Is all socialism bad?

[PaulOakenfold]

First, I think that insurance is a farce, just another ‘service’ that artificially implies value and has no production value.
eph

Insurance in general or a specific type of insurance? Insurance benefits those looking to protect their business, assets and future prospects. I don't think that should then lead into insurance on lifespan. I can bet on someone's life with the click of a button because of insurance... that's not right, but it's doable.

[Ephemeral]

First, I think that insurance is a farce, just another ‘service’ that artificially implies value and has no production value. I also think it has lead to the downfall of society in many ways. The insurance industry is nothing more than gambling. In fact, insurance is a modern ‘invention’ coming from people sitting in English pubs betting on which ships would make it back into port. This is how Lloyds of London, the world’s first insurance company, was started. But the negative impact has been substantial.
Ever consider how your grandparents and their parents handled their personal disasters? They relied upon family, friends and local communities to pull together and rebuild their house if it burned down. In many ways living without insurance meant that you could not be an ‘island’, you had to contribute to others if you had any hope of others contributing to you in your time of need. In today’s world, I am surprised that this guy didn’t sue the firemen for not paying his bill. And we can’t overlook the media’s role in this social decline either.

Second, I find it difficult to group US public schools and US universities together. Currently, the United Sated is the ‘go to’ place for any advanced degree. Non-US citizens are streaming into the US universities in huge numbers, leaving very few (if any) spots open for US citizens. This obviously implies that the world believes the US university system has very high value. At some point the US will figure this out that this is one of the largest exports it has.

Third and from an anthropological point to view, humans make these systems, the systems don’t make humans what they are. Humans have had tens of thousands of years to make social systems that make us better people. Evolution guarantees that any system that did this would have succeeded. None have and humans continue to find new ways to be greedy and be assholes to each other. Very few societies have even figured out how to live sustainable lives.
eph

[Vatican Assassin]

Er... you've just proved why mixing government guarantees with a vaguely 'market system' is a bad idea. An actual public healthcare system doesn't involve insurance companies, the GOVERNMENT is the only insurance company. And an actual public education system doesn't involve any market prices because the government pays most of the bills.

It is a bad idea, that's what I was trying to prove, and yes, there are no insurance companies or market prices in public education, that was also my point. As far as housing goes, the only reason people made such stupid risks was because of government backed mortgages. No private company would make such bad loans because they would know they wouldn't get them paid back and they would have to cover the costs. But government mortgage companies know that they will always be bailed out by taxpayers so they do not have the same problems with unpaid loans. The government guarantees Freddie and Freddie that no matter how high-risk the loan is, grant it, and you are guaranteed payment eventually in the form of a bail-out. If the government gets out of school loans, low-cost state school tuition price will drop because no one will be able to afford to go there and they will not fill classrooms. Supply and demand does not help prices remain low when government inflates demand.

[Supreme]

I found that epi & summa are way better debaters then me so i'll leave the real reaction up to them however i'd like to point at Scandinavia where such systems are already in effect. I dont see many bubbles bursting over there..in fact they're pretty wealthy.

[Epinephrine]

The good intention of giving so many student loans to middle and lower class students has had devastating consequences. The price of tuition in public colleges is skyrocketing and one major cause is guaranteed student loans. When colleges KNOW that students will be able to get a loan, whether they can afford to pay it back or not, they will raise prices. They have no reason not to. The reason prices stay low on any product or service is because of competition and affordability. A socialized public school system has eliminated these two factors and prices have escalated without restraint. Since the government owns the state colleges, there is no competition for public schools, and because student loans are guaranteed, there is no lack of immediately available funds from low-income students. The end result is a one trillion dollar debt bubble for student loans from the government which graduating students cannot pay back. This bubble is about to burst. This is the case when the government gets involved in any industry, such as housing.

The government guarantees mortgages in Fanny May and Freddie Mac, prices go up because affordability is no longer holding them down, but people are willing to risk it. Now Freddie and fanny are asking for 10 billion more dollars on top of everything they have already received because guaranteeing high-priced goods to people who cannot really afford them in the long run will always create bubbles which in turn will bust and adversely affect the over-all economy.

This is how government health care will unfold. Despite all good intentions there is no other possible outcome. Since there is only one health coverage carrier for low-income families--the government--there will be no competition between insurance companies. The government will guarantee health coverage to people who could not otherwise afford it. Hospitals will know that under Obama care everyone will be able to afford more and more procedures. So why not raise prices on them? It will be against the law for you to be uninsured under Obama care. Imagine if you are a company selling a product or service, and it is against the law for people to not buy your product, and the customer does not care how much it costs because it is paid for by the government. Hospitals would be crazy to not raise prices, there is no reason not to. Just as there is no reason for colleges to not raise tuition, just as there is no reason for real estate barons to not raise home prices. Socialism raises prices, plain and simple.

Er... you've just proved why mixing government guarantees with a vaguely 'market system' is a bad idea. An actual public healthcare system doesn't involve insurance companies, the GOVERNMENT is the only insurance company. And an actual public education system doesn't involve any market prices because the government pays most of the bills.

Either way, there must be a middle ground that works. If government completely gets out of this, then what will happen will be like in the past or in 3rd world countries, where only the rich can afford education and health care. Everyone else is left out, and society as a whole loses out.

You talk about the US housing bubble, but the problem with that wasn't necessarily because the government guaranteed stuff. It was stupid laws. In the USA you're allowed to more or less walk away from mortgages. In Canada you're not, you'll be personally held liable for everything you have. So then people don't take as many stupid risks, and we did not experience the same bubble you guys did.

[Vatican Assassin]

The fact is, we're moving in the other direction more and more of leaving people completely to their own devices in all the developed world (witness all the talk of austerity). While this is fine for the rich because they will always be able to afford everything, for everyone else this is going to be an increasing problem as they will have more and more barriers to them maximizing their potential. And then all of society will suffer because many talented and brilliant people will not be able to contribute to society.

The good intention of giving so many student loans to middle and lower class students has had devastating consequences. The price of tuition in public colleges is skyrocketing and one major cause is guaranteed student loans. When colleges KNOW that students will be able to get a loan, whether they can afford to pay it back or not, they will raise prices. They have no reason not to. The reason prices stay low on any product or service is because of competition and affordability. A socialized public school system has eliminated these two factors and prices have escalated without restraint. Since the government owns the state colleges, there is no competition for public schools, and because student loans are guaranteed, there is no lack of immediately available funds from low-income students. The end result is a one trillion dollar debt bubble for student loans from the government which graduating students cannot pay back. This bubble is about to burst. This is the case when the government gets involved in any industry, such as housing.

The government guarantees mortgages in Fanny May and Freddie Mac, prices go up because affordability is no longer holding them down, but people are willing to risk it. Now Freddie and fanny are asking for 10 billion more dollars on top of everything they have already received because guaranteeing high-priced goods to people who cannot really afford them in the long run will always create bubbles which in turn will bust and adversely affect the over-all economy.

This is how government health care will unfold. Despite all good intentions there is no other possible outcome. Since there is only one health coverage carrier for low-income families--the government--there will be no competition between insurance companies. The government will guarantee health coverage to people who could not otherwise afford it. Hospitals will know that under Obama care everyone will be able to afford more and more procedures. So why not raise prices on them? It will be against the law for you to be uninsured under Obama care. Imagine if you are a company selling a product or service, and it is against the law for people to not buy your product, and the customer does not care how much it costs because it is paid for by the government. Hospitals would be crazy to not raise prices, there is no reason not to. Just as there is no reason for colleges to not raise tuition, just as there is no reason for real estate barons to not raise home prices. Socialism raises prices, plain and simple.

[kthx]

Ill post more on this after the weekends over, too many thoughts on Football atm.

[Supreme]

Going twice

[Supreme]

Going once

[Epinephrine]

The problem with that is society itself fucking sucks. Even if we offer free education to every child as they leave high school we aren't doing the country any favors. College (besides specialized field studies) isn't really about education anymore it is about propaganda, and about giving the idea that having an education entitles you to a great life. We have entire fields of study where the only career path available to that person is to teach the field they studied in to the next generation of students who don't need to learn it. Take women's studies for instance. We aren't maximizing the potential of kids by giving them a free education unless we clamp down on what classes the people can take for free. I don't want my tax dollars going towards paying someone to go to school for a useless trade so they can pull some occupy whatever bullshit and whine about not being able to find a job. So yeah you want to go to school to become an electrical engineer blah blah blah thats fine. But honestly what they should be doing, instead of general studies in high school they should allow people to learn trades in high school instead. Learn how to be an electrician or a plumber instead of having to take two years of foreign language etc. If we handled our pre-college schooling better we wouldn't need to offer free education to maximize the potential of adults.

If we start picking 'winners and losers' in terms of what people should be learning, we'll have a highly distorted market and then all the charges that conservatives have about socialism will be true. People should choose whatever they want in terms of what they think makes the most sense. Sure women's studies is sort of useless, that's why most people don't take it because they know it won't lead anywhere. But then again, if it weren't for the humanities we would have never had thinkers that thought of things like equality, democracy, and so on which kicked off the enlightenment and shaped the world we have today.

If the USA created a nation of trades people, that's fine but you'd just be subsidizing the entire country to ruin in a generation or two when people don't have the education or ability to invent themselves the products, ideas and things of the future.

Did you know for instance that even with all the hoopla surrounding the internet, we have 1/2 as many graduates in computer science in the USA now as was in the mid 1980s? Meanwhile countries like China and India are churning out these people in record numbers. In the next generation, they will create the next silicon valley and they will control the tech industry. Meanwhile under your plan, the US will have great mechanics and plumbers.

Now I'm not saying that we should give free education to all to do whatever the hell they want. Actually I don't even propose any specific numbers. I am just arguing that philosophically that this is the right thing to do and it's up to society (which in our system sadly means politicians) to figure out the exact numbers that work out through trial and error and continuous adjustment by taking into account the changing realities on the ground.

The fact is, we're moving in the other direction more and more of leaving people completely to their own devices in all the developed world (witness all the talk of austerity). While this is fine for the rich because they will always be able to afford everything, for everyone else this is going to be an increasing problem as they will have more and more barriers to them maximizing their potential. And then all of society will suffer because many talented and brilliant people will not be able to contribute to society.

[Summa]

Basically put, the more society is able to maximize the abilities of its members, the more benefit to all.

This is like a giant Rawlsian post that ends with an oddly Nozickian conclusion....it kinda made me chuckle.

[Summa]

I mean that sounds all good and well Summa but honestly that idea doesn't take into account the fact that there are people born and with the same level of training and education (or less in some cases) become much better. Einstein wasn't produced by his parents, Einstein was born with a ceiling higher than 99% of the population, the same could be said of Socrates, Plato, Galileo, Tesla and all of the other people who were a hundred years or more ahead of their times. I mean even if you take the philosophy of everyone character starts out with 10 points to distribute you eventually have to admit that some people end up getting a really rare roll and start out with 25. Those examples alone sort of disprove the thought process that all people are born with the same ability as the next.

About the animals I didn't actually mean animals were comparable to humans I was just using that to setup the example of there being exceptional breeds in this world.

I understand that there are certain biological facts, particularly regarding the amounts of gray matter that people are born with, that are in strict opposition to what I stated. I am in complete understanding of your point of view, however call my view a fool's optimism. I generally have a pretty pessimistic view on things, but that particular belief I hold helps me to operate better in terms of not being condescending and similar things. If you view everyone as equal to you in a vacuum, and only greater or less than you due to the social lottery and moral luck; then it becomes much easier to treat people as humans who deserve respect (unless they give you reason otherwise).

[Summa]

The problem with that is society itself fucking sucks. Even if we offer free education to every child as they leave high school we aren't doing the country any favors. College (besides specialized field studies) isn't really about education anymore it is about propaganda, and about giving the idea that having an education entitles you to a great life. We have entire fields of study where the only career path available to that person is to teach the field they studied in to the next generation of students who don't need to learn it. Take women's studies for instance. We aren't maximizing the potential of kids by giving them a free education unless we clamp down on what classes the people can take for free. I don't want my tax dollars going towards paying someone to go to school for a useless trade so they can pull some occupy whatever bullshit and whine about not being able to find a job. So yeah you want to go to school to become an electrical engineer blah blah blah thats fine. But honestly what they should be doing, instead of general studies in high school they should allow people to learn trades in high school instead. Learn how to be an electrician or a plumber instead of having to take two years of foreign language etc. If we handled our pre-college schooling better we wouldn't need to offer free education to maximize the potential of adults.

I have the published journal article sitting next to me, and I can give you a proper citation for this if you want it (the article isn't online as far as I could find). But high school juniors in 1965 were given the exact same test as high school juniors in 2005, as an attempted assessment of progress over 40 years of education. The students in 65's average score was an 82%, while the 2005 average was 69% (this is from a field of around 2000 students during both sets of years). The current collegiate education is worth about the same as a high school education was in the 60s. Why is that? (Again one of my fields of expertise)

-Mass standardization of education
-Increase in population of students/decrease in quality of teachers
-Attempts to garner profits from our "free education system"
-Increased federal budget, diminished state budgets
-Removal of requirements for what I would call "societal and pre-professional classes" (no more civics/gov, no more shop, no more home ec)

The modern k-12 american education prepares you for 1 thing: college. Why? so that you can get gouged for the 13 yrs of free-loading you've done on the gov't's dollar and they can make some coin back.

Wanna talk about why America is fucked now and will be fucked for at least 20 more years? Look no further than our infrastructure. The education system is just absolute garbage, and it stems from state funding problems and the shitty outdated teachers union.

[Jason]

i stand corrected, supreme.

shit is poppin'.

[TagMor]

So if socialism is so bad how come U.S law enforcement is "socialised"? Why dont police officers stand around someone being mugged, trying to retrieve their proof of payment before intervening? Because socialisation of certain public services is critical in providing efficient services that benefit the society instead of hindering it.
I doubt this fire department can operate solely on $75 from each local resident and almost certainly receives State/Federal funding, so this man probably paid for the services through taxation and it's merely a case of fascist bureaucracy and perhaps corruption.

On top of this, you can't just take away money from people who have earned it and give it to people who have been proven to be bad with money

But your government does take away money from those that earned it, at a higher rate than many socialist countries.. The only difference is that money is then spent on corrupt wars and paying for corporate bonuses rather than being returned in the form of efficient health care, education, and public services.