|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| ReeseDog wrote: |
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
What do you mean Barack Obama isn't a socialist? You mean McCain and Palin lied?
No way! |
No, he's a socialist. It's clear. |
How so? |
Um...'cause he's gonna take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't? "Redistribution of wealth," I think they call it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do you think Adam Smith was a socialist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Do you think Adam Smith was a socialist? |
Not in the strictest sense, no, though there's room for discussion there. There's little parallel between Smith and Obama, though.
Obama is a socialist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
V.2.71
The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses would arise not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expence of house-rent to the whole expence of living is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. |
http://econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN21.html#B.V,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20the%20Sources%20of%20the%20General%20or%20Public%20Revenue%20of%20the%20Society
The father of capitalism wanted to spread the wealth around. And he isn't a socialist, because supporting the poor by taxing the rich isn't socialist. A socialist system would have perfect equality.
Maybe whatever media organization you depend on is feeding you shit for information and your time would be better spent discovering the ideological foundations of our political economy.
Anyways, the hard core right-wing corporatists in the White House have been spreading the wealth around themselves. Down, up. Which is why the ultra rich now control exactly the same amount of wealth as a % of the economy as they did on the eve of the great depression. Also, this is why median wages have decreased in the last 8 years, while wages for the ultra rich have dramatically increased. Add to this a tax cut for the wealthy, and we have the makings of a third world serve-the-elite income distribution.
An English Teacher makes 24k/yr plus a shitty apartment. I find it amusing that you've been convinced to vote against your economic interests by propaganda that should be insulting to your intelligence.
Socialism is when the state or other aggregation of power owns the means of production. Obama isn't going to nationalize the overseas ESL industry. Your job is safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
V.2.71
The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses would arise not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expence of house-rent to the whole expence of living is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. |
http://econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN21.html#B.V,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20the%20Sources%20of%20the%20General%20or%20Public%20Revenue%20of%20the%20Society
The father of capitalism wanted to spread the wealth around. And he isn't a socialist, because supporting the poor by taxing the rich isn't socialist. A socialist system would have perfect equality.
Maybe whatever media organization you depend on is feeding you shit for information and your time would be better spent discovering the ideological foundations of our political economy.
Anyways, the hard core right-wing corporatists in the White House have been spreading the wealth around themselves. Down, up. Which is why the ultra rich now control exactly the same amount of wealth as a % of the economy as they did on the eve of the great depression. Also, this is why median wages have decreased in the last 8 years, while wages for the ultra rich have dramatically increased. Add to this a tax cut for the wealthy, and we have the makings of a third world serve-the-elite income distribution.
An English Teacher makes 24k/yr plus a shitty apartment. I find it amusing that you've been convinced to vote against your economic interests by propaganda that should be insulting to your intelligence.
Socialism is when the state or other aggregation of power owns the means of production. Obama isn't going to nationalize the overseas ESL industry. Your job is safe. |
You know nothing of me, boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When farmers over-produce and the price of their crop goes down, in a capitalist society, the public would pat the farmer on the back and say, "There, there". In a socialist society, the government would raise the taxes on the city dwellers and establish a bottom price for the crops and redistribute urban wealth to the rural people. They might even sell it to poor people at a discount undermining their will to take that CEO job on offer.
Since it is not economically efficient for the electric company to run power lines out into the country to every farm, the government would subsidize the power companies in order to ensure farmers have electricity. The electric power lines would more or less follow the roads built for the 6 families that line out that way, paid for by county taxes.
I'm glad we don't live in a socialist country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Obama is a classic liberal capitalist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
