6 ms·
The worst thing is, that the core of capitalism had to be rescured by socialism. Not that socialism is bad, or capitalism is bad. But the core of capitalism st
by rspoerri 5y ago
The worst thing is, that the core of capitalism had to be rescured by socialism.
Not that socialism is bad, or capitalism is bad. But the core of capitalism stand on, what isnt profitable, isnt sustainable. The system hasnt been provitable, but had been rescured by all the goverments and the money they gather from the inhabitants.
- npteljes 5y agoThat's not much of a problem, it just shows how capitalism is not a sustainable system on its own. It shows that capitalism is fine and dandy in some contexts, in others, it doesn't work well. So the conclusion is that a mixture of systems need to be in place: for example, strong social programs could take care of people while they are growing up or begin to fall out of the system, and capitalism can always step in on top of that, or as an alternative even.
- jessaustin 5y agoSocialism "for me but not for thee" isn't socialism. That's capitalism, although it does edge toward the super-capitalism that some call fascism rather than sharing any important characteristics with various systems of free enterprise that many people imagine when they encounter the word "capitalism".
- actually_a_dog 5y agoSocialism is not when the government does stuff.
- rspoerri 5y agoSocialism is when all the people of a country put theyr money together to pay for a system. Such as your taxes or a goverment healthcare. The banks have been rescured by such money.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoNo, that's called paying taxes and funding a government. I'd suggest you crack a political science textbook if you want to actually know what socialism is.
- rspoerri 5y agoSo goverment healthcare is not a socialistic system? The public infrastructure that is built using taxes and can be used by anyone and is owned by the goverment which represents the inhabitants is not socialistic? wikipedia: While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element. what, if not a socialistic system, is it then in your opinion?
- actually_a_dog 5y agoNo, those things are not socialist. As I said, if you want to learn what socialism is, go crack a book.
- rspoerri 5y agojust because you say doesnt make it right. If you know so much better, you would be able to write down what it is instead. maybe read jcranmer's response above. citing him: "government provision of services (are) a hallmark of socialism"
- actually_a_dog 5y ago"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." * Inigo Montoya
- rspoerri 5y agoi'd love to hear your side, but i have to assume there is none from your explanation.
- 5y ago
- zigradett 5y agoSomeone also needs to put to rest the "The Banks were bailed out using taxpayer money!" scandal. Based on what I heard, TARP the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bought a small percentage of those hedge funds and investment banks that were in danger of going under, then let them slowly buy their own shares back over a number of years ... ..... and the "taxpayers" got all their money back.
- rspoerri 5y ago"Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) | U.S. Department of the Treasury Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)" . Seems very goverment to me... It doesnt matter if its a loan. A lot of businesses would be profitable if you would give them 2 billion dollars. Just invest them in a diverse portfolio and real estates. And you are profitable in a short time. Getting that money in the first hand is whats difficult.
- throwaway2048 5y agohow exactly is this not using taxpayer money? It carried a ton of risk and likelyhood said companies would default and the money would never have been repaid.
- InitialLastName 5y agoThe government pooling resources (collected from the people) to control an industry (either by mandate or by providing an option that out-competes the private sector) for the benefit of the people is socialism. An industry collapsing and telling the government "give us money with no strings attached or we'll take the economy down with us" is a hostage crisis.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoNationalizing industries is also not socialism.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoYou know, you keep saying what socialism isn't. I agree with you that rspoerri's definition is too expansive, but we could have a more useful discussion if you supplied a definition, instead of just saying "no, that isn't it". (And "crack a book" isn't a definition.)
- actually_a_dog 5y agoSorry, but I'm not in the mood to get flagged today. I cut it off with "crack a book," because if you go one more step down the road beyond that, that leads to something you can't discuss rationally on Hacker News.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoFine. Then I will. (Been downvoted plenty lately, what's some more?) Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. It's not government healthcare. It's not government bailouts (unless the government keeps ownership of the businesses). It's not "government doing things". It's not government using taxes to pay for doing things. It's government owning the means of production, or else the people owning it in some other way (mandatory profit sharing would qualify). Now, can we prove the parent wrong and have an actual, reasonable discussion?
- rspoerri 5y agoBelow are some of the key tenets of socialism: 1. Public or collective ownership of the means of production 2. Central planning of the economy 3. Emphasis on equality and economic security 4. Goal of reducing class distinctions ( from: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082014/what-exactly-socialist-economy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082014/what-... ) And what happened? 1. The goverment decided to bail the banks, the goverment is _the_ public institution. 2. It was central planning "preventing the world economy from crashing" that lead to this decision. 3. not really equality, but economic security was one of the reasons. 4. ... no thats doesnt apply to the banks bailout.