Is all socialism bad?

[Tone]

This system sounds great if you're into socio-economic and biological inheritance determining 75% of your life!

I understand the libertarian arguments for minimizing government involvement in extraneous affairs, and there are completely legitimate arguments. However, what you have stated doesn't even cover what I would call "basic rights". I cannot possibly see how this view on society would ever be chosen from "The Original Position" (John Rawls - A Theory of Justice). You're going to have to concede more than you have.

Beyond that, from a purely logistical standpoint, government in general is not good or effective at deconstructing itself; particularly from a legislative point of view. The simple fact that we are historically at a point where education is "free" is something you have to deal with. Whether or not you agree with it being there is irrelevant, an attempted removal of gov't involvement and funding would result in citizens revolting in a violent manner. The same goes with any politician who tires to discontinue programs such as social security (old people are the people who vote), they will simply commit political suicide for themself and their party.

So you see, there is an idealistic component to your argument and a practical component, and both fail. Practically is where you're really fucked. Like seriously, government is good at getting bigger, not smaller. The ideal component I think you could make a case for if you gave a few more concessions for what most people would consider basic rights/goods. But w/e enjoy your inheritance shithole.

Some people Inherent different religions of which some are even more crazy and brain washing than others

People inherent different genetic diseases, would you like a central government to direct the future genetic engineering technologies? Good luck with that!

There are many other issues that are inherent, shall the all-wise benevolent government attempt to intervene fix them all? What else is inherent that the government should be responsible for attempting to alter where it backfires and makes things worse and amplifies hell?

Sorry but your the one advocating for failure. If you attempt to put the government on a mission of equalities what will happen is it backfires and the equality goes down instead of up.

The about of equality rises with lowering government size and intervention, Especially when talking about federal / central governments even more so than state county and local. To simple first thinking, this seems counter-intuitive.

Equality will have to be reached by a different method other than the government, because if the government gets involved, it backfires, lowering equality.

Your system of big government compulsory collectivism not only backfires in its attempt for raised equality, but it ends up spilling over into other forms of liberty outside of economic liberty, for instance wars on drugs, alternative medicine, lifestyle & social issues.

Coercive & collectivist methods of attempting to raise equality always backfire and end up doing more harm than good

Also, 100% of your income tax goes to pay interest on the federal reserve, and the amount of money that goes to non-defense military spending, secret black budget programs, and wasteful spending is many fold over than the amount of money that would be needed for basic welfare of the victimized, sick, disabled, unfortunate. So the good news is you can have small government & welfare at the same time like my original post states, and do it in a way where it doesnt backfire

No immature teenager collectivist authoritarian socialist naive platforms that fuck us all over and make things worse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

True Libertarians dont have a barbaric apathetic evil Darwinist thought of survival of the fittest, where they think inequality is good and right. Rather, they assert that the libertarian way leads to the best situation in an imperfect world, and government always fails and backfires when it either tries to do beyond its means or do things coercive.

When i was younger, i didnt know this and thought right-wingers had a love affair with inequality - thats because they showed fake right wingers and neocons on TV all the time who are in fact evil.

Want to make the best out of a hard unequal brutal world? let the people do the most by their free will, and let the local and state governments have more responsibilities than the federal / central governments. Or else expect central banks to devalue currency, wars to rule the world, injustices to numerous to list, no checks and balances of 50 separate state and thousands of county governments where it may at least be possible to move, and other terrible fails.

[TagMor]

[Summa]

All socialism is bad except for Center-Right Social Libertarianism where the lottery & a voluntary taxation program pays for welfare for the disabled, sick, injured and victimized at a fraction of the cost of today's big government programs all added up; and when in conjunction with private welfare programs to take part of the load as well.

Programs in parks, education, medicine, job training & etc must all be eliminated and no longer government activities; in favor of ONLY funding critical welfare for the disabled, sick, injured and victimized at a fraction of the cost of today's big government programs all added up.

If you are libertarian, you do not necessarily have to be for 100% pure in theory libertarianism where the federal government only prints money and runs the military & supreme courts. You can be a mild-social libertarian where what you believe would have a cost & scope of programs a very tiny fraction of what it is under all governments of the world today. ]

Its like being a vegetarian instead of vegan and eliminating 99% of animal products for drastic change. The vegetarian is still profoundly closer to veganism than meat eating, rather than "in between" or "midway". A Mild-Social Libertarian would still be profoundly closer to libertarianism and not midway between libertarianism & democrat/republican

This system sounds great if you're into socio-economic and biological inheritance determining 75% of your life!

I understand the libertarian arguments for minimizing government involvement in extraneous affairs, and there are completely legitimate arguments. However, what you have stated doesn't even cover what I would call "basic rights". I cannot possibly see how this view on society would ever be chosen from "The Original Position" (John Rawls - A Theory of Justice). You're going to have to concede more than you have.

Beyond that, from a purely logistical standpoint, government in general is not good or effective at deconstructing itself; particularly from a legislative point of view. The simple fact that we are historically at a point where education is "free" is something you have to deal with. Whether or not you agree with it being there is irrelevant, an attempted removal of gov't involvement and funding would result in citizens revolting in a violent manner. The same goes with any politician who tires to discontinue programs such as social security (old people are the people who vote), they will simply commit political suicide for themself and their party.

So you see, there is an idealistic component to your argument and a practical component, and both fail. Practically is where you're really fucked. Like seriously, government is good at getting bigger, not smaller. The ideal component I think you could make a case for if you gave a few more concessions for what most people would consider basic rights/goods. But w/e enjoy your inheritance shithole.

[Tone]

All socialism is bad except for Center-Right Social Libertarianism where the lottery & a voluntary taxation program pays for welfare for the disabled, sick, injured and victimized at a fraction of the cost of today's big government programs all added up; and when in conjunction with private welfare programs to take part of the load as well.

Programs in parks, education, medicine, job training & etc must all be eliminated and no longer government activities; in favor of ONLY funding critical welfare for the disabled, sick, injured and victimized at a fraction of the cost of today's big government programs all added up.

If you are libertarian, you do not necessarily have to be for 100% pure in theory libertarianism where the federal government only prints money and runs the military & supreme courts. You can be a mild-social libertarian where what you believe would have a cost & scope of programs a very tiny fraction of what it is under all governments of the world today. ]

Its like being a vegetarian instead of vegan and eliminating 99% of animal products for drastic change. The vegetarian is still profoundly closer to veganism than meat eating, rather than "in between" or "midway". A Mild-Social Libertarian would still be profoundly closer to libertarianism and not midway between libertarianism & democrat/republican

[Epinephrine]

I don't know much about the Canadian housing market, being that I am an American citizen, but in terms of general economics; I would have 1 reservation and 1 inclination in terms of buying in the current Canadian economy.

Reservation: Most of the rapid expansion in GDP per capita in Canada occurred from late 2001 til early 2006, and in 2009 (following the crash in America) there was a giant downward spike, which Canada has done a better job of recovering from than America. However that spike downward in GDP per capita was not a spike caused by your markets or your system, it was an external influence that primarily caused it. So knowing some macro-economics, times of rapid expansion (2001-2006) usually don't last more than 9 years at most and are followed up by either recession or slower growth. Thus, don't expect any rapid economic growth in the next couple years, i.e. raises/cost of living adjustments/etc may not be what you are expecting.

Inclination: I know that this is the case in America (not 100% sure about Canada), and if it is the same there then cool beans! If not, well this is useless. However, one of the reasons why the markets in America are having a shit time recovering is because consumer confidence is very low. People now more than any time post WWII are choosing to put money into savings or save money rather than put it back into the market. When consumer confidence is low, and you are sitting on enough money; you can usually find the best deals.

I believe since the financial crisis 2 years ago, Canada has had the most solid economy of the entire G8. While most other places got hammered, we're more or less back to where we were before this thing started.

That said, I don't think anyone expects anything like strong growth for the near future here. At best we're looking at 2-3% GDP growth a year, but nothing to sneeze at. We're nowhere near default. We haven't had to enact brutal austerity measures like Europe and like what is headed for America (once that supercommittee fails to come to any agreements). Our housing market hasn't tanked unlike Europe and the US. Our levels of inequality are not as high as the US.

I think best case we'll have an economy that won't sink and we will retain our living standards, but I don't see much real improvement. But this is a problem with the entire developed world I think. Once everyone has their own computer/tv/car/appliances/home there's not much you can do to really expand living standards because you can only use and take care of so much stuff (i.e. I'd never want a second home because I don't have the time to care for it).

[Cops]

I don't know much about the Canadian housing market, being that I am an American citizen, but in terms of general economics; I would have 1 reservation and 1 inclination in terms of buying in the current Canadian economy.

Reservation: Most of the rapid expansion in GDP per capita in Canada occurred from late 2001 til early 2006, and in 2009 (following the crash in America) there was a giant downward spike, which Canada has done a better job of recovering from than America. However that spike downward in GDP per capita was not a spike caused by your markets or your system, it was an external influence that primarily caused it. So knowing some macro-economics, times of rapid expansion (2001-2006) usually don't last more than 9 years at most and are followed up by either recession or slower growth. Thus, don't expect any rapid economic growth in the next couple years, i.e. raises/cost of living adjustments/etc may not be what you are expecting.

Inclination: I know that this is the case in America (not 100% sure about Canada), and if it is the same there then cool beans! If not, well this is useless. However, one of the reasons why the markets in America are having a shit time recovering is because consumer confidence is very low. People now more than any time post WWII are choosing to put money into savings or save money rather than put it back into the market. When consumer confidence is low, and you are sitting on enough money; you can usually find the best deals.

From what Epi is saying, regardless of consumer confidence our housing market is pretty solid. I know our regulation played a huge part in helping Canada avoid a housing crisis during the sub-prime crisis. At the same time, our economy isn't doing that well and the job market is bleak. Business is capitalizing on this by hiring more people as contract workers, instead of hiring full-time workers and giving benefits. Youth unemployment is double what our general labour force is. Students are taking on more debt and with little oppurtunties upon graduation are struggling to pay off their student loans, which is why for a lot of youth owning your own house is a pipe dream. I figured something would have to give, guess not though.

Thanks Epi, I appreciate your post. I looked into the unemployment rates, and we are doing something like 2% better than the states. I'm not interested in flipping homes or making profit, I'm intesrested in putting down roots and not paying rent. The only issue I have is that housing prices in the outlining suburbs, such as Mississauga seem to climb and climb. The longer you wait to buy a home, the more likely you are to be further away from the city. At some point it will become unrealisitc to drive two to three hours to work every day. I'm interested in Waterloo-Kitchener, it's a cool city that has really made some headway in the past couple years. I'm not certain on the availablity of jobs or the future prospects of RIM (Company that makes Black Berry) but the city seems to be doing really well. It's a shame they didn't get a hockey team, it would only benefit the city ten folds. Places like London, Mississauga, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Hamilton need to develop more industry and less houses, or at least find a better balance between the two.

[Jack]

You are right, I am a relativist, all points are equal and valid. If all is permissible then I suppose I am the fool. I've read the book and I can see what was meant that lack of ego means you are not a man, my heart tells me to disagree, yet I'll have to think about it more. This response is not well thought out.

[Summa]

One last thing. Our economy is doing much better than America. Our debt levels are lower. Our taxes are almost equivalent but we get free healthcare and they have to pay for it. Our unemployment rate is much lower. With our soaring dollar, we're almost equivalent in GDP per capita now compared to the USA. And with the exception of Vancouver, we don't have a housing bubble like they did because we have much stronger mortgage laws than they do.

I don't know much about the Canadian housing market, being that I am an American citizen, but in terms of general economics; I would have 1 reservation and 1 inclination in terms of buying in the current Canadian economy.

Reservation: Most of the rapid expansion in GDP per capita in Canada occurred from late 2001 til early 2006, and in 2009 (following the crash in America) there was a giant downward spike, which Canada has done a better job of recovering from than America. However that spike downward in GDP per capita was not a spike caused by your markets or your system, it was an external influence that primarily caused it. So knowing some macro-economics, times of rapid expansion (2001-2006) usually don't last more than 9 years at most and are followed up by either recession or slower growth. Thus, don't expect any rapid economic growth in the next couple years, i.e. raises/cost of living adjustments/etc may not be what you are expecting.

Inclination: I know that this is the case in America (not 100% sure about Canada), and if it is the same there then cool beans! If not, well this is useless. However, one of the reasons why the markets in America are having a shit time recovering is because consumer confidence is very low. People now more than any time post WWII are choosing to put money into savings or save money rather than put it back into the market. When consumer confidence is low, and you are sitting on enough money; you can usually find the best deals.

[Summa]

I love you all. Solutions are clear, we are the fog. The most intelligent man is the one who declares himself a fool, eliminating ones ego shall cure the world.

The man with no ego is not a man.

The man who does not have the audacity to claim he is right and another is wrong is a relativist.

The man who is a relativist believes that everything is permissible.

-The Brothers Karamazov

[Jack]

I love you all. Solutions are clear, we are the fog. The most intelligent man is the one who declares himself a fool, eliminating ones ego shall cure the world. Destroy mind, feel more. I weep as you stand upon your pillar of wit; superiority.

[Money]

Asking for his opinion on the matter, which is more educated than mine, and certainly more educated than yours. I could buy five houses in your state for the price of one in Ontario. I know you don't give a flying fuck, which is why the question wasn't directed at you.

yawn, just wanted to use the pic. relax nerd, whyusomad

[Epinephrine]

Off topic, but do you know what's going on with the Canadian housing prices? All jokes about being a basement baller aside, a townhouse in a Toronto suburb starts at $250,000. The average salary for Canadians isn't higher than that of an American, and our unemployment rate is higher (I believe) than Americas. I figured you'd have better insight into this topic than me, and given that we are both in our 20's and possibly looking to purchase something soon I thought you'd know if this a bubble waiting to burst. I think interest rates are frozen right now, but when they go back up a lot of people could lose their shirts in the process. I just kind of feel like everyone my age isn't in a good situation, regardless of how much our income is. Young families can't realistically afford to buy a house right now, and I'm hoping that the market drys up and we see more competitive pricing. That or I'm moving to Australia.

Toronto housing prices are still low by international standards, although high for Canada. The best way to look at housing prices is to look at how much someone would pay for a mortgage relative to their income. Right now Vancouver is by far the worst in all of Canada (>80%), they are >75% higher than we are (we're around 40-50%).

At the lower extreme, cheap places will be as low as 25-30% which is what you typically see in the 'flyover' parts of North America (US and Canada included).

The problem with prices, is that it is a simple supply and demand type thing for housing. You simply cannot compare one city to another, due to available space and demand. In Toronto, we've more or less maxed out the available land to build single detached housing within the city. Meanwhile the suburbs adjacent to the city are also almost fully built out to the edges. Because of commuting times and raw distances, the prices nearer the core go exponentially up. There's not going to be any more houses period, so the price moves up.

The thing is, at around 40-50% of mortgage/income ratio, it is still relatively affordable to buy housing in Toronto, and comparable and even less expensive than most large cities in the world our size.

Of course the overall ratio is skewed by two factors:
1) Low interest rates. Basically rates are as low as they're going to get, it can't really get lower. Any increase in rates will have huge effects on affordability.
2) Most new housing in Toronto is condo-based. In fact Toronto has more condos under construction than any other developed city in the entire world at the moment. So basically, the idea is that you make do with less... less size that is. We're still nowhere close to living in condos the size of ones in Europe or Asia or even NYC, so as small as new condos here feel, they are still relatively large by international standards.

Interestingly enough, we don't really have that many international investors in our market, at least not like high profile cities like London, NYC or dare I say Vancouver where foreign investors have driven housing to completely unaffordable levels there. Most of our investment here is rental based. Small time investors hoping to rent out a condo because we currently have a historic low vacancy rate.

As far as people buying to 'flip' units, I think that is on a downtrend. Our prices are no longer going up exponentially. Sure they are going up a bit faster than inflation, but nothing crazy, and well within reason considering we're out of land and increasing our population by an average of 100,000 people a year.


So in terms of a potential 'bubble' situation, I think there is no bubble.
1) There's waaay too much new construction coming on the market that prices are being kept low by the supply.
2) While interest rates are low, they aren't likely going to trend too far up too quickly. Even if rates went up 4-5% in a few years, the mortgage carrying cost will only rise maybe 10% above inflation. This is a small but not huge correction. In this case, most owners will probably just hold onto property and so decrease supply and prices will probably only drop 5%.
3) By international standards a mortgage in Toronto is still very affordable. And if it starts getting unaffordable, people can still live in small and smaller units for some time to drive down overall prices.
4) Toronto's increasing prices are driven by solid market fundamentals. 100,000 new people to the city every year. No more easy land to develop within city limits. Increasing commuting times, which have forced people to live closer to where the jobs are thus driving up demand.
5) The biggest housing price increases already happened last decade as we went from ultra-cheap to normal prices, and increases have slowed down dramatically.

In terms of buying a place there are a few things to consider. First of all, in the current market, if you want to live anywhere near the city, you will probably save money by renting, especially if you plan to live somewhere short term. If you buy you probably can't expect to make any real profit selling (although thinking you're going to make money by selling a primary residence when you need to move to a new place after you sell a place is debatable anyway, unless you're prepared to downsize or move really far from the city). Buying really is an emotional thing. I bought my place, but I like the idea of owning something.

Secondly, interest rates are not going to go down anytime soon. If you can secure a good 5-year term on your mortgage or gamble on a variable rate, you can still skimp and double down on your principle the next few years and try and 'quickly' pay off a large chunk of your mortgage. This is a good 'investment' in a way, because rates will surely rise in the future and by paying early now you're saving a ton of interest later. You can use RRSP money to pay down your mortgage as part of the homeowner's plan. As well, since stocks have flatlined/dropped in the past year, using any 'extra' money you have to save/invest to pay off extra mortgage principle is a smart idea unless you have some awesome stock tips.

Thirdly, prices will only go up. If you really want to buy, sooner is probably better than later. I honestly do not see prices in Toronto dropping by any significant amount any time soon. They may drop 5-10% at best in the new few years, but at least you would have gotten a lot of utility of having your own place and not paying rent to someone else.

Finally, 'regular families' can no longer afford to live in the city. Basically, most people with normal jobs who want to live in a single detached house need to live in the far suburbs. The further the better as it's still somewhat affordable. You can easily get a decent house in Ajax for $250,000 for instance, which wouldn't even get you a one bedroom condo downtown.


One last thing. Our economy is doing much better than America. Our debt levels are lower. Our taxes are almost equivalent but we get free healthcare and they have to pay for it. Our unemployment rate is much lower. With our soaring dollar, we're almost equivalent in GDP per capita now compared to the USA. And with the exception of Vancouver, we don't have a housing bubble like they did because we have much stronger mortgage laws than they do.

[Cops]

Asking for his opinion on the matter, which is more educated than mine, and certainly more educated than yours. I could buy five houses in your state for the price of one in Ontario. I know you don't give a flying fuck, which is why the question wasn't directed at you.

[Money]

Off topic, but do you know what's going on with the Canadian housing prices? All jokes about being a basement baller aside, a townhouse in a Toronto suburb starts at $250,000. The average salary for Canadians isn't higher than that of an American, and our unemployment rate is higher (I believe) than Americas. I figured you'd have better insight into this topic than me, and given that we are both in our 20's and possibly looking to purchase something soon I thought you'd know if this a bubble waiting to burst. I think interest rates are frozen right now, but when they go back up a lot of people could lose their shirts in the process. I just kind of feel like everyone my age isn't in a good situation, regardless of how much our income is. Young families can't realistically afford to buy a house right now, and I'm hoping that the market drys up and we see more competitive pricing. That or I'm moving to Australia.

[Cops]

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.

Off topic, but do you know what's going on with the Canadian housing prices? All jokes about being a basement baller aside, a townhouse in a Toronto suburb starts at $250,000. The average salary for Canadians isn't higher than that of an American, and our unemployment rate is higher (I believe) than Americas. I figured you'd have better insight into this topic than me, and given that we are both in our 20's and possibly looking to purchase something soon I thought you'd know if this a bubble waiting to burst. I think interest rates are frozen right now, but when they go back up a lot of people could lose their shirts in the process. I just kind of feel like everyone my age isn't in a good situation, regardless of how much our income is. Young families can't realistically afford to buy a house right now, and I'm hoping that the market drys up and we see more competitive pricing. That or I'm moving to Australia.