CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why Social Democracy Doesn't Work
Social democracy is a political approach in which the general citizenry receives extensive welfare programs and social benefits, people that support this political approach do so on the basis of alleviating the poor of their burdens, however this approach and argument are problematic for a couple of reasons.
There is on such thing as absolute poverty, the reason you consider certain people poor and deserving of social benefits is their position on the socioeconomic scale, which is in polar opposition to the wealthiest of people. 500 years ago the people you consider poor now would be considered wealthy as they wouldn't be positioned at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. This matters because it doesn't matter how many social benefits you bestow upon the poor they will still be at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale which leads to them deserving more and more social benefits, this causes a couple of problems as the extensive taxation the government has to partake in in order to cover the costs of such extensive welfare programs stagnates the economy as money that the government confiscates isn't money that is circulating in the economy, stimulating the industry and production, and passing from hand to hand. Which leads to everyone being generally poorer. Additionally The government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to cover such extensive welfare programs, it relies on loans and printing money in order to do so, which will Inevitably lead to a recession and inflation.
The arguments here show a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.
Social democracy blended with moderated capitalism is the only system shown to work in modern western society, and all modern western nations use that blend. It fails hard when it becomes socialist for the powerful corporations, and capitalist for the people - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.
The argument you present here shows a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.
Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best. It fails hard when people give the government power over the market which Inevitably leads to corporations using the government as a pawn to tighten their grip over the market. - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.
See? I can do this too, so do you want to continue spewing your beliefs without backing them in any way shape or from? because it amounts to nothing.
In some ways, you've expounded on my argument, explaining the regulations that are, beyond doubt, needed - but then you side-stepped the whole debate - it's about socialism, not capitalism.
My 'ideas' are indeed backed, and if you want a reference, I recommend reality. As stated, each and every modern western society is, in fact, a blended system of socialism and capitalism.
Many are weak on what socialism actually is. Maybe you need explanation: The roads are socialist (except toll roads). The military is socialist. The police and fire departments are socialist. Public schools are socialist, and yes, programs that make sure that the elderly and disabled can survive, are also socialist. Oh, and the subsidies for huge corporations? They're socialist, too.
Socialism exists any time public monies are spent in a way that (the perception is) help society.
Yes indeed, each and every modern western society is, in fact, your blend of socialism and capitalism, and almost each and every modern western society is racking up national debt at an exponential rate, which is inevitably going to lead to a global recession.
We've become toadies to the giant corporations. Reagan espoused trickle-down and solidified consumerism, and we've been wastefully pissed on ever since.
And to think you told me I'm ignorant of the reality of modern western economic systems. Countries rack up national debt in the way of the government spending more money than it collects by taxation, and on what does the government spend the most? welfare and social programs. Other than that you're operating on the assumption that living standards will decrease as a result of the government ceasing it's social programs, which isn't the case.
Just where do you think it should go? Welfare and social programs are how the elderly and infirm survive. In fact, almost all of that money goes directly back into the economy.
The problem, as I've stated, is the huge corporations, and toadying up to them as they evade taxes and avoid putting back into the system that has given them record profits - oh, and those billionaires that profit hugely off of it. In Eisenhower's time, the top marginal rate was 93%
First of all it should go into paying off the national debt obviously, and after that it shouldn't exist, taxation should be reduced and kept to a minimum, so does government spending.
Again, you're ignoring the fact that:
A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and be extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.
There are two social benefits that I've seen proposed, as of late - both of which pay for themselves. Those are medical - which would save us billions yearly, and advanced education, which would keep us from going under in the world market. I can expound on either, or both, and provide sources, if you wish.
Again, corporations are making record profits, here in America, where they actually pay less than they would in most of the rest of the world, and get fewer benefits. Do you really think if we raised their taxes so that they actually paid their share, they'd be in a hurry to relocate?
Maybe for the slave labor they abuse, they would, but that's another issue.
Oh, and if I seem harsh at any time, I apologize. I rather like this debate, and respect other viewpoints on it, whether it seems so or not.
On healthcare: Friedman's study on medicare for all purports $592 b in savings, in the first year. Simply cutting the insurance agencies removes a ton of useless makework.
On education: Right now, we simply don't compete in the world market. (The average US IQ is, sadly, 98.) A higher education enriches society in a great number of ways.
The bill that is discussed in the article in the second link you sent me is Bernie Sander's "Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act" which currently hasn't passed congress, this medicare program is speculated to cost 1.4 trillion USD Annually. When the author discusses half a trillion dollars in savings he's speculating that the cost of this medicare program (that hasn't been enacted yet) could be reduced by said amount of money. I hope you understand that an increase of a trillion dollars in annual government spending isn't viable.
You linked me a 44 page PDF, I'm not going to read it. You can paste the parts where it states how free education isn't going to increase the national debt and nullify the economic stagnation funding it will cause, if you want.
"We could, for instance, allow Medicare to directly bargain with drug companies over prescription drug prices, as other wealthy countries already do: by one estimate, the savings from this reform alone could range from $230 to $541 billion over ten years.
More ambitiously, we could work towards a “single payer system,” which could save billions through reduced administrative and clerical expenditures, while allowing costs to be directly controlled through global budgets and fee schedules. Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, recently estimated the savings of such a system at $592 billion annually."
There is no "too high" the higher the tax rate the more stagnated the economy is.
If the article was regarding a substitute for the current medicare program a saving of $592 billion annually wouldn't be possible because the total amount of money that is currently spent on medicare in the US is only bout $590 billion. This article is obviously discussing ways to bring down the cost of the bill I mentioned.
Ah, no. The total cost of healthcare was 3.2 trillion in 2015. The article discusses the savings on the cost of healthcare, period. Seriously, reading comprehension matters.
Oh, and yes, there's a 'too high'...and a 'too low', but I'll leave you to figure that out.
You don't read, or can't comprehend my sources, and then resort to sad pronouncements that fly against your own argument when you fail miserably. If there isn't a 'too high', your whole argument is meaningless. Too low simply defunds the government.
If you're emotionally incapable of acknowledging you were wrong about something I'm ok with that, we can pretend as if you won the argument. Just don't pretend as if you managed to justify social democracy.
I'm arguing that the taxation that is currently required in order to fund all the social benefits the government provides is stagnating the economy to the extent that we would be better off without it. What is your counter argument?
Excluding the fact that high marginal tax rate effects only the top percent of income earners, Eisenhower's goal was to pay off the national debt, there was no government organized health insurance or housing under his terms as president and he has stated publicly that the governments goal should be to keep taxes as low as possible.
FDR's was a bad US president, his reinforcement of monopolies devoided the market of competition, that coupled with government sanctioned wages led to mass unemployment and extreme price hikes. All in all he is estimated to have prolonged the great depression by about 3 years.
Sure. Bad for the crooks running America. But for everyday Americans he was the best president ever.
his reinforcement of monopolies
Ah, I see. Taxing the rich at 94 percent is "reinforcement of monopolies", is it? Black is white again, right? Up is down. Left is right. Backwards is forwards. Please, tell us more about your Orwellian lexicon of opposites.
Don't just link drop you retarded idiot. Show me where it says he "reinforced monopolies".
Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies (Franklin D Roosevelt, April 12th 1938)
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best.
Are you literally retarded? That is precisely what caused the 2008 economic meltdown. You are describing rational market theory, which has been the academic basis for western capitalism since the 1960s. In 2008, the guy who invented it, who also happens to be the ex-chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, stood in front of a House Committee and flatly told them all he was wrong.
"In other words you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right. It was not working?"
"Precisely. That's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for forty years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."
(Alan Greenspan to House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, 2008)
That is precisely what caused the 2008 economic meltdown.
Government requirements to lend to sub-prime borrowers while justifying this requirement with guaranteed government support for the inevitable outcomes of incentivized sub-prime lending via the Federal National Mortgage Association and The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), created the housing market bubble. The inevitable bursting of this economic bubble created by government meddling in the free market is precisely what caused the 2008 economic meltdown.
Government requirements to lend to sub-prime borrowers while justifying this requirement with guaranteed government support for the inevitable outcomes of incentivized sub-prime lending via the Federal National Mortgage Association and The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), created the housing market bubble.#
Amarel, please stop posting convoluted gibberish. You are describing what happened and I am describing why it happened. These are different things.
The 2008 Financial Crisis: How Deregulation Led to the Crisis
One failed link and one editorial will not change the fact that the economic bubble in the housing market was caused by government incentives to increase sub-prime loans that were ultimately doomed to fail.
As for editorials, there are all kinds of people with all kinds of opinions. Try to support your position with facts sometime. Even so, here is a counter opinion from a Stanford economist "What caused the boom and bust? Bad government policy--in particular, bad monetary policy."
One failed link and one editorial will not change the fact that the economic bubble in the housing market was caused by government incentives to increase sub-prime loans that were ultimately doomed to fail.
Amarel, do you even read the things people write back to you? You are simply an absolutely WHOPPING liar who would not know a fact if he fell over it. You are attempting to blame the government for the housing bubble, but the very subprime mortgage loans you are attacking were pushed onto consumers by banks, and precisely because the banks had been deregulated.
"It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending."
I know this works well for your own confirmation bias, but tossing out "liar" every time you are loosing isn't going to convince an intellectually honest reader.
You are attempting to blame the government for the housing bubble, but the very subprime mortgage loans you are attacking were pushed onto consumers by banks, and precisely because the banks had been deregulated.
This illustrates your ignorance pretty well. Nobody would specifically aim to lend money to people who cannot pay it back unless they had assurances that this is somehow a good investment. It was only a good investment because the government provided financial support for this bad business practice via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government basically HAD to create these institutions to support the lending requirements they placed on banks. This isn't deregulation, it's misregulation.
It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it
Lol there is no profit incentive to make bad loans unless there is an artificial support. In this case it was the government institutions referenced above. The fact that private lending agencies could sell their toxic assets to the government after engaging in bad lending practices required by the government lets you know where the blame lies.
I know this works well for your own confirmation bias
Amarel, I demonstrated that you were lying. I even used your own source to do it. I think that now would be a good time to quit snorting coke.
This illustrates your ignorance pretty well.
No, it illustrates that you are a WHOPPING liar. I gave you a direct quote from Forbes and you have responded by ignoring the quote and calling me mean names.
Nobody would specifically aim to lend money to people who cannot pay it back unless
Unless the loan was a subprime mortgage, leveraged against property owned by the bank!!!! Theoretically the banks believed they could not lose because, if a customer defaulted on loan repayments, they could simply repossess the house and resell the loan.
How is it even possible that you could call me ignorant and then demonstrate your complete ignorance of what a mortgage is in your very next sentence?
You know what, Amarel? You are so thoroughly and obnoxiously dishonest that you are not even worth the time it takes to read your posts.
Amarel, I demonstrated that you were lying. I even used your own source to do it.
No you didn't. I provided an opinion piece, and you provided a different opinion published in the same magazine. His main point was that private lenders sold toxic bundles to other private entities. A point he believes shows no government culpability. But the fact that everyone knew their toxic assets had a guaranteed buyer meant no one was overly concerned about taking on some toxic assets. Do you know what moral hazard is? The fact that credit agencies measured risk incorrectly is a valid point, but it doesn't absolve the government of it's share of blame. The lions share.
Unless the loan was a subprime mortgage, leveraged against property owned by the bank!!!! Theoretically the banks believed they could not lose because, if a customer defaulted on loan repayments, they could simply repossess the house and resell the loan.
You dumb shit, banks could ALWAYS take back collateral in case of borrower default. They don't want the land, they want the money. The function of collateral, which has always been in the banking system, did not create the perverse incentives that lead to the housing market crash.
Bad government policy created the perverse incentive to lend to bad borrowers. You will find plenty of commentators who will blame banks for proceeding to lend to bad borrowers, but that does not constitute proof of culpability.
The fact that you don't even understand that complete lack of relevance collateral had in the issue tells me that you are merely googling for articles that support what you want to believe without any understanding of the topic.
You dumb shit, banks could ALWAYS take back collateral in case of borrower default
He never argued otherwise. He said that deregulating the banks caused them to give out subprime mortgages to high-risk applicants. He's right because that is exactly what happened.
Giving out subprime mortgages to a few high-risk applicants was minor. Certainly, it was an issue, but again I say: see derivatives. Derivatives were what blew things up.
Certainly, it was an issue, but again I say: see derivatives. Derivatives were what blew things up
I think there might be a misunderstanding because you are both talking about the same thing. The high risk loans were bundled up and sold to investors as derivatives.
Make note, I was clarifying. The small number of risky subprime loans themselves were not a major danger - it was the bundling, and then insuring practices that really blew things up. It was rating junk bundles triple A, and then insuring them multiple times over.
Ultimately, it was due to the fact that it was poorly regulated, as you've stated...and derivatives were totally UNregulated.
The small number of risky subprime loans themselves were not a major danger
With the greatest respect, I think you are vastly underestimating the number of high risk loans given out by banks once they were deregulated. As I explained, the banks felt like they had nothing to lose, because the worst case scenario was a partial repayment of the loan, repossession, and then a resell.
Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.
It's my understanding that they did rise in number, but the percentage of total subprime loans was - IIRC - never higher than 20%. Here's another evaluation that's worth reading:
"While subprime borrowers default at a higher rate than prime borrowers, Fierra said in an interview with Fortune that the data shown above suggest that the foreclosure crisis would have happened even in the absence of such risky lending. “People have this idea that subprime took over, but that’s far from the truth,” says Ferreira. The vast majority of mortgages in the U.S. were still given to prime borrowers, which means that the real estate bubble was a phenomenon fueled mostly by creditworthy borrowers buying and selling homes they simply thought wouldn’t ever decrease in value.
We can draw two conclusions from this data. One is that your chances of being foreclosed upon in the past decade was more a matter of timing than anything else. If you were a subprime borrower in, for instance 2002, who bought a bigger house than a more prudent and creditworthy borrower would have bought, chances are you would have been fine. But a prime borrower who did everything right—bought a house he could easily afford, with a large downpayment—but did so in 2006 would have had a higher chance of defaulting than the subprime borrower with better timing.
Since whether you were hurt by the crisis had more to do with luck than anything else, Ferreira argues we should rethink whether doing more to help underwater homeowners would have been a good idea."
It's my understanding that they did rise in number, but the percentage of total subprime loans was - IIRC - never higher than 20%.
That doesn't help us much though. What we need to know is how much they increased after deregulation. Any bank would presumably balance its transactions out so it may have been the case that there was an increase in mortgages generally. Either way, the fact remains that enough mortgages defaulted during a short enough time that it panicked the market, which became the catalyst for the recession.
Sure. And ultimately, it was the lack of solid regulations that caused the whole thing - banks that held your mortgage gambling like they'd never been allowed to, for example. The loss of Glass-Steagall was an utter disaster.
Thank you, Gramm, Leach, Bliley...and of course, Clinton. /s
He never argued otherwise. He said that deregulating the banks caused them to give out subprime mortgages to high-risk applicants. He's right because that is exactly what happened.
You have to stop arguing with him after a while. When you expose enough of his lies then his retorts just become vicious personal attacks and bizarre straw man arguments. He was trying to argue that the government caused the recession rather than private sector banks. Ultimately, neither were responsible as a first cause. The failure of rational market theory was the first cause.
When told that no one would normally lend to someone who cannot pay it back you responded “Unless the loan was a subprime mortgage, leveraged against property owned by the bank!!!! Theoretically the banks believed they could not lose because, if a customer defaulted on loan repayments, they could simply repossess the house and resell the loan.”
Repossessing bank collateral is not a “win”. Nor is the existence of collateral a perverse incentive.
When told that no one would normally lend to someone who cannot pay it back you responded “Unless the loan was a subprime mortgage, leveraged against property owned by the bank!!!! Theoretically the banks believed they could not lose because, if a customer defaulted on loan repayments, they could simply repossess the house and resell the loan.”
That, for once, is true. Why do I feel like the lie is about to hit me square between the eyes?
Repossessing bank collateral is not a “win”.
Firstly, the terminology I used was that the banks felt they couldn't lose. You are changing what I said again. Stop it.
Secondly, I explained why the banks felt they couldn't lose. Matter-of-factly stating that your own straw man argument is false is not a counterargument.
Thirdly, a bank obviously makes more money if debtors default on a property loan because the house remains the bank's collateral and can continue to be used as such until someone pays for it. Hence, you are once again attacking basic common sense.
I quoted you because you are very clearly describing collateral, and as I said “banks could ALWAYS take back collateral in case of borrower default”. Collateral is not the issue here. Collateral does not create the perverse incentive of lending to bad borrowers. This is because banks want interest, not property. When a bank possesses property, it is a money suck. However, if a bank can sell off those bad investment to some sucker, there is an incentive. There aren’t a lot of suckers in high finance, so the government provided one. Between that and the likely bailout they will receive if it all falls through, the Federal Government gave banks every reason to engage in bad business. The only downside is if the bank doesn’t sell off toxic assets quick enough, so they sell sell sell. Easy money from the FED meant increased the incentives of citizens to buy buy buy. All of this was made worse by the risks of toxic derivatives being hidden by bad algorithms.
There are plenty of contributing factors, which is why there are plenty of op eds on either side of the topic. But the fundamental root cause is still bad government policy.
I quoted you because you are very clearly describing collateral, and as I said “banks could ALWAYS take back collateral in case of borrower default”.
But that has nothing to do with anything. It's a red herring. The banks had been regulated against selling and distributing bad loans and when that regulation ended they began to give more of them out.
The banks had been regulated against selling and distributing bad loans and when that regulation ended they began to give more of them out.
It’s quaint that you are trying to talk about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as if you know something, but you don’t. There’s nothing that ever stopped anyone from selling a bad investment, but who would want to buy one? That is unless you didn’t know it was toxic (creditor risk assessment failure) or you knew the government would take it on or cover losses, which they did.
Whatever your country did that got them involved in the mess is not the same as what my country did. My country had bad government policies.
None of the myths busted in your article contradict my position. Only one of the busted myths was news to me. Nor does the article point to derivatives. I’m not sure why a derivatives market cause the collapse of its own underlying assets. Rather it was the toxic nature of the assets that wrecked the derivative bundles.
The fact that you think liberal capitalists are on the left
Conservative Communist Marxist right wing Lenin cultists are obviously on the right. The fact you deny that makes you a banana gobbling snatch goblin..
Are you snorting a line as we speak? We both know drug use is a part of liberal eschatology. We also both know it's just one more thing the left has in common with Adolf...rabid drug use...
Of course you, the left, have a lot of things in common with Naziism like?
-Hatred for Jews
-Rabid drug use
-Worship of dear leader as a god
-Desire to use force to silence opposition by "any means neccessary".
-Hatred for America.
-Hatred for Russia.
-Glorification of Islam
-Brainwashing of youth through academia with your ideology
-Rabid propaganda per monopoly of mainstream press
"Welfare programs and Social Benefits" ... WRONG! In that system the PEOPLE PAY INTO the kitty and the kitty takes care of things that are needed BY THE PEOPLE! Exactly what democracy is supposed to do. Like an insurance policy, the money is there for those WHO NEED IT, the protection is there for those who might! Communists know this, that's why they almost always refer to themselves as "The peoples army, the peoples republic, the peoples universities" Sort of like Goebbels saying if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough it becomes the truth!
In a Social DEMOCRACY that is TRUE! Without the democracy part of it (the free vote), it becomes communistic almost immediately. Some leader comes along and starts "writing decrees" .... "for the peoples own good" ... and begins to demand the adoration of "the people". So NOW, lets look at OUR situation. The right wants voting restrictions, the right wants to tax "the people". The right wants U.S. to adore their leader. The right loves it when he "decrees" (with a YUGE signature). The right wants complete control of government (one party control) LIBERALS BEGONE! The right want those who can afford it to have what they want, if you can't, don't look at ME! DIE! THIS, they will eventually call "the peoples government"! What THEY want is COMMUNISM, (and they can't even SEE it!) what they DON'T want is social "democracy" that is TRULY ... the peoples!
Be careful of: Steve Bannon, Steven Miller, Donald Trump and his "respect" for every rotten dictator he has met that will flatter (not stand against) him! America HAS BEEN a social democracy since its inception, we just haven't called it that. Americans working for AMERICANS as a whole to keep our country whole, not just let those suffer that can't physically or mentally care for themselves! That's WHY we were great, once, and won't be "great again" if we ignore those "other" Americans! There ARE a few that are just plain lazy and have to be dealt with. I think that number is LESS than the number that greedily holds over 80% of the country's money (much of it in offshore accounts) and do all they can to keep THEIR share of tax money from getting to those Americans who could use it to "MAGA"!
GIMME A TAX BREAK! (I need it to feed my offshore accounts!) My last yacht depleted it, somewhat. MAGA??? What Trump wants is what "doesn't work"!
Excluding the fact that you choose whether or not to invest in an insurance while in communism someone forcefully takes your stuff and puts it in the kitty, What determines whether you need something or not?
You just failed communism 101. In a true communist society, all property is owned by all. "Your stuff" is a capitalistic/socialistic view that simply doesn't exist in communism.
This is why societies usually claimed communist are in fact not, and why only small communist societies ever exist for any length of time.
If you have a serious accident, an illness, a crippling disease, if you are not rich, you need something. Most people understand that. If you are a part of a "great country" you do not "choose to invest" in what your country needs, you just DO it! It's called REAL "patriotism" whether the "investment" is your life, your time OR, your money! That's what makes a democracy great, not empty promises!
Yes, with today's communism somebody takes whatever they want. I hate communism, would NEVER recommend it. Communism has NOTHING to do with Social Democracy, Social Democracy cannot have an authoritarian leader, it MUST have (actual) free elections to be democratic.
A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and by extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
Any benefit provided to the people in any nation would be guilty of this, meaning it wouldn't just be true in social democracy but in monarchy, communism, totalitarianism, etc., unless they simply provided zero benefit of any kind to their people. And in the zero benefit scenario they essentially stop being a government and instead become a criminal organization.
Logically, you're saying the only thing that works is a criminal organization. Take take take what you want from people, give them nothing back. Because anything you give back degrades your resources and overall capabilities.
500 years ago the people you consider poor now would be considered wealthy
Your ignorance is beginning to offend me. It does not work that way. Firstly, rich and poor are relative -- not absolute -- terms. If a rich man wakes up tomorrow morning and everybody in the world suddenly has exactly the same amount of money as him, then he is no longer rich. Secondly, you are committing the utterly infuriating fallacy of conflating economic progress with technological evolution. As time passes, older technology becomes more cost efficient and cheaper, and hence more people gain access to it. This is not about wealth. It's about evolutionary progress.
Your threads are stupid, badly articulated, and littered with fallacies.
If all the prosperous men, (not just one, but all the world's well-heeled) awoke to find that the world's wealth had been shared equally among everyone it would not be long before most of the original affluent would have their dosh back and life's losers would be queueing for their benefit cheques and other handouts.
It is wholly wrong, and indeed dangerous to go against nature's law of natural selection/survival of the fittest and artificially keep the sub-classes alive.
The lower orders were meant to perish so that those of higher intelligence who have adapted more successfully to the environment in which they live can become dominant and enhance the survival prospects of our species.
Before I get into this I just want to make it clear that I'm not a lefty fucktard or any other denomination of group think indoctrination so don't even try to turn this into a polarized and narrow minded left vs. right debate, I am not advocating for social democracy at all.
Your statement would be perfectly valid if it where not for the fact that you think being successful in capitalism is the same as "natural selection" because that is not the case at all.
You are blatantly a social elitist, you are conflating wealth with intelligence and social status with "adapting successfully" clearly forgetting the fact that many "successful" people where given everything they have without doing anything to earn it, just got lucky, or weaseled their way to the top and have literally nothing to offer the world but parasitism, as they don't actually produce anything of value and are only taking advantage of capitalism to accumulate wealth.
If you think natural selection and monetary system selection are the same then do you think Justin Bieber is superior to you? He's a lot more "successful" after all. He is only wealthy because stupid teenage girls with brains the size of bieber's micropenis exist on this planet, there is one example of how capitalist selection is in many cases the exact OPPOSITE of natural selection.
The fact of the matter is Nicola Tesla died poor and homeless and he was many orders of magnitude more intelligent than you'll ever be, Albert Einstein was never as wealthy as George Soros or Henry Kissinger, do you think they are more intelligent than him? Or do you think they are disgusting little leech parasites who weaseled and bought their way to the top?
Your elitist worldview is inconsistent with reality, look at the inbred british royal family and other examples of "old money" do you honestly think their wealth makes them superior? Do you think that's natural selection or the exact opposite?
Human society creates the OPPOSITE of natural selection, it allows inbred scum to inherit wealth and power, it allows useless toilet bowl creatures like the people on wall street to accumulate vast quantities of resources just for playing with imaginary fractional reserve money on a computer screen. It allows horrible shitty people to become rich and famous celebrities SPECIFICALLY because the average person is an IDIOT who likes shitty simple minded music and other garbage media.
The wealthiest people are not superior, they are very often total trash, if you honestly think otherwise then imagine these people trying to survive in the wilderness with nothing but their own intelligence and physical fitness, your notions of "natural selection" would be altered swiftly. The wealthiest and most influential people have never been the most intelligent or fit, it's people like Max Planck and Charles Proteus Steinmetz who are truly intelligent, and they where no where near as rich as inferiors like the rockefellers and rothschilds. If you want to conflate natural selection with human society's selection then show me one example of a filthy rich person who is actually physically fit compared to a cave man or mentally fit compared to Tesla? You can't do it because you are WRONG.
Secondly, you are committing the utterly infuriating fallacy of conflating economic progress with technological evolution
What you are calling technological evolution IS economic progress. The technology of 500 years ago was barely better than the technology of 1000 years ago. The advent of economic institutions that enable capitalism has brought about technological innovations the likes of which humanity has never before known. Calling it "technological evololution", as if its simply a natural progression, ignores the entrepreneurship behind most of our technology.
That is the precise opposite of what he is saying. He is saying that today's poor people are not actually poor. You literally cannot write anything without first turning it upside down.
What you are calling technological evolution IS economic progress
Clearly, no it is not. Technological evolution has been happening consistently, from the beginning of history, through dozens of different economic systems. Germany's economy collapsed at the end of world war 2 and guess what? Technology continued to move forward. Technology continued to move forward in Communist systems such as Soviet Russia and China. It continued to move forward through the imperialism of the Romans and the feudalism of medieval Europe. It is only in recent years that Nazis such as yourself have appeared claiming capitalism to be responsible for it.
Calling it "technological evololution", as if its simply a natural progression
Obviously it is a natural progression because it only ever goes forward, never backwards. Capitalism is not responsible for technology, it is not responsible for progression and it is not responsible for the flow of time. Understand?
That is the precise opposite of what he is saying. He is saying that today's poor people are not actually poor.
"500 years ago the people you consider poor now would be considered wealthy as they wouldn't be positioned at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale"
He is saying that today's poor people are not poor by the standards of 500 years ago. No one from 500 years ago would call today's poor people poor because POVERTY IS RELATIVE.
Obviously it is a natural progression because it only ever goes forward, never backwards.
It went backward after the fall of Rome.
Capitalism is not responsible for technology
No, it is responsible for the exponentially increased pace of tech innovation and advancement. The US outpaced the USSR because they couldn't steal tech fast enough to stay on par.
People would invent under all kinds of economic conditions, but the condition of economic freedom is the one most conducive to the greatest level of innovation.
Firstly, rich and poor are relative -- not absolute -- terms
Good god you're right dumbass. Since there are billionaires, millionaires are poor. Why the fuck didn't I think of that? Because I'm not a complete dipshit...
I'm like Trump.. I don't have the attention span to read your entire treatise.. But, I believe in the good ole US of A.. I dunno what you wanna call us, but we're capitalists with a safety net. That means we don't let people starve or die in the streets.
Right wingerism doesn't work because they WILL let people starve and die in the streets.. For example, as we speak they're trying to take health care AWAY from about 10 million people.. Without health care, people die.
The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy to the extent that people would be better off (living standards wise) without it. Not to mention that Your government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to pay for it, it relies on loans that it obviously can't pay, which will eventually lead to a recession. Oh, and Prove that people would've died without your safety net.
The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy
With respect, the problem with your threads is that you don't understand the thing you are trying to attack. You've obviously been indoctrinated into some form of capitalist propaganda, and as a result you are criticising a bunch of straw man arguments.
Do I seriously need to explain why high tax rates stagnate the economy?
You need to explain why you believe either socialism or communism necessitates expanding the state, when the entire central thesis is that the state be abolished.
Oh god the irony, nowhere have I stated that socialism or communism necessitates expanding the state, effectively making your argument a straw man. Other than that, as you seem to advocate communism, here is my argument against it:
As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?
That's why communism fails. It does occasionally work in tiny communities that all share a common cause, but common causes rarely last lifetimes, much less generations.
The reason our "government doesn't have enough money to pay for it" is because those that have over 80% of the taxable money don't want to pay the taxes and the idiot conservatives want to take the "assumed privelidge" and make SURE that they don't! The!y have been making RECORD profits since Reagan and they haven't invested in America, they've invested in cheap foreign labor! Trump thinks if we give them MORE profit, they'll change! Doing the same thing over and over, with the same result ... is called WHAT??
If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.
We know this. If only he had the donkey patch. I can imagine the pretty things you probably said and thought about him before he beat the wicked witch of the West for the Presidency...
