[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But once again, money is not everything.

If that is the case, then let the public sector provide healthcare without my tax money. Then everyone wins - OH wait!; the public sector does need to leech off of a private individual's success to provide healthcare.

As with the gov providing the benefit for those who are at the very bottom and cannot afford it, I see it as a dividing question of does the government pay for that extremely small minority to give them something that may keep them alive, or does that minority represent that portion of society required to fail for long term improvement of society.

Free market Capitalism is a system where success is chosen by the reinvestment of the return on human capital. Anybody who does not do so is to fail - not without opportunity - but through choice.

A left wing system is an alternative preferred by those who would be failures in a system where correct allocation of your human capital = success. If you go to a socialist system, it no longer has the private enterprise economy to leech off of and so it is self-destructing with no actual way of allocating resources between those who want it. No incentive for work, no incentive for reinvestment, no long term prosperity. Thatcher and those from whom she took her political ideas know this and this is why she worked to make the UK economy free of collectivist power that makes those at the bottom of society falsely believe they are entitled to something that they are not.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
If that is the case, then let the public sector provide healthcare without my tax money. Then everyone wins - OH wait!; the public sector does need to leech off of a private individual's success to provide healthcare.

Do you not read what I posted?
I specifically said that such left wing ideas can only exist thanks to capitalism.
I am not saying capitalism is specifically a bad thing (although pure capitalism without anything else would be a bad thing), just that it cannot work on its own (and the same is true for socialism - pure socialism is a bad thing).

(Original post by JuKaMy)
As with the gov providing the benefit for those who are at the very bottom and cannot afford it

Of course, the NHS is not just for that.
Many people who are not at the very bottom would not be able to afford healthcare without it. I don't think you realise how expensive healthcare is.
Yes, there is insurance, but you do realise that insurance would not be helpful for anyone. Those with preexisting conditions would be charged huge amounts, which would not be affordable. Or even refused insurance all together.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
I see it as a dividing question of does the government pay for that extremely small minority to give them something that may keep them alive, or does that minority represent that portion of society required to fail for long term improvement of society.

But once again, the number of people who need the NHS is NOT a small minority.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Free market Capitalism is a system where success is chosen by the reinvestment of the return on human capital. Anybody who does not do so is to fail - not without opportunity - but through choice.

You assume that everyone has the same opportunities.
Of course the reality is a million miles away. That is shown by the fact that those born into money are likely to die with lots of money, and those who a born into poverty are likely to die in poverty.

Plus, capitalism really doesn't work like that anyway.
The old phrase "its who you know not what you know" comes to mind.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
A left wing system is an alternative preferred by those who would be failures in a system where correct allocation of your human capital = success. If you go to a socialist system, it no longer has the private enterprise economy to leech off of and so it is self-destructing with no actual way of allocating resources between those who want it. No incentive for work, no incentive for reinvestment, no long term prosperity. Thatcher and those from whom she took her political ideas know this and this is why she worked to make the UK economy free of collectivist power that makes those at the bottom of society falsely believe they are entitled to something that they are not.

I am not suggesting a fully left wing system. I never have. Once again READ what I have been saying. I know a fully left wing system would not, and does not work.

Also, why are those at the bottom of society not entitled to things like healthcare?

[PicardianSocialist]

As usual in discussions on capitalism and socialism, no one on TSR has attempted to define their terms...

[chrisawhitmore]

Apart from her beliefs that it is unfeasible, she also pointed out that Socilaists often prized equality over prosperity. She stated that she would rather see the gap between rich and poor be large, provided that both were reasonably well off.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)

I don't think you realise how expensive healthcare is.
Yes, there is insurance, but you do realise that insurance would not be helpful for anyone. Those with preexisting conditions would be charged huge amounts, which would not be affordable. Or even refused insurance all together.

Are you serious? Your problem is you do not understand the fundamental purposes of capitalism - It gives incentive for firms to provide healthcare that suits everyone in the market. It's called finding a 'gap' in the market that would exist if no one provides slightly cheaper cover already. Also any firm refusing to provide healthcare to people on standard insurance due to a health problem not of their own fault, e.g. genetics or cancer, would be shooting themselves in the leg in terms of public image and marketing - They do not benefit in the long run from refusing insurance or increasing payments to people with such problems.

But once again, the number of people who need the NHS is NOT a small minority.

Throughout your arguments you have assumed that in a free market economy everything is like it is in the UK now - this is just completely wrong. No justification whatsoever to put down capitalism due to the state that left wing policies got this country into. (you are one of those who think more of what got us here will fix it; wake up)

You assume that everyone has the same opportunities.

Once again, you're going on what the situation is now. Free market economies are naturally meritocratic - those who are best at what they do succeed. Not everyone is born into a family with exactly the same wealth, but if they as an individual are worth more to the market (the whole of the rest of society) then they succeed more than someone who is not useful.

That is shown by the fact that those born into money are likely to die with lots of money, and those who a born into poverty are likely to die in poverty.

Not true - more than half of children born into poverty in the UK escape poverty during their lifetime. More than half escape = Overall more likely to not stay in poverty = you're wrong. The deficit of people in poverty is made by people who were not born into poverty and failed - how it should be don't you agree?
Also - once again you assume a meritocratic free market economy means that people will find it as hard to escape poverty as they do now - it would actually be easier with higher national income. Stop arguing for socialist principles because you propose they will cure the problems they have actually created - no logic present in such a thought process.

Plus, capitalism really doesn't work like that anyway.

Once again....

The old phrase "its who you know not what you know" comes to mind.

= CRONY Capitalism - not FREE MARKET Capitalism.
I.e. Once again....

Also, why are those at the bottom of society not entitled to things like healthcare?

Once again...
Because in a free market economy, those at the bottom are those who deserve to be there. In a mixed (distorted economy) that you suggest, like the UK, the poor are held in deprivation and poverty by a lack of liquidity and freedom of capital.

Basically you think that the fundamentals of a free market system are the same as a mixed one - this is why your arguments fall flat. You have a completely false base for your arguments.
In other words, and this is why you may think you are right, your arguments have been more or less correct at a single sentence level.
Such as you indicating 'the bottom of society deserve healthcare' YES, they do in our current system which is unfair and does not allow as much movement between income brackets, NO in a free market where those at the bottom are their due to the consequence of their actions.

I can tell you are an overall considerate person and you understand what fair is, you just apply it to the system we have NOW, not to a pure free market economy in which changes take place relative to the current system to make the improvement of one's economic situation, through work and reinvestment, a hell of a lot easier.

[Nick Longjohnson]

Because bish got paaaiiiid by corporations.

[chefdave]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But that isn't really the case. It allows a small minority to benefit.
Now, you can argue that it does allow the money made to be spend on things like the NHS etc etc, which do benefit everyone. But that is because they are SOCIALIST ideas.

Possibly, but you're right for the wrong reasons. As the economy develops the wealth creators see their incomes squeezed because a state backed cartel of land monopolies soak up any surpluses. Think about the difference in price between a flat in the North East or one overlooking the Thames in a prime London location, this is the effect I'm talking about in action. While 'socialist' economic policies do indeed release some of that value back into the community via taxation it does so very inefficiently because it targets general productivity rather than land.

If Thatcher had understood the importance of the link between wealth creation and real estate her vision may have translated into a success. Unfortunately she only gave us half a good economy, she didn't have the stomach to tackle the rent seekers.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by chefdave)
Possibly, but you're right for the wrong reasons. As the economy develops the wealth creators see their incomes squeezed because a state backed cartel of land monopolies soak up any surpluses. Think about the difference in price between a flat in the North East or one overlooking the Thames in a prime London location, this is the effect I'm talking about in action. While 'socialist' economic policies do indeed release some of that vlaue back into the community via taxation it does so very inefficiently because it targets general productivity rather than land values.

If Thatcher had understood the importance of the link between wealth creation and land values her vision may have translated into a success. Unfortunately she only gave us half a good economy, she didn't have the stomach to tackle the land monopolists.

You should start a thread about Georgism/Geo-libertarianism and maybe you could convert some, essentially, anarcho-capitalists or extreme minarchists, and maybe you will even pull a few socialists over who favour a market system > collectives, since they are half way there anyway.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Apart from her beliefs that it is unfeasible, she also pointed out that Socilaists often prized equality over prosperity. She stated that she would rather see the gap between rich and poor be large, provided that both were reasonably well off.

That's from the same PMQ speech where she said that socialists would be happy for everyone to be poorer, aslong as the rich were poorer aswell, then the opposition were all shaking their heads, and she said something like "it may not be you're intention, but that's what will happen".

She basically stole it from Hayek.

[chefdave]

(Original post by prog2djent)
You should start a thread about Georgism/Geo-libertarianism and maybe you could convert some, essentially, anarcho-capitalists or extreme minarchists, and maybe you will even pull a few socialists over who favour a market system > collectives, since they are half way there anyway.

I wish I could, but there's far too many vested interests and not enough time. If I was a rich man I'd certainly be ploughing a lot of money into the geo-libertarian movement.

I don't see why Labourites have a problem with the idea anyway considering an entire wing of their party is devoted to it. What Geo-libertarianism offers the North and poorer parts of the UK is the chance to acquire tax haven status, who in their right mind would be against such an idea?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
I agree completely with everything you've said, except maybe the bold. I've moved away from the the socialism you've described to a more market orientated system. Still revolutionary, still common ownership of the means of production, still decentralization of power and the state. The difference is that worker ran enterprises compete for a profit on the market as a means of allocating and producing goods and services. I'd argue that's still socialist, if not communist.

I think I'd also get shouted down on revleft for suggesting such things these days.

I was banned in three days for trying to argue a case for mutualism. Basically, that site perfectly embodies the far-left in a stereotypical way, if you present and idea, or have a different opinion to them, you get a bunch of labels thrown at you to stiffle the debate, then you are blocked, silencing people they don't agree with seems to be an inherant part of far-left dogma today, which, ironically, they said I, and mutualism is just as bad as fascim, and their responce was pretty much fascist. It goes for groups like the UAF aswell, opposing fascism yet undertaking fascist techinique's and wanting to establish an authoritarian-left government in certain respects.

Anyway, I also wish more socialists would look into market orientated systems moreso, they can keep their views on private property and land, but get rid of the junk about abolishing profit, capital and having, collectives, central planning (at the start), and the labour theory of value.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by chefdave)
I wish I could, but there's far too many vested interests and not enough time. If I was a rich man I'd certainly be ploughing a lot of money into the geo-libertarian movement.

I don't see why Labourites have a problem with the idea anyway considering an entire wing of their party is devoted to it. What Geo-libertarianism offers the North and poorer parts of the UK is the chance to acquire tax haven status, who in their right mind would be against such an idea?

Who is that guy? Not the twurp milliband, the other guy haha.

Problem is, even with a LVT policy, the labour party, even if they did adopt it, would still have their other tax-public sector, welfare-warfare, and cronyist views.

[feelingsupersonic]

Thatcher didn't like socialism because she knew that she was one of the lucky ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. She knew that socialism would require her and people like her to give up the silver spoon in exchange for the good of others.

In other words she was selfish.

[chefdave]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Who is that guy? Not the twurp milliband, the other guy haha.

Problem is, even with a LVT policy, the labour party, even if they did adopt it, would still have their other tax-public sector, welfare-warfare, and cronyist views.

Of course, but it would mitigate their more destuctive aspects by forcing the government into the market mechanism. What I mean is if they wanted to raise additional revenue they would only be able to do so by providing services that helped increase the value of the surrounding land/housing stock, this gives them a good incentive and gets politicians thinking more like investors or businessmen looking for a return. Any socialists reading would have vomitted at that last sentence, but it's very important imo to give politicians an effective fedback mechanism that lets them know when they're spending money wisely. The alternative is to have them flailing around in the dark wasting hard earned cash, i.e the current setup.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
blah

I hope you never go into politics. The country would be a shambles.

[chefdave]

(Original post by feelingsupersonic)
Thatcher didn't like socialism because she knew that she was one of the lucky ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. She knew that socialism would require her and people like her to give up the silver spoon in exchange for the good of others.

In other words she was selfish.

She was a working class girl and famously the daughter of a greengrocer, hardly what I would call "born with a silver spoon in her mouth".

[prog2djent]

(Original post by feelingsupersonic)
Thatcher didn't like socialism because she knew that she was one of the lucky ones who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. She knew that socialism would require her and people like her to give up the silver spoon in exchange for the good of others.

In other words she was selfish.

You're an absolute moron. She hated socialism because she hated the economy of the 70's, and she hated what she saw as socialism (which wasn't really) accross eastern europe and Russia-Far east asia, oh and the fact socialism as a state-centered economic theory had been destroyed by everyone except socialists, and its around the time people were picking it apart from a philosophical standpoint, I.e, Hayek, who inspired her, despite the fact non-of her practaced policies were what Hayek would want.

Do you even know what her background was?

I am not that pro-thatcher, and I am neither that anti-thatcher.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by chefdave)
She was a working class girl and famously the daughter of a greengrocer, hardly what I would call "born with a silver spoon in her mouth".

Also an underpaid chemist.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Are you serious?

I meant everyone, not anyone. Sorry.
Of course, for those who can easily afford it, and can get it, then insurance is fine.
But many people:
1 - Can not afford it
2 - Or cannot get it because of pre-existing conditions.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Your problem is you do not understand the fundamental purposes of capitalism

To make money.
If something does not make money, then it is not catered for.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
It's called finding a 'gap' in the market that would exist if no one provides slightly cheaper cover already.

But that gap would only be filled if it would be profitable to fill it.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Also any firm refusing to provide healthcare to people on standard insurance due to a health problem not of their own fault, e.g. genetics or cancer, would be shooting themselves in the leg in terms of public image and marketing - They do not benefit in the long run from refusing insurance or increasing payments to people with such problems.

They would be ensuring they do not lose money.
So yes, of course they would benefit.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Throughout your arguments you have assumed that in a free market economy everything is like it is in the UK now - this is just completely wrong.

No I have not.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
No justification whatsoever to put down capitalism due to the state that left wing policies got this country into. (you are one of those who think more of what got us here will fix it; wake up)

You mean the lack of regulation of the banks?

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Once again, you're going on what the situation is now. Free market economies are naturally meritocratic - those who are best at what they do succeed. Not everyone is born into a family with exactly the same wealth, but if they as an individual are worth more to the market (the whole of the rest of society) then they succeed more than someone who is not useful.

But that really is not the case.
If EVERYTHING is private, no taxes, nothing provided by the state, the more you pay the better you get. All which is basically what capitalism is. Then if you are born into a wealthy family, they will buy better healthcare, better education etc etc. So you are much more likely to be successful yourself. That is obvious.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Not true - more than half of children born into poverty in the UK escape poverty during their lifetime. More than half escape = Overall more likely to not stay in poverty = you're wrong. The deficit of people in poverty is made by people who were not born into poverty and failed - how it should be don't you agree?
Also - once again you assume a meritocratic free market economy means that people will find it as hard to escape poverty as they do now - it would actually be easier with higher national income. Stop arguing for socialist principles because you propose they will cure the problems they have actually created - no logic present in such a thought process.

Of course, I did not say that you cannot break out of it.
But someone who is born into poverty is obviously much more likely to die in poverty than someone who was born into a rich family.
The number of people who are born into a rich family but end up poor is tiny.
And once again you suggest that I want totally socialist policies. That is NOT what I am saying.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Once again....

Once again I am correct.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
= CRONY Capitalism - not FREE MARKET Capitalism.
I.e. Once again....

But what I said has nothing to do with crony capitalism.
It is simply common sense. And indeed is a problem with ALL society. Not just capitalism, but socialism aswell.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Once again...
Because in a free market economy, those at the bottom are those who deserve to be there.

But that really is not the case.
You have:
1 - People who are born into poverty.
2 - Those who are disabled and so cannot work.
3 - Those who are ill and so cannot work.
4 - Those who have illnesses or injuries so they cannot work at that time.
5 - Those who end up in difficult situations outside of their control (a single parent whose partner had left them).
6 - Those who have to look after relatives or whatever.
All of those would be left at the bottom in a totally capitalist society, yet I fail to see why they at all deserve it.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Such as you indicating 'the bottom of society deserve healthcare' YES, they do in our current system which is unfair and does not allow as much movement between income brackets, NO in a free market where those at the bottom are their due to the consequence of their actions.

As above. Those at the bottom would include loads of people who do not deserve to be there.
And even if someone at the bottom of society does deserve to be there they still deserve healthcare. Unless you are happy with them dying on your doorstep.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
I hope you never go into politics. The country would be a shambles.

And if you went into politics millions more people would suffer and not be able to afford education, healthcare etc etc.