Does socialism work?

via the tipline.

Does socialism work? Not if this internet meme is holds true:

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Is this man truly a genius?

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that SOCIALISM would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Phil Goff needs to remember the following 5 points. I didn’t write them but I do believe they hold true. If he can even read them then he may begin a journey of understanding why his tax and spend policies will not work out as he envisages.

  1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
  2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
  3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
  4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
  5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

  • Petal

    That was hard to read.

    Thank you Auntie Helen.  

    Hell of a Social Engineering job you did for us.

  • RightNow

    It’s a great parable, but the line that says “Checked out and this is true‚Ķit DID happen!” is not supported. A search on the internet comes up with lots of repeating the meme, but no link to the original source.¬†
    The comments on reddit (one of the search results) were telling (about reddit) and typified by:
    “Obama’s socialism? How is this obvious troll not banned?”

    reddit, the front page of what’s left on the internet

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Yeah i meant to delete that…I will now…

      • lovinthatchangefeeling

        Further to (and similar to) your points above WO, the following is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln but is by William J H Boetcker:  “You cannot
        bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak
        by weakening the strong. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
        You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help
        the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on
        borrowed money. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class
        hatred.”

  • Bob

    We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us.

  • Peter Wilson

    Whether it happened or not, it makes sense. I’d love to hear some rationale for the students results IMPROVING under such a scenario!

  • Agent BallSack

    The problem is, the stupid, disaffected and lazy will always vote for the average.

  • http://twitter.com/Jazr0d Jazr0d

    the post title is a nice play on words

    • Peter Wilson

      Yes very good. Maybe better as “Is Socialism Working?” A question we can ask if Labour is ever returned to power.

      • Phronesis

        Socialism means not having to work, doesn’t it?

        • Jimmy

          Socialism РComing from society.  The us vs. me mentality. 

          Chch crumbled; yet we all expect that the responsibly thing to do is help rebuild for the betterment of all.  Mightly socialistic.

    • bristol

      “Labour isn’t working”, might be a National campaign slogan?

  • Anonymous

    Communism doesn’t work, but socialism?¬† Why is it that Norway and Sweden constantly rank highly in measures of a countries wellness?¬† Because they are socialist.¬† The left doesn’t believe you shouldn’t be rich; they just believe you should pay more as you haven’t become rich without the aid of those around you.

    • Gazzaw

      Because Norway has limitless amounts of North Sea oil & gas & Sweden’s wealth base has been built¬†upon its centuries old neutrality.¬† Nothing to do with socialism.

      • Phronesis

        Their economy is rooted as a direct result of socialism.

        • Jimmy

          Risky investment and unsustainable borrowing to perpetuate rampant consumerism?  How is that socialism? 

      • Jimmy

        So Norway should privatise those oil reserves because the free market is better?  If we sell our energy resources it will only make the average New Zealander poorer.

        • Gazzaw

          Yes emphatically to your question on Norway and sure we can keep all our oil reserves in NZ but they will stay exactly where they are unless you want the state to borrow billions upon billions of dollars from foreign banks to pay foreign exploration companies to find it, foreign companies to drill it and mine it and foreign companies to reticulate and transport it. In other words exactly what we are doing now except we would be borrowing the billions to even try and find the stuff first.  

          • STK

            A large amount of NZ oil wells have already been drilled and ready to go, they’re just decommissioned cuz people don’t like the idea of oil being pumped in NZ.¬†

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Was hoping someone knew something Norway and their apparent socialist success…..

        • Jimmy

          How’s that free market success working out for America?¬†

          • onelaw4all

            There hasn’t been anything closely resembling a free market in America for close to a century….

          • Richard McGrath

            What free market? Most of the US economy is highly regulated.

        • Gazzaw

          Tax is based o the following

          Income tax around 28% plus 9-12% surcharges

          Wealth tax on all assets above about NZ$!00k of 1.1%. THat includes house, cash in the bank etc so there is no incentive to save.

          7.8% social security tax based on income

          25% VAT

          .7% property tax

          Death/inheritance taxes of about 8%

          Oslo is the 14th most expensive city in the world to live in after Paris & Milan.

          Norwegian acquaintances are not enamoured with the health system & complain about the bloated public service. They seem to be a few years ahead of NZ, however, as the socialist government is not game to reduce handouts – to do so would mean suicide. In the meantime the tax spiral continues.

    • max_power

      Jimmy der.

      Crikey, are you mental?

      Don’t you know that in Sweden for example yes the dole is generous and easy to get, BUT everyone who gets it is expected not to abuse the¬†privilege. It’s very frowned upon if someone fit and healthy abuses it for their own selfish purposes.

      People talk about the Scandanavians all the time as if they’re some mythical exemplar of the perfect lefty regime in action but – fucking d’oh – it wouldn’t work here, not with the education standards and level of lack of social responsibility we have going on in this society, today.

      They don’t have it because, like Japan, their population is ancient family. Ours isn’t, therefore we’re more individualistic as a whole, which leads to a whole different environment which is why¬†Scandinavian policy settings would NOT work over here.

      It’s pretty fucking obvious Jimmy. I wish lefties would just shut up about it altogether. I mean, it’s preposterous, they must think people are really stupid. Lucky for lefties isn’t it, that a hell of lot apparently are. ¬†

      • Jimmy

        “lack of social responsibility”; Sums up the right nicely.

        So rather than even try and make it work, just say F$#& it?¬† I don’t want to like in a gated community because society has failed.

        Socialism is the ultimate insurance.¬† If for whatever reason you fail at life, society will at least keep you alive, and better yet, help you get back on your feet.¬† That’s why I’m happy to pay that insurance policy.¬†

        • max_power

          Socialism Jimmy, is the ultimate prison.

          For it dehumanises people by teaching them they are not masters of their  own destiny. No. The state must help them in every little way, if they are to succeed.

          They are not capable of succeeding on their own. They need a big pervasive apparatus from cradle to grave to look after them.

          That’s what socialism actually is, Jimmy.

          It disguises itself for it knows that message is anaethema to any thinking person, but that’s what it is, at its heart.

          You can’t deny it. This is exactly what it teaches people. All lefties a.k.a. socialists talk about victimhood and oppression 24/7/365. They never talk about opportunity; self-discipline; try, try and try again; never never never never never never give up. I haven’t ever heard any lefty politician ever talk about those well understood proven over time human virtues.

          All of this should strike one who thinks as very curious indeed, a club to which some of us but apparently not you Jimmy, belong.

          • Jimmy

            We do need a big pervasive apparatus from cradle to grave to look after us.  Else we have chaos.  Law and order, education, infrastructure.

            Having a sociaty does not prevent betterment nor discorage it.  Socialists purely expect that the user pays for it.

          • max_power

            No we don’t need “a big pervasive apparatus” that’s the very thing one doesn’t need.

            What about equality don’t you understand?

            Do you want to oppress people?

            Apparently, from your comments, you do.

            The way to generate a society without oppression Jimmy is to disempower all of those agents in it who are capable of it.

            For your argument to work you need to assume govt will always be benign.

            So I assume you’re therefore in favour of the Patriot Acts I and II in the states and the surveillance regime in the UK, for that is big govt, writ large.

            Is that what you like Jimmy?

            If you say no, then how pray tell would you prevent that potential from arising, were you to open Pandora’s Box and implement a “big pervasive apparatus?”

            Before you say: “that’s not what I meant,” yes, I know. But if that really was the case across the country, how could you or any one of us, prevent such an “apparatus” turning feral?

            We couldn’t, could we.

          • STK

            Very very well put Max.
            As for the better future, well, socialism, communism, capitalism… they’re not the key, nor the way to a better future, no, if we want a better future, we need to build, and what a better time to start ae :)

    • onelaw4all

      Socialism is the transitory state between capitalism and communism. In socioeconomic terms think of it as the level of innate sickness of the country. I also note you have cherrypicked the most culturally homogenous (and resource rich) examples around.

      Also,, what quantifiable criteria¬†are you basing this “wellness” on?

      • STK

        Things is, neither truly work, both communism and capitalism work to a degree, but they are only part of the puzzle. To have a society that actually works, we need the rest of the puzzle, til that point what ever you choose is basically doomed to fail   

    • Richard McGrath

      Scandanavian socialism is a recipe for co-dependence and dysfunction.

  • Pingback: Socialism – utopia? « Unsolicitedious

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    I am going to re-post this – not because I am super popular, but because it is just a good way to say ‘yeah suck on that you income-less jobless lefty wastrels’.

    The class grade thing is very similar to a beer anecdote that I have used for years Рsee http://scottnolansmith.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/us-tax-system-explained-through-beer/

    It is essentially on the same principle in that without the high income earners there’d be no money to do anything.

    The unfortunate thing is that Uncle Helen was extremely clever when she extended welfare to the middle classes – they are now bound to it so we now have more people making demands that they expect others to pay.

    Or perhaps they are just really stupid and actually think that they still pay taxes when they hold their hand out.

    Jimmy_69 – Sweden went bust you muppet….they were regarded to be the perfect example of a socialist State yet ran out of money so they started to cut benefits. As¬†James Bartholomew has said, “Sweden found, like Britain, that if you pay people to be unemployed, take early retirement or be sick, you get a gradually increasing number of people who claim the relevant benefits. And if you have sky-high taxes people don‚Äôt work as hard and/or they cheat and/or they leave‚ÄĚ.

    As for your comment that “the left doesn’t believe you shouldn’t be rich; they just believe you should pay more as you haven’t become rich without the aid of those around you” – what complete and utter BULLSHIT.¬†

    The rich don’t get rich because of what you do, they get rich because of what THEY do, the choices THEY make, the sacrifices THEY make. Money doesn’t grow on trees sunshine. It comes from hard work.

    You find me someone on over $100k who works a mere 40 hour week. Bet you can’t. You know why? Because they don’t exist.

    All you are doing is spitting out the same old politics of envy crap – you can’t stand the fact that people like John Key are loaded. Well bet you there was not a week that went by that he didn’t work close to 80 hours a week – you ask his wife how much time he has been at home. Earning money means sacrifice.

    And you know why I don’t have an issue with those who have more than me? Because we’re high income – an income that comes with long working weeks and a lot of sacrifice. I know what it takes to earn the big bucks and there is no way I want to sacrifice any more than we already do.

    You lefties also seem the right have the monopoly on wealth. I suggest you look more closely at your own team….like your rich kid Stuart Nash, the former and current Labour Party presidents, the MPs who own multiple properties…..
     

    • Jimmy

      Fine me anyone who makes THEIR money in the
      100k bracket all by themselves; I bet you can’t.¬† I know many of my peers
      are on +100k and work 40h or less.  Granted they are highly educated
      specialist; but their education was heavily subsidised by the tax payers. 
      I personally did better rather than worse out of nationals “neutral”
      tax cuts/rises, but I’ll be damned if I think the free market failure we are in
      at the moment is the best way for people to get ahead.  

      • Phronesis

        Your mates clearly work for the government. But I agree that taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidising education.

        • Jimmy

          We should all just go back to pickin cotten then?  Who will pay for skilled workers?

          • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

            Yes I was going to say public servants too – they are the only ones that get paid to work very little including extra benefits such as unspecified leave, dependent leave, time off to go and pick up the morning tea, meetings about meetings, training sessions including meals, wasteful training sessions and seminars at the other end of the country……

            “Who will pay for skilled workers?”

            Employers aka the rich…..and now the argument comes full circle and rests on the point of Whale’s post….penny dropped yet? Sorry, but if you want to talk crap then post on Red Alert. You’re just going to get nailed on here.

          • Jimmy

            Are you telling me an employer will pay tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to train a worker who could then quit to work for an employer who hasn’t burdened the cost and subsequently can offer higher remuneration?

          • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

            Is that a serious question? Seriously? Umm the answer is yes – loads of skilled people, trained up ¬†via their employment go on to climb all the way up the top of the ladder…

            others might be come contractors – become skilled via their employment then decide to become self-employed earning twice as much.

            a classic example could be someone with no degree starting out at the public service – say IRD or MSD in customer service, climbing their way up so that they get skilled on systems & IT & earning $80-$100k (or roughly $50 per hour) then deciding to leave, become a contractor & contracting their services back to IRD or MSD and charging $90 per hour.

            Same thing can happen in private companies…..start out on the phones in sales/customer service, work your way up to systems or management & hello big dollars.

            Others may start off small as an employee in a private labour orientated company, become a contractor, create the work and earn 3 times as much as what they would have had they remained an employee. Employer is happy as the risk stays with the contractor, and the contractor is happy as they get great returns for the work.

            In each of these scenarios the employee or contractor can leave and potentially earn more elsewhere yet employers are still prepared to accept the risk & train them & pay them well.

            Why? Because most employers are prepared to pay for skills.

            It’s only the monkeys that get paid peanuts!

          • Jimmy

            In industries where there is significant competition/demand like IT this works.  But how about dentists and doctors?  People who but the very nature of being extremely specialised can only work as contractors.  Who trains these people that are integral to society?

          • STK

            Such training does not have to be  funded by the taxpayer, it can be payed from by either the one getting the training or by other means РFunds, grants, sponsorship ect. usually from rich people who understand these things need to be in the community, so they pay for it to be there.
            I know that doesn’t sit well with your socialist ideology, but it happens a lot, more than you’d probably like to acknowledge.¬†

          • Anonymous

            That’s exactly what I have done

        • Jimmy

          Yes; partially government funded, because the private sector wouldn’t fund innovators as they are high cost, high risk and unlikely to result in profitable returns.¬† But with that mentality we would still be stuck in medieval feudalism.

          • Phronesis

            Oh hell no, Government funding of innovators is the kiss of death for progress. Innovation is the very heart of capitalism. Historically most great scientists were either “rich pricks” or funded by “rich prick” patrons.

            So your mates are over payed Public Servants then.

          • STK

            Right on Phronesis, though I might add that not all “rich pricks” are bad/mean/evil people, and they do fund a lot (and I mean a lot) of public/community necessities. one of the great principles of money making is that you give back to the community.
            And this would happen a lot more if the Govt kept it’s nose where it belongs¬†

      • onelaw4all

        EVERYONE’S education is “heavily subsidised by the taxpayers”–regardless of the outcome there is equalness of opportunity.
        Also, you should probably consider not using terms such as “free market failure” as you clearly have no idea what such a thing is….

      • Richard Mcgrath

        Jimmy we are not in a free market at the moment. Stop deluding yourself. We are in a mixed market Рregulation imposed on a market, like adding sewage to the town water supply. 

  • middleagedwhiteguy

    Margaret Thatcher once said that ‘The trouble
    with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s
    money’?

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Apparently not a direct quote, but always a good one to throw against the left!

  • Anonymous

    You know I’ve been wondering over the last few days whether we are seeing a “fall of the Roman Empire” on a global scale.

    Essentially the rise of the Roman empire was built on driven people convincing the population to take large risks (invading other countries) and through innovative technological changes. However once the empire was vast, innovation came to a halt. There were no new technological innovations towards the end of the Roman¬† period of ascendancy…

    We seem to be trying to get more out of the same technology. More crops on the same amount of land by splashing fertilisers about with abandon. No new engine designs. No fuel innovations. No risk takers…

    Where are the science innovators of our modern age? We do not seem to
    have any, anywhere. No equivalents to Einstein, Tesla, Watt, Wright… I’m willing to be corrected.
    Where are they? Who are they?

    • Phronesis

      The innovators are out there but are more likely to be called Wang or Zhang. This is the decline of the great western empire, although in retrospect historians will probably say that it peaked some time ago.

      • Jimmy

        Sooo, quite happy to give up and feed on the rotting carcase till it can’t sustain you anymore?

        • Phronesis

          You would have to be deluded to think that you have any other choice. You can’t fight history.

    • Catweasel321

      And there was I thinking that the Roman empire was built on the back of slavery and the plunder of wealth from other nations and the end of the Republic was brought about by the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of decadent few who bickered amongst themselves till there was only one supreme ceasar. 

      • Jimmy

        All hail John Ceasar!

      • STK

        Both cases are true *shrugs*

    • Thorn

       
      Steve Jobs

    • STK

      There are many of them out there, the trouble is (on the bad side of business) the big money making empires of the day are making sure that nothing truly new comes about cuz it threatens their money making ability, but they are out there, I know a few personally :) 

  • thor42

    Does socialism work?  No. 
    I completely agree that you can’t “legislate the poor” into being wealthy.¬† Giving handouts to people will ***NEVER*** make them wealthy. It makes them dependent, lazy and¬† resentful of those who actually put in some effort to work.¬†

    • Jimmy

      I totally agree – as a socialist.¬† Handouts will not make people wealthy.¬† We can’t all be part of the 1 %.¬† But socialism can help prevent poverty.¬† Which country has the best literacy rates in the world?

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        But you can be part of the 1/4 of people that pay their taxes, generate productivity all without having to feed of the teat of the State….

        “But socialism can help prevent poverty” name one country where it is worked – free of high suicides. Sweden has gone bust & Denmark has one of the highest suicide rates in Europe…it would seem their so-called number one happy status overlooks this.

        Welfare has increased from $256million inn 1970 to about $20 billion now yet child abuse and child poverty have increased.

        Welfare does not work

        • STK

          Too true Unsolicitedious, not as a whole and complete system as it is famed as

      • thor42

        I think there is a very fine line between “preventing poverty” and entrenching it (by giving too many handouts).¬† There’s also the matter of “why bother working if I get enough via handouts?” That is already an issue in this country.¬† ¬†

        • Jimmy

          I take it that isn’t said from the trenches?¬† Being poor isn’t a comfortable state, even in a state house.¬†

        • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

          I agree – safety net yes but with enough policies in place to ensure it cannot become a way of life. Such as putting social obligations on the recipient – no drinking, smoking, drugs, junk food, sky gambling (including lotto – makes me wild when people who are poor win lotto…..they bought those tickets on the back of the taxpayer so they least they should do is pay back every cent they ever claimed) & no additional kids.

          I bet if we made every single child in poverty or who was from a poor family – whereby they rely on any kind of state assistance (including WFF), a Ward of the State whereby the State administered their basic care in terms of food, clothing, shoes & education through their school AND reduced their parent’s benefits accordingly, we would see a lot of people move off it pretty quickly. Especially if we put the remaining benefit on a payment card that banned ‘luxuries’.

          But that would never happen – seems that while they expect our money, we are not allowed to place expectations on them to respect it.

          • STK

            Good thinking Unsolicitedious, pieces to the puzzle, exactly what we need in this world, plain, simple, common sense thinking

        • STK

          True, if you can work, you should, it’s only when you can’t when you shouldn’t have to.
          Like I can’t work in a physical job, but I work as much as I can on a intellectual, person to person basis as much as I can, where I can.
          Just helping where I can.

      • STK

        Honestly, it all comes back to the same question, “Give a man a fish or teach him to fish?” (+a kick up the ass from time to time :) lol )

  • Luke
  • Jimmy

    On the flip side; does capitalism work?  The global financial crisis would suggest not.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      the global financial crisis was caused by greed not capitalism per se. And if you look at Marx, making money off money – the cause of the crisis – is not capitalism.

      Capitalism in the purest sense refers to agreements outside the State (laissez faire) or selling your labour to buy power…

      • Jimmy

        In it’s purest sense, communism is a utopia.¬† Everyone works to their fullest ability to better the entire society.¬† Land of milk and honey.¬† Russia was like that for a very short time.¬† The problem is that in ANY system there will be those who feed off others.¬† In socialism it is the lazy or the corrupt.¬† In capitalism it is the greedy or corrupt.¬† The difference in morals is I would rather be victimised when I can afford the loss than be the victim where I will have nothing.

        • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

          “Russia was like that for a very short time” – you mean for about 2 seconds. Russia and China were never communist – they distorted marxism and created Stalinism and Maoism respectively.

          “In socialism it is the lazy or the corrupt.¬† In capitalism it is the greedy or corrupt.” I agree

          “The difference in morals is I would rather be victimised when I can afford the loss than be the victim where I will have nothing” – I disagree. If you have nothing it is because of the choices you have made (mental health, serious or debilitating illness and accidents aside).

          In New Zealand everyone has the same chance to get ahead if they choose to. Life is not about what happens to you but what you do with what happens to you. Everyone has baggage, some more than others, but how much you let that define your life is up to you.

          Very few people struggle in this country because of insurmountable problems: I can guarantee you that for most people there will have always been a point in life where they could have made a different choice and taken a different path. Not all. But most.

          In New Zealand socialism has become synonymous with creating a generation of people who have a sense of entitlement we simply cannot afford.

          We have a generation of people who think it is OK to drop out of school and go on the dole, or get pregnant and go on the DPB – our child abuse statistics reflect this as children have become meal tickets rather than the privilege the really are.

          And then we have a generation who spend everything they earn – even when on high wages, borrow on maximum capacity then cry poverty when they struggle to meet their repayments coupled with their large 180 sq metre house, $20k people mover & 4 kids they think they have the right to have.

          Socialism (aka a bulging welfare state) in NZ does not work. It hasn’t worked and it wont work.

          Productivity and a growing innovative society comes from a country where its citizens have pride in what they do. Welfare does not give people pride.

          • STK

            Agreed

        • Alsh

          Russia was never like that, at worst it was death to millions through starvation through collectivesation of agriculture or at best choice of two types of bread in the shop white or black. That what happens when you leave it up to the government to decide what is the best for you.

      • thor42

        Capitalism **definitely** works. 
        Look at the disasters of socialism. Eastern Europe, anyone?  That was PURE socialism, and it NEVER worked.  Look at how Russia has boomed economically now that it has embraced capitalism.
        Which worked better?  Soviet-era Russia or present-day Russia? 

        • diabolos

          Along with neo nazis, organised gangsters/russian mafia (the commies kicked them out or nobbled them) corrupt individuals owning previously state owned assets (sound familiar) which comrade puty-putin is trying to reintegrate into the state fold now via fair or foul means …. dunno mate which did work better – Russia is now one of the biggest social, economic and geopolitical powder kegs in the world. ¬†Enlighten us all big guy … seems the democratic west got stuck in and tried to asset strip it and “capitalise” on it and fucked it up.

          Yep РRussia is so much better off now.  Its now a hotbed for ultra nationalism that will soon turn on the west and be a much bigger liability than the Soviet Union (which was never really socialist to begin with).

          • thor42

            Oh diabolos Рit is truly wonderful to see you again. 
            I concede defeat.¬† This country should become a socialist “paradise” where the¬† people who are motivated to work should be taxed at 70c in the dollar to support people like you.¬†

      • max_power

        Greed and corruption, Usc.

        Let’s not forget the corruption from the politicians to the bankers who put together the whole toxic package which has just started to fully unfold, what with Italian bonds at¬†7% and the ECB aka Germany refusing to do the only thing which will stabilise the situation, not to mention the Chinese property market and huge internal debt loadings from all those infrastructure so she’s not immune, either.

        Not to mention Obama has more Wall-Streeters in his Administration than any Pres in history, et al.

        Nevertheless it’s not capitalism that’s the root cause, it’s the fractional reserve central banking system which uses a worthless paper means of exchange which is at the heart.

        This is the best interview of Ron Paul I have ever seen. It is brilliant. If you want to understand what is wrong with our economy for everything he says applies equally here, watch the whole thing.

        • Anonymous

          In my opinion , most of the worlds financial problems aren’t caused by “rich pricks” ,it has been caused by pinko governments worldwide giving handouts to losers that they don’t have the money to pay for. Simple

          • max_power

            The GFC was caused by bank-funded financial lobbyists tickling politician’s ears.

            Over several decades.

            Simple.

    • Tristanb

      “does capitalism work?”
      Umm, I’m doing alright. By quality of life is significantly better than those in Soviet Russia, North Korea and Cuba. Just because poor people can’t afford both cigarettes and SkyTV doesn’t mean we’re in poverty.

      Some ot the GFC problem was the US govt forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn’t pay it back, and a sense of entitlement that made everyone think they deserved a new model car and a ginormous house.

    • onelaw4all

      See previous.

  • Catweasel321

    Thats
    right, socialism cannot possible survive the withering logic of S*#t made up.

    As regards
    the list of rememberances…

    1). Scratch
    the English, American, French and Russian revolutions then. Big up to Monarchy
    and Aristocracy.

    2). Taken
    from the Nike employment manual?

    3).  Like a Tax cut?

    4). Obviously
    you’ve never diversified your investment protfolio.

    5). I sure
    its been said better elsewhere but it sounds like a 50/50 proposition to me.

  • thor42

    One of the best advertisements for capitalism is China. 
    They have embraced capitalism in a massive way. Anyone visiting Beijing or Shanghai will see that.
    The Chinese know what works. So do the Russians and (now) the Eastern Europeans.   

    • Jimmy

      And human rights and their environment get nailed for the economic miracle. 
      That’s why so many of their “wealth creators” want to leave.

      “Most Chinese who have benefitted from the country‚Äôs growth have also
      expressed concerns in social issues, such as China’s one child policy,
      food safety, pollution, corruption, lack of good schools and a weak
      legal system.”

      http://www.economywatch.com/in-the-news/nearly-half-of-chinas-millionaires-want-to-emigrate.02-11.html

      • thor42

        Ahh…. but exactly the same can be said of Eastern Europe before the fall of the Wall. That too was an environmental nightmare, and it wasn’t exactly great for human rights.¬†
        Capitalism also offers SOLUTIONS for environmental problems – any clean-energy startup will tell you that.
        The bottom line Рif capitalism is so bad, why is it so popular? 
        If socialism is so good, why are people not swarming to North Korea?  

        • Jimmy

          “If socialism is so good, why are people not swarming to North Korea?”

          This statement is about a sensible as
          “if capitalism is so great, why don’t we have a fascism?”
          After all, elected govermnets are blotted with burocracy and inefficiency; why not have a totalitarian dictator run things properly?

          Socialism doesn’t = communism.¬†

          • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

            And North Korea doesn’t = communism

          • onelaw4all

            “After all, elected govermnets are blotted with burocracy and inefficiency; why not have a totalitarian dictator run things properly?”

            Or how about reduce the size of government/bureaucracy and simulataneously diminish the ability of it to be misused by your theoretical dictator against its citizenry?

          • Alsh

            Fascism is not capitalism it is socialism! National Socialism.

        • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

          Capitalism is popular because it makes the most sense compared to any alternative – it allows people to succeed, for there to be winners & loser not just everyone on an equal playing field. It accepts that not everyone can be the smartest, prettiest, fastest, richest, most powerful, most successful.

          Socialism – the transitional period before the level playing field of communism was only meant to be temporary whereby the intellectuals/bourgeois hold the reigns of power until the masses become skilled.

          Problem is the intellectuals/bourgeois control became code for bureaucratic authoritarian states whereby those in control didn’t want to relinquish it.

          Aside from the hundreds of thousands of people disappearing under Stalin, if you look closely at his rule vs Uncle Helen’s I think you will find a lot of similarities…..

    • diabolos

      And the whole rotten edifice is like a wooden scaffold riddled with borer.

      They are like Russia – a huge powder keg waiting to go off. the lessons of history of present reality will soon render rewrites of history redundant

  • Johnboy

    Socialism worked OK for Helen. Got her US$ 500,000 a year tax free. You righties are all just jealous!!!

    • max_power

      You mean Hulun’s a rich prick JB?¬†

      Crikey.

      What a bitch.

  • Gazzaw

    I’ll put the cat amongst the pigeons.

    How would you describe Singapore’s political system. Socialist or capitalist?

    • thor42

      Political system Рmostly socialist.   
      Economy Рvery much capitalist. 

  • thor42

    Funny that our resident troll diabolos can only raise corruption and criminals as his argument against capitalism.
    *** As if such things “didn’t exist” under socialism. ***¬†
    Dream on, diabolos.  Never mind.  Three more years of your darling socialists sitting on the Opposition benches. 

101%