Social Injustice : on Socialism
A blogger called Jonathan Davis used the proposed exercise in a post and the below comments we select to present you for our rubric Forums (all kind of Talk). So to spice things up a bit we start the column with a quote from nonetheless Miss Thatcher. Here we go.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
― Margaret Thatcher
Jonathan Davis says:
yes, based on a debt fuelled society – you’re so clever you forget the obvious
i agree the rich hate the poor – which is the very reason why we need capitalism to equalise things. banbankbailouts and prosecutebankgenerals and we would see more equality. not immediately but it would be heading in right direction
i agree with capitalism when you can have truly competitive markets – like car production (where unionised workers earn decent livings), but public ownership of natural monopolies like raliways and water. i would also like to see much lower taxes on earned income and consumption and higher taxes on capital gains, rents, wealth and inheritance. i don’t see how your libertarianism sticks it to the aristocracy, slum landlords and trust fund kids, do you?
in what country has capitalism, red in tooth and claw ever increased equality over time? the most equal and prosperous countries are the social market orientated nordic countries. there is lots of data on this subject.
Jonathan Davis says:
no, norway – oil
switzerland – banking and billionaires not taking from state
lux – same
iceland made a move towards capitalism when it rejected 15 year tax to bail out banks
you misunderstand my point – people could sit at home in the dole eating pizza in norway earning more than many full time workers in the UK, yet they choose to work – how come? the banking system and tax exiles may account for some of switzerland’s prosperity, but not to their work ethic – many cantons have consistantly had unemployment rates of below 1% the netherlands has historically had lower levels of unemployment than the UK despite far more generous benefits – how come?
funny about iceland – i read a von mises institute piece about how great they were doing with deregulation, finincial “innovation” and flat taxes about a year before the crash.
5 years of turbo charged macho capitalism nearly destroyed the most prosperous and sustainable nation on earth and was ONLY saved by direct democracy – or mob rule, as you might say…
yeah – goldman sachs and other institutions who fund your favoured “thinkers” got out of iceland with just weeks to spare…
and your argument that “it wasn’t REAL capitalism” echo the arguments of disgruntled communists “we hadn’t got past state capitalism” – when apart from your glorious 2 years in the 20s has any country had capitalism without it turning into corporatism?
as for NL – i have payed more taxes towards the mortgage tax relief of people living in glorious art noveau mansions than toward welfare. mortgage tax relief is a neoliberal measure, a socialist measure regarding housing would be to build council houses!
so how come the swiss et al wish to be in work when they could survive better than a full time english worker without working? maybe it’s good wages???
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
yes you can – works in prosperous denmark. the poor get by quite tolerably in scandinavia compared to the UK thanks to collective bargaining and minimum wage laws. they also have a bigger and more prosperous middle class.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving
like rents? inheritance?
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
like the post office being sold to hedge funds, bailed out banks and bahraini sovereign wealth funds?
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
better that the rich get exponentially wealthier then?