Is this what socialists want?

[Deleted]

It's a good indication of an incredibly stupid person. Not socialism.

Incredible stupidity and socialism tend to go hand in hand.

[NineSpine]

So your argument is that we should keep the general population stupid just so that someone can bring you food? You do know that just because it is free doesn't mean everyone will go or graduate right? there are a lot of countries with free colleges nothing you say is based on reality.

His argument's even dumber than that, because he is arguing that we should use your family's financial status as the primary way to determine who should make up our educated class, as opposed to using, you know.... merit.

[Varitok]

Free university is a bad idea.
Bogs down the entire system with people who didn't earn their way their either by money or intelligence.
What are you going to do with an entire populace of overly educated people? someone needs to prepare food, someone has to man the register.

Technical schools and apprenticeships should be government funded.

Educating the populace has never been a bad thing. I guarantee the same argument was made when public school became mandatory. The fact is, you want to make Technical schools and apprenticeships funded when they are the things heading towards automation. The same with food preparation. Also, almost every store I go into has a self checkout.

[tyrlaan]

Free university is a bad idea.
Bogs down the entire system with people who didn't earn their way their either by money or intelligence.
What are you going to do with an entire populace of overly educated people? someone needs to prepare food, someone has to man the register.

Technical schools and apprenticeships should be government funded.

What part of "free university" also means no admission requirements?

Maybe things have changed since I went to college. but you don't just waltz in.

On the other hand, your last question is completely legit and the answer is universal basic income. Because here's the thing - as technology advances, unskilled labor is needed less and less.

[Draco-Onis]

His argument's even dumber than that, because he is arguing that we should use your family's financial status as the primary way to determine who should make up our educated class, as opposed to using, you know.... merit.

He is the type of people who secretly want to bring ruling monarchies back.

[BuckSparkles]

On the other hand, your last question is completely legit and the answer is universal basic income. Because here's the thing - as technology advances, unskilled labor is needed less and less.

Disagree. You should not earn money for simply existing. That alone doesn't warrant receiving money.

[Varitok]

Incredible stupidity and socialism tend to go hand in hand.

In the echo chamber you live in maybe.

[igualitarist]

The social democracies of Europe have more vibrant middle classes than we do.

Thanks capitalism.

Try to subjugate capitalism in those countries to see what happens, all the wealth generated by the people and the companies won't be enough to maintain a welfare state and the system will collapse.

That system is a luxury only very rich countries can achiev, because its needed tons of wealth being produced. And who produces the wealth ? Yeah, private sector.

[NineSpine]

Disagree. You should not earn money for simply existing. That alone doesn't warrant receiving money.

Weren't you just making the argument that it is great that people can leave huge fortunes to their children? Don't you see the disconnect?

30% of income in the United States is unearned income. More than half of my personal income is dividends and interest. I get paid that for doing NOTHING.

[Varitok]

Disagree. You should not earn money for simply existing. That alone doesn't warrant receiving money.

You should, its how the future will go, accept it now or not. It's also nearly impossible to argue with American's on that fact so I tend to try to avoid it.

The massive amounts of poverty in the next 25 years will be staggering and you need some tax system for automation and a safety net, Its as simple as that, its why nearly every other nation is better than the US in that regard, they are steadily being left in the past and maybe for the better. Adapt or die.

[NineSpine]

Thanks capitalism.

Try to subjugate capitalism in those countries to see what happens, all the wealth generated by the people and the companies won't be enough to maintain a welfare state and the system will collapse.

That system is a luxury only very rich countries can achiev, because we need tons of wealth being produced. And who produces the wealth ? Yeah, private sector.

You are confusing "private sector" and capitalism. Those aren't the same thing.

[A dot Ham]

The point of monopoly was to actually show that monopolies were bad. Which is debatable as well. Also, most people play monopoly wrong, in my experience.

The end result of capitalism is monopolies. Eventually one person, or one company owns everything and everyone else can suck it. There is no competition, no social mobility, no home ownership, etc.

[Violent]

Start with the top, that way the fire can trickle down.

As long as it all ends up as ashes, I'm for it.

[deceptacon1]

Wait hold up. You're using a 2 year old broadcast of an interview from Fox, in which this poor college student was ambushed for her quasi-flawed/incomplete thought process, to do what exactly? Demonstrate that socialism is a bad idea?

Not really taking sides on this because I don't believe democracy can exist without capitalism. But to combat this equally shaky argument you've constructed, one could fire back with a simplistic model for capitalism.



The game where one person ends up with all the wealth, and everyone else ends up in the poor house. Yay, capitalism!

The model you've described here is a zero sum game in which there will be a winner and there will be a loser. Our market is always moving, expanding, contracting, etc. which means the model cannot be applied.

There will always be someone in the poor houses, but the people in the poor houses can move to the average houses over time.

[NineSpine]

The model you've described here is a zero sum game in which there will be a winner and there will be a loser. Our market is always moving, expanding, contracting, etc. which means the model cannot be applied.

There will always be someone in the poor houses, but the people in the poor houses can move to the average houses over time.

You might want to take a history class if you don't think monopolies happen.

[Spectral]

The model you've described here is a zero sum game in which there will be a winner and there will be a loser. Our market is always moving, expanding, contracting, etc. which means the model cannot be applied.

There will always be someone in the poor houses, but the people in the poor houses can move to the average houses over time.

Monopoly is specifically focusing on land, which really is a zero sum game. That's the whole point of the game - to point out the zero sum nature of land to advocate Georgism.

[igualitarist]

You are confusing "private sector" and capitalism. Those aren't the same thing.

And you confuse social programs with socialism, those aren't the same thing.

I am still wating to see any credible source that european economies are not capitalist, really.

Just because some ideologs refuse to admit the best countries in the world are capitalist, due to self deception, does not mean they are right.

They can't factully prove those countries aren't capitalist. The only argument they have is based on the confusion that socialism and welfare are the same thing.

The point is, capitalism is a system that favors private sector. Take a loot at every ranking of economic freedom and you will see that europeans social democracies are pretty well ranked. In fact, you will see that all the first world countries are well ranked.

Thats why they are wealth. Not because welfare, but because its easy to open, maintain and close a business there.

Their private sector is so strong, that they can even afford a strong welfare system.

[A dot Ham]

The model you've described here is a zero sum game in which there will be a winner and there will be a loser. Our market is always moving, expanding, contracting, etc. which means the model cannot be applied.

There will always be someone in the poor houses, but the people in the poor houses can move to the average houses over time.

"simplistic" model for capitalism

So as this is not a true model for capitalism... neither is a video of some random college student who doesn't understand the implications of wanting free tuition, indicative of "what socialists want".

[BuckSparkles]

==

30% of income in the United States is unearned income. More than half of my personal income is dividends and interest. I get paid that for doing NOTHING.

Being wise with investment options =/= the type of people who would benefit from something as silly as universal income.

[NineSpine]

And you confuse social programs with socialism, those aren't the same thing.

I am still wating to see any credible source that european economies are not capitalist, really.

Just because some ideologs refuse to admit the best countries in the world are capitalist, due to self deception, does not mean they are right.

They can't factully prove those countries aren't capitalist. The only argument they have is based on the confusion that socialism and welfare are the same thing.

The point is, capitalism is a system that favors private sector. Take a loot at every ranking of economic freedom and you will see that europeans social democracies are pretty well ranked. In fact, you will see that all the first world countries are well ranked.

Thats why they are wealth. Not because welfare, but because its easy to open, maintain and close a business there.

Their private sector is so strong, that they can even afford a strong welfare system.

As long as you continue irrationally and incorrectly defining capitalism as "The government doesn't own everything" you will be right. In reality, a corporate system like Germany, where workers collectively execute power on the board of corporations, by mandate of law, is a form of socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

Being wise with investment options =/= the type of people who would benefit from something as silly as universal income.

You didn't address what I said at all: More than half of my income is passive. I don't earn it. I don't even know what most of it is invested in. There is no "decision" I made. It's in a fund.