"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
I actually had never heard that quote before that I used as the title. I believe it is quite accurate and to the point. I decided I want to do a search and see what kind of interesting quotes, and quote memes related to socialism that I can find. This was of course inspired by things going on in Venezuela, North Korea, and other places.
socialism always fails because collectivism kills efficiency and productivity ... you can't have those without a market
Many of the people in the images have shown to be anti-social towards humans in their politics and are talking about governments not groups of people . It's the same old problem manufacturing consent. That is all our lives we had heard the same things put in the same way and have taken it as truth without much deep thought of the subject. I wonder how many people feel the same way about employee own companies?
If we are talking about socialism in the form of governments then I agree all socialist governments in history (as far as I know) have failed their constituents but ever government that I know have failed their constituents also, however I know of employee own companies who have not. What the elite (those who control major media) does is lump it all in one pot and tell us to drink up! I think we have to reject the accounts until we truly understand what in totality is being spoken of. Here is a short clip that says it much better than I ever could. Real socialism is not about getting things for free it's about working together. Like unions in the workplace another thing many would be against, but is socialist in nature.
If anyone is offended by my pronouncements please understand they are only said to give an opinion and to broaden the conversation. Not to start arguments, but debates are fine..
I agree, the most logical solution to end gov corruption and crony capitalism, is to shift to an economy that is controlled democratically. Worker coops is the best example of such an economy.
There is nothing inevitable about this logic friend - what makes you believe that you have to control an economy at all? The idea that one way or another our economies have to be controlled necessitates our need for controllers. This necessitates the need for a theory of best control. This necessitates agreement on the 'good' regarding human economic activity. All of this necessitates authoritarianism, you just pick your favourite flavour - and in your logic, we pick our authority with 'democracy'. But what about the horrors of 'dictatorship of the majority' - how are you going to protect minorities? The problems go on, I won't list them here, they are readily available. Every single one of these 'necessities' is problematic and contended, the answers are not obvious or logical. The 'good' for me is not necessarily the 'good' for you regarding economic activity - and there is no reason it should be, we are individuals. Here's what's logical - drop the need to control the output of human activity, let it fall as it will. If you believe that results in crony capitalism, you're wrong - crony capitalism is another effort to control economic output. Same with socialist planning. All any of this does is justify and spread massive centralised governments, who enrich themselves at everyone else's expense - and massive, centralised multinationals and crime cartels and banks - synonyms, and ditto. You want to end government corruption and crony capitalism - eliminate government (as we currently understand it) and cronyism (synonym - directed control of social economic output). Db
No one is talking about controlling the economy. Prof. Wolff is talking about people controlling their energy (their output) as appose to someone at the top controlling it.
i.e. people working for themselves in a group. Which can be done in most countries without changing the system that they are in. We have been programmed to respond to words. Many times the words do not do justice to the concept.
Then we are agreed. The problem was your language - "... shift to an economy that is controlled democratically." Your words needed addressing, so I did, precisely because we are programmed to respond to words, and indeed words never do justice to actual experience - they are a phenomenal compression of it that leaves out the actual life referred to. So when we use words, precision is essential, lest our intended meaning result in attempts to 'democratically control the economy' - which, as you know, always ends in tears. Db
Unfortunately I don't ( and I do not know of anyone who) reads minds, therefore words are all we have to communicate our thoughts. It may take some time before we reach a point were we can agree however reach an agreement we must if we are to live in peace. And words are all we have.
No we have not agreed because it's not my language!
P.S. notice of post here are the pits. 26 days later and would have never seen it if I didn't come back to this post for another reason altogether
I have to agree with your choice of professor Wolff, as a man who can explain the capitalist terminology trap on the expression of “Socialism”. Here is his detailed explanation, which is necessary if we want to know what we are talking about:
https://steemit.com/politics/@lighteye/what-socialism-is-and-what-is-not
This is called an Appeal to Emotion fallacy. It is a typical socialist attack method. It works on those that haven't been taught critical thinking.
It is hard to be anymore anti-social to humans than to impose socialism which removes their choice.
Compassion requires doing something when you have a choice. If you are forced then there was no choice and it has nothing to do with compassion.
So if you want to be convincing avoid the appeals to emotions. That proves nothing in that it is a logical fallacy.
That defines why socialism ever gets implemented as far as I can tell. I need not say much I covered this subject in some detail in this post three days ago Socialists like Slavery. They likely don't realize it, but that is what they advocate for.
I don't want to repeat what was already covered there.
Sure, I am fine with them. Yet if you pass emotion, opinion, etc as FACT then I'll likely call you out on it. Though I do respect your right to have and express your opinion.
No this is called critical thinking, lets look at the people you hold in such high regard.
Peter Brimelows a British-born American writer. He is the founder of the website VDARE,
[ VDARE is an American website that publishes socio-political commentary pieces, particularly focusing on advocating for a moratorium on immigration into the United States as well as arguments related to race and American politics. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, VDARE is "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites." Salon calls it a white supremacist group. VDARE editor Peter Brimelow rejected Southern Poverty Law Center's accusations as guilt by association.
The name VDARE refers to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English settlers in the New World (in 1587). Wikipedia
I know Wikipedia has a lot of funk up information. But I didn't know who he was at all before. However this is not a good look for him.
Trump who get into office by saying he will pull us out of wars and one of the first things he does is drop missiles on another country.
Margaret Thatcher who never saw a war she didn't like. (and that is a fact)
Ben Carson, I never know which way he is going or what he will say.
Winston Churchill! Really? Now I'm no fan of Hitler but when Hitler wanted to make peace with England it was Churchill who wanted to press on, maybe he was right and all those people die for a reason.
However! Calvin Coolidge is (IMO) a respectable source for quoting.
No I'd say those who are always making threats and going to war are more anti-social.
Many times when fact are stated other take them as opinions and they are the opinion of the person who stated the facts. Opinion as fact are rarely black and white. Things that were fact yesterday are today error. Thank you for your reply. With respect .
See there you go again. Acting like you read minds. Give me a break. Focus on what you think and quit trying to assume you know what I think.
I don't hold him in high regard. I just did a search for meme images related to socialism and chose some I thought were interesting. ;)
I don't put ANYONE on some pedestal of "authority". That doesn't mean even people with questionable actions or ideas might not say an interesting phrase from time to time.
There is NO ONE (even me) that I believe everything they say. Why do I include me? I am fine with changing my mind. I don't think I am a God and that I know it all.
I certainly can't read minds. I have plenty of problems keeping track of my own.
EDIT: I can tell you had no idea how I chose those images. That is why I was slapping you around for writing your phrasing as though you know my mind. I'm trying to break you of that habit. I can see that you're an intelligent person. I'm more interested in what you think than in having you assume and tell me what I am thinking. :)
OK, that just the way I write. However you are correct that I should have not used those terms. Thanks for your input. I'll see what I can do about that.
Cool. It is never easy. So I don't expect you to change over night. I am trying to change things about myself as well. It is far from easy. I've found being aware it is there is the first step.
I knew next to nothing about the first person you mentioned, I just liked his quote. :)
Respect!
Old joke from the ex-eastern block
Communist agitator to the crowd:
Man from the crowd:
Communist have not, and are not in the topic. However that's a nice joke ;)
Actually that quote by Margeret Thatcher is completely false. In any economy you never run out of other people's money. No matter what economic model the country uses that you live in, capitalist, socialist, communist, monarchy, oligarchy, whatever you want to call it, someone always has money. It does not even matter if the economic model uses a finite currency or a fiat currency (where the supply is controlled by central banking and/or fractional reserve banking).
When you look at the mathematics of any economy it is simply people earning and spending the same money over and over again. The currency just moves in a circle from person to person as they perform labor to earn it and spend it on goods they want. As soon as a person spends money another person is earning it.
So you see it is impossible to run out of other people's money because someone is always holding money in any economy. The only thing that changes is how much each person holds at any given time.
"Money is like manure... it works best when it's spread around."
J. Paul Getty - socialist billionare oil barron.
what was(is) socialist about an oil tychoon?
wasn't he referring to the massive number of independent businesses and contractors required to drill and complete a well?
you're mistaken.
Actually he isn't completely... they keep making more money... it just loses it's value... LOL...
So you have their money still... you just can't buy anything with it... LOL
Yet that is just semantics and is NOT what Thatcher was talking about, so yeah he is wrong about that.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say, rather than that you run out of other people's money, you run out of "productive" people's money. People who actually produce value will at some point no longer accept the money in the hands of people who produce nothing and only consume (such as government and social program recipients.
Yeah, that is close to what I said at the end of this thread. I eventually said you run out of money you can GET AT.
You mean the rich... the people who amass big stacks of the stuff and thereby cripple the economy? Please explain to me why someone buying things and putting money back into the economy, is bad for the economy.
the rich MAKE the economy. Without them there IS no economy. Unless you like Somalia.
An economy is what creates rich people, you don't need rich people to have a functioning economy.
Somalia is actually a good example of how a more free market can destroy an economy/country. This is because Somalia barely has a functioning government, there is no middle class in Somalia, it is just rich and poor and the rich rule the country while the poor do whatever it takes to survive, leading to crime, theft, piracy, etc... Here is a good article about what is happening in Somalia.
https://globalinequalityandhealth.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/somalia-a-lawless-state-of-inequality/
in which the author of the very BAD , incorrect false but politically correct article states.
The top 100 billionaires of the world had accumulated $240 billion in wealth in 2012,
which is misleading...they DID accumulate....what they created the wealth didn't exist before. Then they began to distribute it. They used it to build factories, hire people and DO STUFF with it. Money doesn't do anyone any good stuffed in a mattress.
This holds true for both an economy with a finite currency system and a fiat currency system. But you are correct, in a fiat currency system the money loses value as more currency is created by banks.
And no. Thatcher is not incorrect.
Socialism can pay for its programs by only three methods.
That's it. Also to be clear. I don't consider what the U.S. has now as Capitalism. It has many many socialist programs all over in it. It is a hybrid.
The government produces nothing but laws, waste, and wars. It thus has no product of value with which to pay for its "free" and "socialist" programs.
That cost comes from the citizens, and whatever was saved up before the socialist programs were implemented.
It becomes worse because those programs are guaranteed. I don't know of a single program anywhere in any government that once the government guaranteed it the program didn't increase steadily in cost, and decrease in quality.
They no longer have to compete to get that business. It is guaranteed. Also since it is guaranteed they keep raising the price, often in result to people complaining about quality and them saying it is due to not having enough funds. So the program increases paying...
This is unsustainable. EVERY case in the world where it has been tried at a government level this has been the case.
Now as to Capitalism itself. I like free market, and laissez faire. If the government is involved and gives favors to some and blocks others that becomes cronyism and is not a free market. I also have researched and things people complain about such as Monopolies. They are not present due to free market or laissez faire... they persist due to government collusion. (cronyism)
What you are getting into here is gov law/policies and how govs earn/spend money. Yes there are millions of possibilities and alternatives on how governments can run their countries.
What I am simply telling you is that Thatcher's statement is mathematically impossible. The money is always there in any economy and someone always has some, therefor you can never run out of other people's money.
You are correct in a fiat currency economy if the gov is run by morons who create too much debt and too much money, the money will loose value and the currency will collapse, it has happened in many countries throughout history. But that has nothing to do with Thatcher's false statement.
I think you are reading more into that statement than what the quote meant.
Sure there is other people's money. I believe what she was talking about is that you run out of other people's money that you can GET AT. Sure, it accumulates other places. Yet if that is beyond their taxation methods then it is gone as far as the socialism is concerned.
Well I have no idea what she was thinking when she made her statement, but that is my point, the money is always somewhere, other people always have money.
How a government chooses to get that money or if they want to create new money or if we want to live in a society where the few hold the majority of the currency while others cant afford to eat, that is another topic...
Basically it is the difference between a one line quote, and an essay to explain it.
How am I mistaken? It is simple math, currency just does not vanish from an economy, it just moves from person to person. That is why the quote is false, Other people in an economy always have money, therefore you can never run out of other people's money.
you are mistaken is SO many ways.
but I'll just mention one.
We're not using money any longer in our financial sysem.
It's all debt.
a dollar bill is a federal reserve note...that is...an IOU.
Yes, you are correct, that is because we live in an economy with a fiat currency system where the FED/Banks create new currency by creating debt. But that does not make me wrong, every time new debt is created new currency is created which ends up in the hands of someone in the economy. There are always other people with money, it does not matter if the money was created via debt or if the FED pushed print on their printer.
Like Zimbabwe?
Yep, there have been many currency failures throughout history https://howmuch.net/articles/greatest-economic-collapses-in-history
This sentence of Reagan is very good, now, I think that for compatibility, in the sky can not be applied, but there is much similarity between the description of hell with socialism.
This is why people like you that have lived with it need to write. There are too many people deluded that have no idea what they are advocating for. People who lived with the hell tend to appeal to them more, since they tend to give in to appeals to authority.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
whether she said it or not the concept is correct. It's been proven countless times. From the original Plymouth Colony and before to the USSR, to present day Venezuela...
Industrial Scale Socialism doesn't work.
According to snopes that actual quote was very similar "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money"
you mean a journalist got the quote wrong?
oh NOooooessss!
tell me it isn't true!
OMG you have dared to bring in her... You know the snow flakes are going into full battle mode now!
That's okay I threw a safe space meme in there for them.
Bwahaha between you and everittdmickey on this thread I can destroy all my upvotes!
Yeah I like him. :) He reminds me of one of my uncles, but unlike my uncle he isn't a leftist. :) My uncle is intelligent, claims to be an atheist, but fails to see that he really worships the state so is not an atheist at all.
The good traits are he is cranky, witty, and creative like Everitt.
Hmmm is there a herb we can give him?
He already partakes. That doesn't solve all issues.
He is a "liberal" in the classic sense, but some of the former hippies don't really pay attention and realize how that movement was hijacked and how now they are actually endorsing things that are the opposite of what they once understood.
LOL I am a herbalist so was thinking a different kind of herb ;-)
And yes the old hippies have slid along the road..
Socialism works just fine.
as long as the group size in which it is implemented is SMALL.
Typically no larger than an extended family.
Yeah and things like small hippy communes. :)
yup...key word is SMALL.
size matters.
for example, beyond a certain size a bird can NOT fly.
same with socialism..beyond a certain size it can't fly either.
True, but couldn't much the same be said for all government?
Can we say all governments are corrupted, and force against citizens? Yes.
Yet, that doesn't mean they are the same. Socialism is a specific approach, with specific methods, and specific outcomes.
It is insidious in that people think supporting socialist movements is "helping" other people so it appeals to our emotions. We are largely simply virtue signalling when we defend it, for if you seriously think about it.
"Woot! Free Education!"
Wait a moment, did all the teachers agree to work without pay? Are we getting all the books, equipment, facilities, power and other utilities for free?
If so. That sounds pretty magical.
However, reality is that it is actually none of those things. So reality if given a chance kicks in and you might ask "How are they paying for this 'free' education?"
To which you will come to one of two methods. 1) Increasing Taxes, or 2) Increasing debt.
So it isn't FREE. Furthermore, it is worse than before because before it was offered for "free" you could choose to pay for it or not pay for it. Once, it is "free" you are paying for it whether you want to or not in the form of taxes, or debt. Possibly both.
Furthermore, the government when it implements socialism gives guaranteed payments to entities now. They no longer have to compete for our business. The result is prices rise, debt increases more and more, and quality declines. Having to compete for our business helps keep quality higher as people will typically pay to get the better product.
That doesn't mean GOVERNMENT itself is not a problem. Yet, there are degrees of how bad a government can be. Socialism is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Government is bad.
the only question is how bad.
some are worse than others.
The problem with this is neither socialism or capitalism are immune to govern-cement largesse.
Capitalism, if run by the greedy, would work ok. But, capitalism today is run by the greedy and evil. "Competition is a crime" - Rockefellow. The desire of the evil is to climb the pyramid to the top and then make sure no one else can climb up.
Both systems are inherently broken and what will replace them both doesn't even have a name yet.
Star Trek is said to be the ultimate socialism, but it is closer to ultimate capitalism. It is what happens when technology has made it so that no one has to do without the minimums to sustain life. There are more important things than material goods, and in Star Trek, you see they are worth quite a lot.
I look forward to the future, and the changes in all societal structures. Especially govern-cement.
Yep government can and does corrupt anything.
Which is why I prefer "Free Market" or "Laissez Faire" which don't require government. :) In fact once you inject government into those they cease to be Free.
As George Washington said, "“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
I fully agree with this quote ,and this is the reason government should be used as sparingly as possible, whether that be in economics or otherwise. Instead of anarchy though, I propose a full revamp of our government and legal systems to new principles. I haven't gotten too far on the new series yet, but you might like it. Please have a look.
You obviously don't know too much about Rockefeller.
oh..by the way..capitalisim is NOT a form of government..so you're comparing apples to grapefruit.