College students furious after they’re tricked into rejecting socialist ideal

[Triks]

They were poor, now they aren't - blame capitalism for that. They are still primarily capitalist and not soviet-style planned economies.

"Those countries can employ free-market capitalism because they have the basis to do so. After a while you can't have a hands-on-approach to the economy."

Let's not delve into the history of Western Europe and the USA because you won't like what you will find. Colonialism is not capitalism and imposing tarriffs on your colonies is not free trade. Germany of the Bismarck and the Kaiser was a socialist country with the Kaiser even going to war in order to wipe out the socialists. Hitler started the dismantling of Prussia because it was VERY left-leaning. What about France and its proto-communist tendencies or Stambolov and his protectionism?

Thatcherism/Reaganism is popular in only two countries - the UK and the USA. All other countries have rejected it because it leads to recessions. The USA in particular has a dumb fascination with libertarianism, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Naturally, the UK followed suit and both of those countries plunged the world in a recession. Hurray!

[ShimmerSwirl]

It's not about liking it or not. It's about it actually being a solution to anything or making any fucking sense. There's no sense in such redistribution. It solves nothing and actually takes away from something that a student can't regain. People can earn more wealth, especially if they already have a significant amount still coming in. You can't continuously earn a higher GPA, it's literally a mathematical impossibility.

How can you say there is no sense in redistributing a GPA but there is sense in doing the same with money?

Giving bad students a higher GPA directly increases their ability to graduate, and get a good job right? Its allowing them to become self sufficient and provide for themselves ultimately, reducing the burden on society as a whole. All the smart kids have to give up to make this utopia possible is a few measly points off their GPA. They can still get goods jobs and have plenty of money. Sure maybe they won't be quiet as head and shoulders above the bad students anymore when it comes to showing off their resume to a employer, but its for the greater good, right? How can a equality minded liberal like yourself possibly advocate against redistributing GPA when it will directly help millions of people get better jobs, and reduce overall inequality?

[Theinquisition]

Here's a shocker - even after the drop in oil prices and corruption, Venezuela still has a higher GDP and GDP per capita than capitalist Haiti. Even Castroland - a country under embargo for the last 50 years - has better GDP and GDP per capita than Haiti. Capitalism doesn't work for poor countries because under capitalism, their resources become the property of corporations such as BP and Chevron. To my knowledge no country has ever lifted itself out of poverty with free-market capitalism - they have all used a variation of the Soviet-style planned economy.

- - - Updated - - -



Except that Nickolay Romanov was a tyrant who had frequently massacred his own people and killed political adversaries. The Russians were mad at him for a reason but replaced him with more of the same plus industrialisation.

- - - Updated - - -



Takes 3 seconds to Google it:

socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

communism - a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

In other words - socialism permits private property outside of the economy aka having a house and a car, communism doesn't. By that alone they cannot be synonyms.

you're conflating Capitalism as a government system to Capitalism as a economic system. Just because a country is capitalist, doesn't mean it will be successful, especially if ruled by totalitarian dictators.

[Triks]

you're conflating Capitalism as a government system to Capitalism as a economic system. Just because a country is capitalist, doesn't mean it will be successful, especially if ruled by totalitarian dictators.

The same can be said about socialism.

[Theinquisition]

The same can be said about socialism.

Didn't say otherwise.

[Taso]

"Those countries can employ free-market capitalism because they have the basis to do so. After a while you can't have a hands-on-approach to the economy."

Let's not delve into the history of Western Europe and the USA because you won't like what you will find. Colonialism is not capitalism and imposing tarriffs on your colonies is not free trade. Germany of the Bismarck and the Kaiser was a socialist country with the Kaiser even going to war in order to wipe out the socialists. Hitler started the dismantling of Prussia because it was VERY left-leaning. What about France and its proto-communist tendencies or Stambolov and his protectionism?

Thatcherism/Reaganism is popular in only two countries - the UK and the USA. All other countries have rejected it because it leads to recessions. The USA in particular has a dumb fascination with libertarianism, culminating in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Naturally, the UK followed suit and both of those countries plunged the world in a recession. Hurray!

Glass-stegall did nothing to the economy. It was failure to reform loans on housing that caused the collapse in 08.

https://www.thebalance.com/the-histo...states-3306011 this one shows recessions even when we had 90% taxes which is what sanders and warren dream of.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=84435 Bush jr did warn congress and yet when the committee responsible for creating an act failed that is how the crises occurred.
Another thing is if socialism and planned economics is so perfect why is Zimbabwe in utter ruins despite Mugabe devotion to socialism? Including south Africa which is in a seven year depression as of current. What about Brazil which is now in chaos and may as well be called Venezuela 2.0 with high corruption. I thought socialism was to enact social justice and equality among everyone not give way to corrupt government.

[Triks]

Didn't say otherwise.

In reality, the policies must match the situation they are being applied to. Rigidly sticking to ideologies creates situations like the one in Greece.

[Triks]

Glass-stegall did nothing to the economy. It was failure to reform loans on housing that caused the collapse in 08.

https://www.thebalance.com/the-histo...states-3306011 this one shows recessions even when we had 90% taxes which is what sanders and warren dream of.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=84435 Bush jr did warn congress and yet when the committee responsible for creating an act failed that is how the crises occurred.
Another thing is if socialism and planned economics is so perfect why is Zimbabwe in utter ruins despite Mugabe devotion to socialism? Including south Africa which is in a seven year depression as of current. What about Brazil which is now in chaos and may as well be called Venezuela 2.0 with high corruption. I thought socialism was to enact social justice and equality among everyone not give way to corrupt government.

You can't "reform loans" or the auditors will be after you. The repeal of Glass-Steagall meant that commercial banks could now have investment divisions. This is wrong on so many levels because, first and foremost, it betrays people's expectations of banks - relatively mundane and safe investments. That's the reason why the gravitated to mortgages as they were seen as a particularly risk-free investment. By having both investment and retail divisions, these banks managed to maximise both exposure and structural risk while at the same time having absolutely no liquidity.

Do you realise why we are now up to Basel III? Banks simply don't want to be responsible unless they are forced to. There is too much money to be made in leverage-backed deals, the customers be damned.

Why do you think low/high taxes cause recessions? Why do you think I have ever defended 90% taxes which is simply absurd?

To answer your question, Zimbabwe and Brazil are fucked because of rampant corruption.

[Taso]

You can't "reform loans" or the auditors will be after you. The repeal of Glass-Steagall meant that commercial banks could now have investment divisions. This is wrong on so many levels because, first and foremost, it betrays people's expectations of banks - relatively mundane and safe investments. That's the reason why the gravitated to mortgages as they were seen as a particularly risk-free investment. By having both investment and retail divisions, these banks managed to maximise both exposure and structural risk while at the same time having absolutely no liquidity.

Do you realise why we are now up to Basel III? Banks simply don't want to be responsible unless they are forced to. There is too much money to be made in leverage-backed deals, the customers be damned.

Why do you think low/high taxes cause recessions? Why do you think I have ever defended 90% taxes which is simply absurd?

To answer your question, Zimbabwe and Brazil are fucked because of rampant corruption.

Forgive me on the accusations on you for the 90% tax its not you directly but the idea of a return to it
by some on the left. I just get rather annoyed that people dont look at the cycles during the period that it existed. I always try to find some other source for recessions outside of whatever is highlighted by media.

[Triks]

Forgive me on the accusations on you for the 90% tax its not you directly but the idea of a return I just get rather annoyed that people dont look at the cycles during the period that it existed.

Don't worry

Economic crises are endemic to capitalism as a system. This is one of the few things that I can agree with Marx on. Regulation only speeds it or makes it happen faster. What is too much or too few regulation is up for the politicians to decide and usually they get it horribly wrong.

[Forogil]

Let's not delve into the history of Western Europe and the USA because you won't like what you will find. Colonialism is not capitalism and imposing tarriffs on your colonies is not free trade.

So, ignore the entire first world because it doesn't fit your agenda and instead engage in a gish-gallop.

Note that my examples weren't restricted to Western Europe and USA. Colonialism isn't capitalism - and not all countries in western Europe were colonial powers, and for the ones that were most left it in a state that would currently make them a poor country today - and still they grew (mostly more) under capitalism.

Germany of the Bismarck and the Kaiser was a socialist country with the Kaiser even going to war in order to wipe out the socialists.

Your statement makes no sense. The truth is that Germany under Bismarck was a welfare state opposed to socialists and that makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -

The best part about any "socialism" discussion is counting how many people clearly never even looked the word up and just learned their "definition" from alarmist right-wing radio hosts and shit.

Yes. And the strangest part are the ones favoring and using the definition from alarmist right-wing radio hosts.

[araine]

Can I put grades in a bank and let them collect interest? Can I do extra work and earn more than an A?

If the answer to either of those is no they aren't comparable.

Exactly i cant put my A into an account and have it become a stronger A by just watching time go. but i never expected right wingers to grasp common sense like this so no surprise on that one

[Triks]

So, ignore the entire first world because it doesn't fit your agenda and instead engage in a gish-gallop.

Note that my examples weren't restricted to Western Europe and USA. Colonialism isn't capitalism - and not all countries in western Europe were colonial powers, and for the ones that were most left it in a state that would currently make them a poor country today - and still they grew (mostly more) under capitalism.


Your statement makes no sense. The truth is that Germany under Bismarck was a welfare state opposed to socialists and that makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes. And the strangest part are the ones favoring and using the definition from alarmist right-wing radio hosts.

I have no agenda. I am glad that you agree that colonialism isn't capitalism because that was the dominant economic model of Western Europe until the former colonial powers couldn't keep their empires together. Virtually all Western European nations had colonies with some being more successful than others.

You realise that the SDP (or whatever it was called back then) were the biggest party in the Reichstag in the 1910's, right? You realise that Bismarck ended up implementing socialism because banning it didn't work and the movement was gaining momentum, right? Germany of Bismarck and the Kaiser was a political mess where the Reichstag was first liberal and then socialist while the ruling class were highly-conservative Junkers.

[Alexeht]

Reminds me very much of:
-video snip-

O M G
How funny this is! Women signing this xD Just because they listened to two buzzwords "end" "women's" "xxx". This truly shows how much skeptical people should be today.

[Forogil]

I have no agenda. I am glad that you agree that colonialism isn't capitalism because that was the dominant economic model of Western Europe until the former colonial powers couldn't keep their empires together. Virtually all Western European nations had colonies with some being more successful than others.

Colonialism isn't an economic model (the main economic idea during most of that time was mercantilism).

And many European countries didn't have colonies (I believe Switzerland is in that category), or they were so tiny and short-lived that they had no economic impact. More importantly you are missing the point - Europe was then as poor as poor countries today, and regardless of any colonialism they become economically rich due to capitalism.

You realise that the SDP (or whatever it was called back then) were the biggest party in the Reichstag in the 1910's, right? You realise that Bismarck ended up implementing socialism because banning it didn't work and the movement was gaining momentum, right?

No, because he didn't implement socialism - he implemented a welfare state, and opposed socialists (and thought SPD as socialist since that was their official political stance at that time - they have since then shifted from social democracy in practice and socialism in theory to social democrats in both).

The idea of fighting socialism by socialism is worse than fighting fire with fire.

[Triks]

Colonialism isn't an economic model (the main economic idea during most of that time was mercantilism).

And many European countries didn't have colonies (I believe Switzerland is in that category), or they were so tiny and short-lived that they had no economic impact. More importantly you are missing the point - Europe was then as poor as poor countries today, and regardless of any colonialism they become economically rich due to capitalism.


No, because he didn't implement socialism - he implemented a welfare state, and opposed socialists (and thought SPD as socialist since that was their official political stance at that time - they have since then shifted from social democracy in practice and socialism in theory to social democrats in both).

The idea of fighting socialism by socialism is worse than fighting fire with fire.

They became economically rich due to plunder and exploitation. They kept their wealth due to capitalism. As a system, capitalism works incredibly well when you have money. When you don't - it doesn't because your industry will always be up for grabs.

I.e. he gave them what they wanted. The SDP at that time were far more radical than they are now. Most left-leaning parties defend social democracies and not socialism because rich countries don't benefit from such a model.

[Forogil]

They became economically rich due to plunder and exploitation. They kept their wealth due to capitalism.

Wrong. Many of the listed countries (including the ones outside Europe) didn't engage in that (or so little that it doesn't matter), and still grew rich - from levels that are considered quite poor today. How do you fail to realize that your explanation of colonialism is wrong?

[ShimmerSwirl]

Because they're fundamentally different things. One is a resource that can be re-earned and another is a form of evaluation that can not be re-earned if points are lost or redistributed.

It wouldn't do what you're claiming. If we want to distribute some points from someone with a 4.0 to a student with say a 1.0 then they both end up with a 2.5. So, now instead of one student getting a good job and the other dropping out because he didn't put in the effort, we have two students with a 2.5 who won't get a decent job.

As discussed throughout this thread, the correlation of effort and a grade you earn is much much stronger than the correlation of effort and the money you earn by working hard. Can you try really hard and not get good grades? Sure, but that is far from the norm. Maybe you won't get a 4.0 but if you can't maintain a 3.0 in college, you shouldn't be in college studying whatever you're studying. You're just not cut out for it. Giving a handout in the form of GPA points will give unqualified people jobs they should not have.

If the same were true with money, why aren't all the people busting their ass day after day still only able to barely get by financially? Do you really think that correlation is just as strong? Or do you think perhaps there are several more socioeconomic factors influencing their ability to earn a living compared to someone's ability to earn a grade?

It's also actually solving a problem. Just disregarding people in poverty and not helping them in some way would lead to more crime. That's just one example. What problem does redistributing GPA points solve? It just creates a problem of unqualified people looking better on paper but unable to actually perform.

The gigantic blinders you have to put on to believe your own point must be stopping you from thinking straight. Even if a good student's GPA is redistributed, making it lower, there is absolutely nothing stopping that person from taking on more courses and putting in more hours to raise it back up. Good students will still have the advantage of being able to directly raise their GPA through their own effort.

Why are people busting their ass not able to get by financially? Because they don't have an education. They perform low skill labor and thus make little money. An increase to their GPA would allow them to get a degree and a get a better paying job.

You sound to me like a student. The idea of your grades you stayed up late for being taken away from you pisses you off. Get a job and go work 50 hours a week, and then give 70% of that money away to people who will spend it on beer and cigarettes and lotto tickets. See how pissed off you feel then.