By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope, he didn't had any money to finance it (talking about the creator of mysucesso.com) he took an indirect loan on the bank. Like he took something like 10k USD that he would have to pay back the next month 12k USD for the principal and interest.

The other one, the homeless, didn't had any money at all.

There is another that started as a waitress on a road barbecue parlor. He and his brother (while living in poverty at their families house) saved up to 90% of their income for several months/years to rent their first space and start their barbecue who would become "Fogo de Chão".

There is also famous Silvio Santos who started as low middle class family, buying things from the wholesale and selling on the ferryboat and today is the owner of the second biggest TV in Brazil and several other business.

In fact it's possible that the rate of self made man turned billionarie isn't that much of than milionaries who turned off billionaires...

Want another sneak peek? There is one study showing that the average income from families that came as recent immigrants to be higher than americans... which show that even people that came without money and even understanding english were developing faster... this wikipedia have at least somewhat a way for you to start looking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

 

The biggest issue with socialism and communism is their fight to end inequality instead of poverty... Capitalism have fought poverty greatly while also increasing inequalities in some places.

Do you know how banks make money? They're not going to loan money to someone if they don't think they'll get any of that money back. So, usually that person has to have a certain level of income or savings, or something in that manner, in order to even get a loan large enough to start up a business. Most people are not going to be able to pay 10k USD back in one month. Also, immigration is now based on prospects, so generally only people that are well-off in the first place are able to immigrate to the US.

Yes I know how bank make money. He didn't make a loan that is the point you didn't understand. He just entered the red on his own account paying obscene interest on it. He didn't picked a lot of money as well.

He couldn't pay back the 10k USD, if his business didn't really take off in 2 month he would go bankrupt totally. For you to have an idea he had to take the debt because his partner dropped from the risk on the week prior to it, he had to sell his old car. So unless we are talking about homeless that have nothing on them (which in developed countries case is the very very very minority of the population) basically no one can say they can't start a business because they don't have money. They may not have the courage, knowledge, insight, etc, but money per see isn't the biggest detrigent. Such is a fact that in Brazil most business are very small and with very little capital.

On the immigration that could be the case today, but those studies show things like 3 generations so it is like accounting immigrants that came 50 years ago and how their grandson are doing.

Leadified said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope, Soviet Union absolutely send people to work and allowed no one to sit idle... and guess what, it had central control instead of social welfare.

Are you a ludist??? Because the fear of automation is some century old.

So you can't answer a simple question so you resort to an ad hominem. You somehow also forgot that you quoted my posts where I was critical of welfare and the Nordic countries being "socialist".

Lol this is a joke, go bug someone else.

How asking if you are a ludist is an ad hominem? I asked that because they believed automation would destroy works, instead it just shifted how work was done and in fact raised everyone earnings and quality of life in the long term.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Leadified said:

So you can't answer a simple question so you resort to an ad hominem. You somehow also forgot that you quoted my posts where I was critical of welfare and the Nordic countries being "socialist".

Lol this is a joke, go bug someone else.

How asking if you are a ludist is an ad hominem? I asked that because they believed automation would destroy works, instead it just shifted how work was done and in fact raised everyone earnings and quality of life in the long term.

You deflected my question by asking if I am a Luddite which is absurd. Do you not read the news or anything? Automation is increasingly becoming a topic of debate and universal basic income (which is provided by the government) is often justified because the economy will become more automated in future. So please answer my original question.



DonFerrari said:
VGPolyglot said:

Do you know how banks make money? They're not going to loan money to someone if they don't think they'll get any of that money back. So, usually that person has to have a certain level of income or savings, or something in that manner, in order to even get a loan large enough to start up a business. Most people are not going to be able to pay 10k USD back in one month. Also, immigration is now based on prospects, so generally only people that are well-off in the first place are able to immigrate to the US.

Yes I know how bank make money. He didn't make a loan that is the point you didn't understand. He just entered the red on his own account paying obscene interest on it. He didn't picked a lot of money as well.

He couldn't pay back the 10k USD, if his business didn't really take off in 2 month he would go bankrupt totally. For you to have an idea he had to take the debt because his partner dropped from the risk on the week prior to it, he had to sell his old car. So unless we are talking about homeless that have nothing on them (which in developed countries case is the very very very minority of the population) basically no one can say they can't start a business because they don't have money. They may not have the courage, knowledge, insight, etc, but money per see isn't the biggest detrigent. Such is a fact that in Brazil most business are very small and with very little capital.

On the immigration that could be the case today, but those studies show things like 3 generations so it is like accounting immigrants that came 50 years ago and how their grandson are doing.

How much money would he have to have in order to be allowed to go 10k in the hole? I can only go $100 in the hole, no way would my bank let me be over $10,000 in the red. And you say that he would have gone bankrupt, do you know what causes bankruptcy? A lack of money. So, the choice between not starting a company and not having a company or starting a company and going bankrupt and thus not having money doesn't seem like 2 very favourable choices.

Also, I didn't deny that it was counting grandchildren of immigrants, but the financial status of your parents have a huge affect on your own financial status:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/?utm_term=.8af9876b9f32



Leadified said:
DonFerrari said:

How asking if you are a ludist is an ad hominem? I asked that because they believed automation would destroy works, instead it just shifted how work was done and in fact raised everyone earnings and quality of life in the long term.

You deflected my question by asking if I am a Luddite which is absurd. Do you not read the news or anything? Automation is increasingly becoming a topic of debate and universal basic income (which is provided by the government) is often justified because the economy will become more automated in future. So please answer my original question.

Yes I read newspaper, still the fear of automation is ever lingering and there are doomongering over it all the time. Doesn't make it likely to happen

VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes I know how bank make money. He didn't make a loan that is the point you didn't understand. He just entered the red on his own account paying obscene interest on it. He didn't picked a lot of money as well.

He couldn't pay back the 10k USD, if his business didn't really take off in 2 month he would go bankrupt totally. For you to have an idea he had to take the debt because his partner dropped from the risk on the week prior to it, he had to sell his old car. So unless we are talking about homeless that have nothing on them (which in developed countries case is the very very very minority of the population) basically no one can say they can't start a business because they don't have money. They may not have the courage, knowledge, insight, etc, but money per see isn't the biggest detrigent. Such is a fact that in Brazil most business are very small and with very little capital.

On the immigration that could be the case today, but those studies show things like 3 generations so it is like accounting immigrants that came 50 years ago and how their grandson are doing.

How much money would he have to have in order to be allowed to go 10k in the hole? I can only go $100 in the hole, no way would my bank let me be over $10,000 in the red. And you say that he would have gone bankrupt, do you know what causes bankruptcy? A lack of money. So, the choice between not starting a company and not having a company or starting a company and going bankrupt and thus not having money doesn't seem like 2 very favourable choices.

Also, I didn't deny that it was counting grandchildren of immigrants, but the financial status of your parents have a huge affect on your own financial status:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/?utm_term=.8af9876b9f32

If you earn 5k per month in Brazil you can have your account be allowed to go to the whole. And not even sure why we are considering this amount unnacessible to most. That is the price of a entry level car in Brazil, which you may not believe most of the population own.

Sure it isn't a good choice to go bankrupt, and most people avoid risk. This one accepted a very high risk and it paid off fast. Today he is multibillionaire. He could have gone slower and safer but he would lose his window of opportunity (he had found the right place and signed the rent before his friend backed off).

Yes the money of your parents can influenciate yours, but those are son and grandson of poor immigrants so their parents made it from ground. This was just to point against your assumption that the study was counting immigrants that come with a lot of money or opportunities.

I'll give you another pill of Flavio Augusto knowledge... when you put the blame on the system or others there is nothing you can do and you will only suffer. But when you believe you have the power to decide your future (and responsibilities for your failures) then you can go and do.

Also not sure how much you deal with workers, but majority I've seem aren't not only risk adverse but also such stability lovers and complacent that they get stuck on their positions like forever.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

One thing I never understood is if the workers own the means of production (means which they neither created, built up, invested in, or researched) and enjoy in the profits if the business is successful, do they have to take money out of their own pockets if the business is failing?

A successful business takes years to develop, a ton of time, money, talent, and good choices. Why should workers who invested nothing get the benefits of others success.

And who decides if that business should invest in new things if every worker has an equal share or what if I leave the job for another, does my replacement get my share and I'll get the share of the new job?

Maybe I'm starting from a faulty premise, I'm not trying to mislead, but it seems like socialism is only desirable for people to lazy or to unwilling to go out there and achieve their own success.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Leadified said:

You deflected my question by asking if I am a Luddite which is absurd. Do you not read the news or anything? Automation is increasingly becoming a topic of debate and universal basic income (which is provided by the government) is often justified because the economy will become more automated in future. So please answer my original question.

Yes I read newspaper, still the fear of automation is ever lingering and there are doomongering over it all the time. Doesn't make it likely to happen

Well ok then.



The most important thing in this discussion is make people believe or accept that all prior failed attepmts such ad ussr, north korea, cuba, venezuela etc were not actually socialist. Therefore they cannot be used as examples of failure which opens the opportunity to convince people to try it again. This time as real socialism. This time I guarantee will work. If fail we find some excuse or blame america.



MegaManX said:
One thing I never understood is if the workers own the means of production (means which they neither created, built up, invested in, or researched) and enjoy in the profits if the business is successful, do they have to take money out of their own pockets if the business is failing?

A successful business takes years to develop, a ton of time, money, talent, and good choices. Why should workers who invested nothing get the benefits of others success.

And who decides if that business should invest in new things if every worker has an equal share or what if I leave the job for another, does my replacement get my share and I'll get the share of the new job?

Maybe I'm starting from a faulty premise, I'm not trying to mislead, but it seems like socialism is only desirable for people to lazy or to unwilling to go out there and achieve their own success.

There is one very good study to dismerit the "mais valia" or the exploitation the employer do to the employee... it actually put it as the employer pay the employees before hand, buy the material and make all the investment and the profit is actually the remuneration of the money invest correct to present time.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm yet to see a single police takeover against any cooperative in Brazil, and here being a place people condemn for being corrupt, violent, etc. They fail because they lack the competence to manage a company. Indeed like 90% of the companies in Brazil are very small (less than 10 employees) and they can still exist and do better than the "no owner" philosophy.

What do you mean by "see"? You may not have seen it directly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/brazils-president-michel-temer-instructs-military-and-police-to-attack-landless-workers-movement-mst/5555258

Dont even need to read the article to know it is a joke and left media propaganda. But I will just say is misinformation. MST are closer to terrorists than any worker movement. Paid and financed by the former socialist government (ruled by a terrorist president)  with money from the tax I pay.



Vincoletto said:
The most important thing in this discussion is make people believe or accept that all prior failed attepmts such ad ussr, north korea, cuba, venezuela etc were not actually socialist. Therefore they cannot be used as examples of failure which opens the opportunity to convince people to try it again. This time as real socialism. This time I guarantee will work. If fail we find some excuse or blame america.

This is incorrect.

Anarchists and other socialists often do not consider the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc. to be socialist while Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, Leninists will consider those states at some points to be socialist. Only American liberals will look up to Venezuela as socialism.