How do you define Socialism

Sep 2015
13,274
4,901
Brown Township, Ohio
No, I didn't know but it seems they've flipped the other way since the days they invaded the Falklands.
Argentina thought they owned the Maldivian Islands which Great Britain owned lock, stock and barrel. The Iron Lady took care of that mess.


edit: There was at least one Brit living on the Falklands and which infuriated Queen Elizabeth II Rex and she gave her Prime Minister the green light to attack and win it back. Margret Thatcher was the Prime Minister and got the nickname 'Iron Lady'.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2014
902
347
Heart of America
Argentina thought they owned the Maldivians Islands which Great Britain owned lock, stock and barrel. The Iron Lady took care of that mess.
The bottom line there was that the military junta had so badly mismanaged the Argentine economy that they needed a distraction so they used a 140 year old island dispute to rally the sheep. They ended up losing their ass.
 
Dec 2018
635
241
New England
The takers of the world are those who inherit wealth, or achieve it through theft and fraud. They by very definition are the takers. And they should be taxed accordingly.
Ok, let's carry that idea forward. How do you segregate those who acquired their wealth fraudulently vs. those who have earned it?
 
Dec 2018
635
241
New England
It matters when the employees are forced to work for lower than what can be paid wages, at the factory that makes the cookies, because it is a monopoly where there is no other employment available, while the owners of the factory take more of the profits from the cookies, because they know the employees have no recourse.
I agree that monopolies, whether private or public, are generally a bad thing. But you make sounds like the poor cookie makers are chained to their home town. There's a simple solution to limited, regional employment prospects: move. You'll be doing yourself ,and the economy as a whole, a favor by finding and performing more highly valued labor.
 
Dec 2018
635
241
New England
Socialists, by and large, just don't understand the concept of discretionary effort; their understanding of labor is quite shallow. They see people arriving at the workplace, clocking in, and spending the next eight hours doing something they, the socialists, believe is more or less at a constant work rate. It's just not like that. There is an entire range of effort -- and therefore productivity -- possible within just that eight hour span. Anyone who's ever tried to run an organization (i.e. be responsible for managing others) knows the incredible difference between motivated and unmotivated employees. And if you've got a group of people thinking "What the diff, I get the same pay whether I try my hardest or not" then you've got an unmotivated, under-performing workforce.

It's why organizations in competitive markets, and who generally pay for performance, run rings around their socialist counterparts. Most people need a reason to try their hardest, and "serving the state" just won't do.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2013
31,213
18,695
Beware of watermelons
It matters when the employees are forced to work for lower than what can be paid wages, at the factory that makes the cookies, because it is a monopoly where there is no other employment available, while the owners of the factory take more of the profits from the cookies, because they know the employees have no recourse.
Dribble

Nobody is forced to work anyplace for any wage in the states.

No monopoly can exist w/o the state enforcing their dominance.

Where is this place where there is no competing employment?
 

Similar Discussions