We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.

[Wilhelm Zenz]

well if you mean the nordic model of capitalism then maybe i dont want to copy cuba though

[Frank Apisa]

Hello Threedee,



I think most of those should remain as capitalist ventures. We have the social safety net to provide for most of those needs.

I would be favorable to a government housing plan where the government builds basic no frills housing and then assigns / sells it to the needy who end up with full ownership to do as they please.

One of the things that keeps the poor poor is lack of home ownership. But giving away houses or apartments is fraught with consequences. It could serve as an impetus to not try. Any program which does that would have to place onerous requirements on the recipients to avoid reinforcing laziness.

So maybe in most cases, the recipients would have to work for or pay for most of the housing, but since it is done by the government at no profit, then the housing could be cheaper, and only those of severely limited income would be allowed to apply.

I understand that what I suggest next may be poorly received, but...

...one of the things we should be doing is to DISCOURAGE SOME PEOPLE FROM WORKING.

Anyone taking up space in a job who is not working to maximum productivity...is a deterrent to maximum productivity. And there is an army of people "taking up space" in jobs where they are not coming even close to maximum productivity. In fact, many impact negatively on productivity.

Every job currently being done by a human...that can more effectively be done by a machine...should be turned over to a machine for the doing.

Some jobs can't. No machine will ever make a hand-made silk tie. Few will ever be able to match the social aspect of a good bartender...or the needed TLC of a competent nurse or care-giver.

Right now...we have too many people working because they HAVE TO WORK...and who goldbrick rather than doing their assigned job competently. My guess is most of us have worked with people like that...individuals who would improve productivity by simply staying home.

When I said up above, "...one of the things we should be doing is to DISCOURAGE SOME PEOPLE FROM WORKING"...I am saying we should pay them (or provide for them) to stay the hell out of the way.

Enough for now. More to come on this...although I would love to hear input from others on it.

[Grugore]

If you can personally write a check for all of your healthcare needs, Grugore, then you are independent.
Otherwise, either the government or the private insurance companies partially control your healthcare.

We have a vote in the government.
We have no vote in the insurance company boardrooms.
That makes the government a better choice.

Also, with the government, all the taxes collected for healthcare actually go to healthcare.
With your insurance premiums, much of the money goes to profits.

A five year old would understand this when explained this simply.
Why can't you?

Health insurance is based on a legally binding contract. What does the government give you? What if they refuse services? What will you do?

[PoliTalker]

Hello again Evergreen58,

Nice. Thanks. I had written you a long reply then I accidentally clicked on the wrong button and deleted it - tech guru that I am. Getting too late here to write it again. Will get back to you later.

Good evening,

I detest when that happens. There is some key combination on my keyboard that produces that result. Very frustrating when it happens after I have been working on a post for a long time. I frequently take that as an indication that I have been sitting at the computer too long, and get up and walk away. 5 minutes later I usually decide it wasn't all that important, and if it was, I can eventually recreate it in fewer words.

I look forward to more discussions.

Peace.

[PoliTalker]

Hello rjhenn,

I often write my replies in Notepad or a word processor, then copy and paste, just because of accidents like that.

Same here, but not often enough. Sometimes after losing a great post.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

The transition to what we both advocate, Poli, MUST be done gradually...or we will fall into chaos.

"Gradually" does not mean taking forever, by the way. It means incrementally.

Exactly. I have spent some time trying to envision how that transition could occur from for-profit medicine to a not-for-profit system owned by the people.

It could be done by instituting such a system initially for the young only. Let those who already have health care keep what they have for the rest of their lives (if that model lasts.) As the young who become part of a new system age, let the new system grow and expand to meet the need. That way nobody needs to be displaced from something they like.

If it were done that way, it could be that the new system works so well that many on the old system would like to switch over. That should be allowed. Eventually, the old system would be gone as it gradually gets replaced by the new one. Doctors who began businesses would get to keep them, but they may see their volume decreasing as people utilize the new system. Some of them may wish to convert. There should be a pathway for that.

If we want doctors to be the best they can be, we need a system which allows them to focus on practicing medicine. Running a business detracts from that.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Red Crow,

Nope ....

I'm pretty sure us normal thinking folks are well aware of what Socialism is all about.

Who is to say what is normal?

[Minister of Truth]

I'd say those were best left to capitalism. Now, aid to let people use those facilities would be helpful, and perhaps necessary, particularly as automation eliminates many jobs. It might get to the point that aid provides most consumer spending, and would be the only thing keeping a capitalist economy going.

Wait, consumer spending is necessary to a capitalist economy?

[NiftyNiblick]

Health insurance is based on a legally binding contract. What does the government give you? What if they refuse services? What will you do?

Insurance companies are probably the biggest criminals in the country.

You hate government because that's what you're supposed to do.
If you're a flyover country Evangelical conservative, you're programmed to be a serf for the corporate oligarchy.
They own your mind and take exploiting you for granted.

You're the same as your neighbors and the same as your congregation.
You're terrified of well educated intellectuals because, although you can't understand it, they can make such easy arguments against all of your beliefs.

Somebody could give you twenty-thousand dollars to have a fun week in Manhattan or Las Vegas or Paris and you wouldn't know how to do it.
It's not your fault that you're a rube, but you don't have the courage to try improving yourself.

You trust corporate oligarchs over your own government despite this being completely against your own economic best interests.

I'm assuming a lot here, not actually knowing you, but the sad thing is, one can usually do that with confidence.

[Minister of Truth]

My guess is that institutions like Amazon...will eventually show us how that must be handled.

Walmart already is doing that.

So, that's a "yes" on nationalizing store and online retail. What can brown do for you?

[PoliTalker]

Hello Threedee,

Wait, consumer spending is necessary to a capitalist economy?

You are disputing this?

[Minister of Truth]

Hello Threedee,



I think most of those should remain as capitalist ventures. We have the social safety net to provide for most of those needs.

I would be favorable to a government housing plan where the government builds basic no frills housing and then assigns / sells it to the needy who end up with full ownership to do as they please.

One of the things that keeps the poor poor is lack of home ownership. But giving away houses or apartments is fraught with consequences. It could serve as an impetus to not try. Any program which does that would have to place onerous requirements on the recipients to avoid reinforcing laziness.

So maybe in most cases, the recipients would have to work for or pay for most of the housing, but since it is done by the government at no profit, then the housing could be cheaper, and only those of severely limited income would be allowed to apply.

Okay, I just wanted to establish that almost no one on JPP (except for Marxists like Iola and Fent, whose opinions do not count, because Marxism doesn't count) actually supports socialism, except for BAC, Moony, and LV666, and possibly Frank.

[Minister of Truth]

Hello Threedee,



You are disputing this?

No, I was sarcasming it.

[Frank Apisa]

So, that's a "yes" on nationalizing store and online retail. What can brown do for you?

I obviously am closer to a "yes" than Poli.

I am for maximum productivity...and even the distribution of goods involves productivity.

My guess is that almost ALL distribution of goods will be handled by Internet and mail with a few decades. Brick and mortar stores will be a thing of the past. There may be "try them on" kinds of places...but maybe even they will not exist. We'll have parks where we presently have shopping malls.

[Evergreen58]

Is there a way to see all the threads that I have sent or received? I saw your reply to my post last night but not to the posts today. My posts today were not directed at you. They were general rants about the attacks on the rich by people who would do the same things should they one day become rich. And as a reminder, I am not rich by the standards of almost all of our politicians who have been in office for several terms.