Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Jehanne]

....okay, if you say so, but- 

-how is socialism going to provide those goods and services?

The same way that your local government provides you with police and fire services.

---

[quote pid='1543024' dateline='1492633176']
Neither capitalism or socialism are good or bad, what is bad is greed can create a monopoly out of BOTH. Un rules by selling his utopia that if you just obey him he will give you what you need. HE is a capitalist too. I only agree that we as a species need to think long term and not make the quick buck the default. In America one party and the top class, even though we have more checks on power, have been winning elections by selling the utopia that only the top know what they are doing. 

It boils down to greed for power in both extremes and it always takes money to create that monopoly and maintain that monopoly. 

Globally speaking both friend and foe think like a cheetah, everyone supports their economy thinking speed is the key and both friend and foe, open and closed societies depend upon a top class to compete in the global market. I only agree that you cant consume your way to prosperity and yes, the competition is at the top to exploit, not make things easier on workers. But that includes closed societies too. Un has far more people in poverty and still is rich and invests in the global market.

Capitalism is worse:


As more and more people decide that they want the "good life," more and more countries will turn to Western capitalism (in particular, the United States), which will render our World unable to support human life.  Everyone will be dead soon after; I do not see how anyone could call such an economic system "good".  Donald Trump is a capitalist, albeit, a somewhat unsuccessful one, but a capitalist nonetheless.

[pocaracas]

I think you're thinking of communism, not socialism... but hey, I get it... the cold war era propaganda in the US worked really well!

Not quite -- in communism, there is little private property, but that is not what I am advocating here.  I think that good socialism will retain private poverty with some private corporations.  Still, the government would be the dominant factor in the economy, with private industry in service to the country as opposed to being in competition within and between sectors.

In my experience, socialism is a system that provides the basic needs for its people, basically healthcare, education, law enforcement and providing some subsistence income to those in need, while allowing capitalism to do its thing within a set of regulations which aim to enforce a sustainable future.

For example, I don't think the government should be a car dealer. That's a business that should be in the private sector. The government should set up laws and regulations that allow any car dealer to operate, but with standard market rules (no false advertising, provide some warranty, etc), some sector specific regulations (require the car dealer to have a dealer's license so that he's aware of all the legislation involving cars) and some extra incentives or penalties for people to purchase wisely (higher road tax on more polluting cars).

[The Grand Nudger]

The same way that your local government provides you with police and fire services.

...by taxing privately held business and wealth in order to buy equipment and pay for staff.......?

[Jehanne]

The same way that your local government provides you with police and fire services.

...by taxing privately held business and wealth in order to buy equipment and pay for staff.......?

Do you want a private police force?  Or, are some public services necessary for the common good?

---

Not quite -- in communism, there is little private property, but that is not what I am advocating here.  I think that good socialism will retain private poverty with some private corporations.  Still, the government would be the dominant factor in the economy, with private industry in service to the country as opposed to being in competition within and between sectors.

In my experience, socialism is a system that provides the basic needs for its people, basically healthcare, education, law enforcement and providing some subsistence income to those in need, while allowing capitalism to do its thing within a set of regulations which aim to enforce a sustainable future.

For example, I don't think the government should be a car dealer. That's a business that should be in the private sector. The government should set up laws and regulations that allow any car dealer to operate, but with standard market rules (no false advertising, provide some warranty, etc), some sector specific regulations (require the car dealer to have a dealer's license so that he's aware of all the legislation involving cars) and some extra incentives or penalties for people to purchase wisely (higher road tax on more polluting cars).

It isn't working, and it never will.  Why?  Because with 180 or so countries in the World, there is simply too much temptation for one country to cheat, and soon after, everyone follows.  Even with its elite science, the US has not been able to reduce its carbon emissions.  Why?  Because President George W. Bush summed it up as saying that it would not "be fair" to developed nations to cut their (our) emissions unless developing nations first cut theirs.  And, he said this statement during his first term of office and was, of course, reelected to a second term!

[pocaracas]

In my experience, socialism is a system that provides the basic needs for its people, basically healthcare, education, law enforcement and providing some subsistence income to those in need, while allowing capitalism to do its thing within a set of regulations which aim to enforce a sustainable future.

For example, I don't think the government should be a car dealer. That's a business that should be in the private sector. The government should set up laws and regulations that allow any car dealer to operate, but with standard market rules (no false advertising, provide some warranty, etc), some sector specific regulations (require the car dealer to have a dealer's license so that he's aware of all the legislation involving cars) and some extra incentives or penalties for people to purchase wisely (higher road tax on more polluting cars).

It isn't working, and it never will.  Why?  Because with 180 or so countries in the World, there is simply too much temptation for one country to cheat, and soon after, everyone follows.  Even with its elite science, the US has not been able to reduce its carbon emissions.  Why?  Because President George W. Bush summed it up as saying that it would not "be fair" to developed nations to cut their (our) emissions unless developing nations first cut theirs.  And, he said this statement during his first term of office and was, of course, reelected to a second term!

It can work... impose a tax on goods from countries with lower environmental standards, thus leveling the playing field within the country that's working on improving those standards.
But, with so many companies outsourcing their workforce (China?), old GW just wouldn't have the courage to do something like that.

I'm also of the opinion that there should be some form of a worldwide government, so that such temptations and also little things like tax havens wouldn't exist. But I'm pretty sure not even my grandchildren will see that.

[Brian37]

....okay, if you say so, but- 

-how is socialism going to provide those goods and services?

The same way that your local government provides you with police and fire services.

---

[quote pid='1543024' dateline='1492633176']
Neither capitalism or socialism are good or bad, what is bad is greed can create a monopoly out of BOTH. Un rules by selling his utopia that if you just obey him he will give you what you need. HE is a capitalist too. I only agree that we as a species need to think long term and not make the quick buck the default. In America one party and the top class, even though we have more checks on power, have been winning elections by selling the utopia that only the top know what they are doing. 

It boils down to greed for power in both extremes and it always takes money to create that monopoly and maintain that monopoly. 

Globally speaking both friend and foe think like a cheetah, everyone supports their economy thinking speed is the key and both friend and foe, open and closed societies depend upon a top class to compete in the global market. I only agree that you cant consume your way to prosperity and yes, the competition is at the top to exploit, not make things easier on workers. But that includes closed societies too. Un has far more people in poverty and still is rich and invests in the global market.

Capitalism is worse:


As more and more people decide that they want the "good life," more and more countries will turn to Western capitalism (in particular, the United States), which will render our World unable to support human life.  Everyone will be dead soon after; I do not see how anyone could call such an economic system "good".  Donald Trump is a capitalist, albeit, a somewhat unsuccessful one, but a capitalist nonetheless.

[/quote]
So this is universally peer reviewed link accepted by major media as well, or is this a right wing think tank website cooking the numbers to support burning oil?
Exactly how could Canada produce more CO2 than either America or China considering they have a smaller population, especially smaller than China which is at 1 billion? And why would it matter if friend or foe do that, the world needs to get off of burning fossil fuels? So are you saying oppressive states like China or North Korea are more humane when it comes to human rights than Canada? I call bullshit on this link.

[Amarok]

The same way that your local government provides you with police and fire services.

---

Capitalism is worse:


As more and more people decide that they want the "good life," more and more countries will turn to Western capitalism (in particular, the United States), which will render our World unable to support human life.  Everyone will be dead soon after; I do not see how anyone could call such an economic system "good".  Donald Trump is a capitalist, albeit, a somewhat unsuccessful one, but a capitalist nonetheless.

So this is universally peer reviewed link accepted by major media as well, or is this a right wing think tank website cooking the numbers to support burning oil?
Exactly how could Canada produce more CO2 than either America or China considering they have a smaller population, especially smaller than China which is at 1 billion? And why would it matter if friend or foe do that, the world needs to get off of burning fossil fuels? So are you saying oppressive states like China or North Korea are more humane when it comes to human rights than Canada? I call bullshit on this link.
[/quote]

I have heard this statement it generally comes from the fact were do use a lot of energy for a small populous. And of course there is the oil sands which is a huge CO2 producer . I don't ultimately know what think of this myself. But yeah were definitely more humane then China

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you want a private police force? 

Nope, and I don't have one, but what's the relevance?  

Or, are some public services necessary for the common good?

That service being necessary for the common good is both why I don;t have a private police force -and- why they lean on capitalism to pay for it.

What I'm asking you...is -how- the socialist system you have in mind will aqcuire goods, services, and labor?  How will it arrange for that police force?  I'm simply assuming that, like our current system, it will recognize police forces as both necessary, and not appropriate for privatization.

If the -how- is exactly like our current how...then it's a socialist system leveraging capitalism.

[vorlon13]

the decline in unpopularity will fuel demand for fresh baby meat !!!

[The Grand Nudger]

Time to invest in new enclosures.