of real race issues...

Says the guy who supports racial discrimination... Unlike you, I support racial equality, that means justice is blind rather than justice being social.

I know there are racists, they exist in all races, but you only seem to notice racism coming from the Right, you never seem to acknowledge any of the racism coming from your side of the isle.

as for the raising revenue...a bit of logic does a pretty good job of that.
You're confusing "common sense" for logic. Common sense would suggest that raising taxes does increase revenue. However, when you use the process of logic, you look at the empirical data that disproves the "common sense" concept of Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue and realize that since it's contradicted by facts, it's illogical to make such a claim.

example we are going to build a new NFL Stadium..we have or will soon a balanced budget...how will they pay for the cost? they will raise some taxes...and oddly this raise in taxes will pay for the stadium...
I see... and is this an income tax increase or is it going to be a sales tax like it was here in my city? I ask because I specifically said income tax and I was referring to the federal income tax, yet you don't want to talk about that... Your example is that of an undefined tax on the state level... I suppose in your world that's not ducking the issue to avoid dealing with facts.

aside from your world where the tax money we take in will not actually go up.
Good luck. We built a new stadium and raised the sales tax .5%, the tax gurus projected revenue of $50 million.... Actual revenue, $21 million. But when you parrot the talking points about "Tax the Rich!", you're not talking about a sales tax that nails everybody, you're talking about increasing the top marginal tax rates of the progressive income tax system.

Yes, taxing everyone at the same rate irrespective of income does increase revenue, that's the kind of tax system I support because it does work... The progressive income tax you support does not have the causal effect of raising revenue as rates are increased.

unless the raise in taxes is 100% offset by a decrease in gdp directly related to that tax rate...income will in fact go up.
We've been over this before... Revenue going up is the rule, not the exception, and tax rates do not have a causal effect on revenue within the progressive model of taxation. The empirical data proves this yet you refuse to accept this fact.

Just like when Bush Decreased taxes, but the GDP did not go up so high as to cover it, the Debt went Up.
Again, 100% false. Tax rates went down, revenue went up, SPENDING outpaced revenue (as usual) and therefore the debt went up.

1. Spending is greater than revenue equals debt.
2. Spending is less than revenue equals surplus.

Why doesn't your "common sense" or what you call "logic" allow you to comprehend those economic facts?

Out of 40 years worth of data, there was only one year that tax revenue went down and that's a result of the market crash, tax rates were unchanged that year. Every other year, tax revenue continued to climb regardless of whether tax rates went up, down, or remained unchanged.
 
The Soviet Union is no more, China has adopted capitalism, who is left?
This is really getting on my nerves...

You're a real stickler about pointing out that Socialism requires state or public ownership of the means of production and often correct people who to try to claim otherwise, yet you continually misuse the term Capitalism.

Capitalism requires 100% of all property to be privately owned, any system where the property is not 100% privately owned, cannot be considered Capitalist.

China did not adopt Capitalism, they moved away from Socialism by allowing some private ownership of the means of production. Their system is much closer to the Fascist model than Capitalism; mixed markets, private industry heavily regulated by the state, a progressive income tax, a massive and growing welfare state, one party elections... That's in stark contrast to the Capitalist model of free markets, 100% private ownership of all property, all regulation and power of the state is limited specifically to protecting against force and fraud, no tax on income or a flat tax, multiple parties can participate in elections, and no publicly funded welfare.
 
This is really getting on my nerves...

You're a real stickler about pointing out that Socialism requires state or public ownership of the means of production and often correct people who to try to claim otherwise, yet you continually misuse the term Capitalism.

Capitalism requires 100% of all property to be privately owned, any system where the property is not 100% privately owned, cannot be considered Capitalist.

China did not adopt Capitalism, they moved away from Socialism by allowing some private ownership of the means of production. Their system is much closer to the Fascist model than Capitalism; mixed markets, private industry heavily regulated by the state, a progressive income tax, a massive and growing welfare state, one party elections... That's in stark contrast to the Capitalist model of free markets, 100% private ownership of all property, all regulation and power of the state is limited specifically to protecting against force and fraud, no tax on income or a flat tax, multiple parties can participate in elections, and no publicly funded welfare.

so in your view there is and never has been a single capitalist nation? since no nation has ever had 100% total private ownership of all property....
 
Werbung:
Capitalism, and probably socialism too, are ideal abstractions that are never met in practice. Speaking informally, people use the word capitalism to denote eg the US system, and socialism to denote eg the cuban system. But the many types of market interference in the US economy by the government take it far from pure capitalism - economists refer to it as a "mixed economy". Likewise, as the high degree of socialism has plunged cuba to ever worse levels of poverty over the decades, exceptions were made like allowing small private businesses or plots of land to grow food. North Korea has probably come closest to realizing pure socialism - with well-known results.

Although the abstractions are never concretely achieved in practice, that shouldn't keep one from grasping one of the key lessons of the last hundred years: the more socialist elements in an economy, the more rationing, poverty, hunger and statism, and the opposite for the more capitalist elements.
 
Back
Top