Who prefers Socialism over Capitalism?

[smeagol]

Just checking who's who in the forum.

I'll go with capitalism with well set up controls from the government, in order to stop people whop take advantage of the system.

[xrayzebra]

smeagol if you have to ask me, you haven't been reading my
"stuff".....LOL

[smeagol]

you are a foreign fascist so your opinion means nothing


A guy who censors me because I'm a foreigner.

Who's the fascist again?

So we know you believe 9/11 was an inside job, now tell us (given that you are American and your opinion does count), socialism or capitalism?

[smeagol]

smeagol if you have to ask me, you haven't been reading my
"stuff".....LOL

I know where you stand. In favor of capitalism and against anything that smells dimm-o-crap.

I'm more interested in the forum liberals.

[Don Quixote]

I'll take capitalism and freedom, thank you, in politics. And socialism in things that are really important, like baseball.

[fyatuk]

That's a tough question to answer, since there are many flavors of Socialism and Capitalism, each with different strength's or weaknesses.

Personally, I'd prefer a mixture of the two. The government needs to take over certain industries, and stay the hell out of the rest.

[smeagol]

The government needs to take over certain industries

Which ones?

[peewee's lovechild]

I'm for a pro-socialist government.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Just checking who's who in the forum.

I'll go with capitalism with well set up controls from the government, in order to stop people whop take advantage of the system.


The problem is, that form of capitalism has never and will never exist, because capitalism thrives on greed.

[mrsmaalox]

That's a tough question to answer, since there are many flavors of Socialism and Capitalism, each with different strength's or weaknesses.

Personally, I'd prefer a mixture of the two. The government needs to take over certain industries, and stay the hell out of the rest.

Agree

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Well technically socialism and the free market aren't mutually exclusive, take a look at European countries for examples.

So to answer your question, I'm a hard core socialist in the Scandinavian mold

[xrayzebra]

That's a tough question to answer, since there are many flavors of Socialism and Capitalism, each with different strength's or weaknesses.

Personally, I'd prefer a mixture of the two. The government needs to take over certain industries, and stay the hell out of the rest.


You are of course kidding, right? I know of nothing government runs that is efficient except the Armed forces
and sometimes I am not so sure of them. Six hundred
dollar toilet seats. Of course they have to operate
under rules laid down by Congress, which explains a
lot. Like Ethanol. The fuel of ignorance.

[velik_m]

I prefer utopian socialism.

[spurster]

Just checking who's who in the forum.

I'll go with capitalism with well set up controls from the government, in order to stop people who take advantage of the system.
This is a bad question. Anyone who answers should give examples of countries (perhaps during particular time periods) which exemplify your choice. It's all well and good to think of how good utopia would be (whether it's the capitalist or socialist version), but unfortunately we don't live in utopia.

For myself, I think the US mixed system is pretty good. It would be even better if we would somehow eliminate or reduce the corrupting effect of money on politics. There are many greedy people who get politicians to game the system in their favor.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

This is a bad question. Anyone who answers should give examples of countries (perhaps during particular time periods) which exemplify your choice. It's all well and good to think of how good utopia would be (whether it's the capitalist or socialist version), but unfortunately we don't live in utopia.

For myself, I think the US mixed system is pretty good. It would be even better if we would somehow eliminate or reduce the corrupting effect of money on politics. There are many greedy people who get politicians to game the system in their favor.

???

The US is a mix between capitalism and socialism???

Not answering your comment in particular, but plenty of people here confuse regulated capitalism (like the EU) with Socialism.

[lefty]

That's a tough question to answer, since there are many flavors of Socialism and Capitalism, each with different strength's or weaknesses.

Personally, I'd prefer a mixture of the two. The government needs to take over certain industries, and stay the hell out of the rest.

True.

But the facts speak for themselves.

For example, my native Algeria opted for Socialism after 1962 (the year we kicked France out), and it wasn't a good idea.(especially when considering our great natural resources) . :bang
We've decided to go with a capitalist system, but this takes time, just because of the bad previous choice.

Basically, the most powerful nations are Capitalist, and the ones with problems have opted for Socialism.

I would opt for Capitalism

[smeagol]

how did i censor you? fascist

Claiming my opinion does not count siumply because I'm not American is a form of censorship.


you are the fascist

As much as you are a believer 9/11 was an inside job

[smeagol]

???

The US is a mix between capitalism and socialism???

That made me LOL too . . .

[whottt]

Socialism sucks because anyone that's good at running businesses is going to want to do that for themselves. And in socialism, the government is the business. It is the ultimate form of capitalism, that creates the ultimate class separation between, the government, and the people.

In socialism, you either run those business people off, or else you make them part of the government, and then you have turned your government into one of those greedy capitalist entities with one of those greeedy Execs in charge. Because the same people that run those businesses? Will also be in the government. With no political hoops to be jumped.


In short...don't trust governments, don't give them control over your industries. The less they are in charge of, the better.

Governments are inherently incompetent and untrustworthy, I don't care what system you use, the more things they are in control of, the most things they will screw up either intentionally or otherwise. And the bigger the population, the more dysfunctional they become.


It's ironic that so many people that are completely untrusting of our government favor socialism..they actually favor making them more powerful, and even more in control of our lives.

[smeagol]

If there is one government I don't trust is Argentina's.

What a bunch of fucking corrupt pieces of shit!

[spurster]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Unemployment Insurance, United States Housing Authority (public housing), public education, public health clinics, public hospitals, public libraries, public roads, Rural Utilities Service. I can find some more socialism in the US for you if you like. I guess Smeagol and Whott want to get rid of all of these.

[smeagol]

Most of those programs are not the trademark of socialism. They exist in every developed economy. But this one made me laugh:

Public libraries? :lmao

In any case, why don'y you try:

Government owning the media, the utilities, transportation, the telephone companies, energy companies; governemnt changing tax regimes to force private individuals to invest on this or that industry; pension systems completely state-owned, etc, etc, etc

[lefty]

True.

But the facts speak for themselves.

For example, my native Algeria opted for Socialism after 1962 (the year we kicked France out), and it wasn't a good idea.(especially when considering our great natural resources) . :bang
We've decided to go with a capitalist system, but this takes time, just because of the bad previous choice.

Basically, the most powerful nations are Capitalist, and the ones with problems have opted for Socialism.

I would opt for Capitalism

I seem to agree with myself :D

[spurster]

I guess for smeagol, "pure capitalism" is the government pays for a bunch of things that smeagol thinks the government should pay for.

[smeagol]

I guess Smeagol and Whott want to get rid of all of these.

You guessed wrong.

[whottt]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Unemployment Insurance, United States Housing Authority (public housing), public education, public health clinics, public hospitals, public libraries, public roads, Rural Utilities Service. I can find some more socialism in the US for you if you like. I guess Smeagol and Whott want to get rid of all of these.

I've got no problems with social programs, provided they make sense, in particular education...in fact I think all education should be free.


Social programs aren't socialism...

Socialism, everthing has to be socialism...that's not true for capitalism.

[spurster]

Social programs aren't socialism...

Socialism, everthing has to be socialism...that's not true for capitalism.

Why did I have to pick a thread with two idiots?

[braeden0613]

I'll take capitalism and freedom, thank you, in politics. And socialism in things that are really important, like baseball.
Ill second that.

[whottt]

Why did I have to pick a thread with two idiots?


For the same reason you pick a political party with 49 million of them..that incidentally...can't win a Presidential election? -[insert conspiracy theory here]

[td4mvp21]

"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."-George Orwell

[sabar]

I've got no problems with social programs, provided they make sense, in particular education...in fact I think all education should be free.


Social programs aren't socialism...

Socialism, everthing has to be socialism...that's not true for capitalism.Social programs are socialism. In socialism, the means of production has to be owned by the state and wealth is redistributed. Socialism is an economic and political ideaology. In capitalism it is the exact opposite, the means of production are not owned by the state. When you take my tax dollars to pay for someone's check, it is socialism. However, as many welll know, the U.S. is hardly a socialist state.

-end quote part, this is general

Warning: Boring educational content ahead, feel free to skip to bottom

People are unfortunately mixing up terminology, no thanks to all the propaganda during the cold war.

Communism: Ecnomic and political ideaology that states that a society should be without classes or government. The means of production is commonly owned.

Socialism: Economic and political ideaology that states that the means of production should be owned by the state (not private), that pricing should be done by the state (not the market), and that wealth should be redistributed (not hoarded).

Capitalism: Economic ideaology that states that the means of production are privately owned (not the state), prices are determined through the market (not the state) and that wealth flows to those who earn it.

Command-and-control: Economic structure in which government owns the means of production.

Free-market: Economic structure in which government stays out of the market. The market is guided by the invisible hand.

Mixed economy: An economy that contains privately owned and state owned enterprises. Government regulates the free market but does not primarily own the means of production.


First, it should be immediately obvious that capitalism and socialism are both useless. Capitalism left unchecked will lead to the formation of corporations, then mergers, then a monopoly. With no competition, prices can be raised above equilibrium.

In socialism there is no incentive to work hard. This leads to extrememly inefficient management of resources and is why the U.S.S.R. isn't the world's leading superpower (or in existence). The people were poor and starving as the United States' mixed economy gave them an extreme wealth advantage.

A guns-and-butter graph makes this very clear. Every state has a production possibilites frontier, a certain allocation of two goods that is possible. For example, the U.S. can make 10 tanks and 90 food or can make 90 tanks and 10 food. Graphically, this is displayed as an arc, where a nation can produce anywhere inside that arc.

As proof that socialism is inefficient, take this production possibilites frontier comparison of the United States and the U.S.S.R.'s economic systems. On this chart guns and butter are graphed. Guns is military spending and butter is civilian spending. Towards the end of the cold war, the U.S. was able to reallocate it's resources into a lot of guns while still making enough butter to feed the people. When the U.S.S.R. tried to follow by increasing arms spending, it found that it was at the edge of it's production possiblilites frontier. What happened? People starved, the U.S.S.R. couldn't keep up, and the soviet union crumpled under an inefficient system.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4371/ppfbb6.gif


However, pro-capitalist people shouldn't fool themselves with all the cold war propaganda. The soviets may have called us capitalist dogs, which we wore with pride, but be well aware that the United States is far from a free market. The government regulates thousands of aspects of the market. Our central bank influences prices, a trait common to socialist governments. We break up monopolies. Education is provided by government. We buy our water from the city but it has a pricing strucutre like a free market. We have competition. We can even compete with the government such as with private detectives, personal body guards, and volunteer firefighter services.

I like this system the best. The mixed economy. It is the staple of nearly every nation and has been modeled the best by the United States under the guide of geniuses like Adam Smith and John Locke. There is a reason why the United States is so high in innovation, wealth, economic power, military power and so forth. While the left may argue that this is because of our past imperialism, take well note that thanks to socialist movements abroad that many of our imperialist gains have been long taken-over by the respective nations.

Pure capitalism loses, pure socialism loses. Mixed wins. There is a reason even a supposed socialist country like china and cuba let their people trade in a market. That's not socialism, that's capitalism and Marx would be rolling in his grave at the idea of that being called socialism.

------------

What the question really should be is: How socialist/free do you want to be?

-Utilities: private or government?
-Regulation: for or against?
-Trust-busting: good or bad?
-State medical care: savior or inefficient tax dump?
-Subsidies: economic stimulus or screwing up the invisible hand?
-Welfare: help for the needy or handouts for the lazy?
-Pricing: privately determined or government calculated?
-Education: public? private? both? college?
-Prisons: federal too expensive and private should interfere? Or is private untrustable?
-Central bank: keeps us from another great depression or hold back the economy?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I am a capitolist. Yes, I also believe in reasonable controls in place.



Well technically socialism and the free market aren't mutually exclusive, take a look at European countries for examples.

I only take socialism to the point of helping those who cannot help themselves. I say help the disabled, elderly, and children who have parents who cannot provide for them. Short term help for others is no problem either.

What I completely disagree with is government taking away from the free market. This is what socialist countries do. They increase their power and influence of the population by controlling things like health care, forcing the citizens to rely on government.

I draw the line when this occurs. Any government program that forces "we the people" to not have free choices is flat out evil.

Our constitution laid out a few things that are necessary. The Preamble spells out why. I can make valid arguments as to why liberal social programs are unconstitutional. Primarily because the remove the individual rights of choice.



Personally, I'd prefer a mixture of the two. The government needs to take over certain industries, and stay the hell out of the rest.

No way. There are no industries that government can do better than the free market.


The problem is, that form of capitalism has never and will never exist, because capitalism thrives on greed.
No, capitalism is a structure primarily driven by people being allowed to keep the rewards of their work. Socialism requires larger taxes, removing the incentive for working hard and strive to be rich, because the rich get hit the hardest. You cannot regulate greedy behavior without turning into a police state. Socialism has the same greedy people in government, and it allows them even more influence over a capitalism system because under capitalism, people can choose a different supplier, business, etc. When the government dictates blanket rules, choices are removed.

[smeagol]

Why did I have to pick a thread with two idiots?
I did not know Spurster had such a short fuse . . .

Anyways . . . public libraries :lol

[Purple & Gold]

A combination of both is best

[BonnerDynasty]

Only the strong survive baby!

[Don Quixote]

I'll pretend to be an ethical egoist for a sec here ...

If I haven't done much with my life, still work a minimum wage job even though I'm in my 30's, have fathered 3-4 kids with different wimmin, live in the projects, eschewed education and opportunities for advancement in favor of the 'thug life' or illegal activity, and believe that I am a victim and never had a chance to amount to anything ... then, yes, I would probably be a socialist. Give me that check!

However, if I'm successful and have made good decisions, earned what I have (my $$, house, car, etc.), then I would probably be a capitalist, unless I am suffering from 'white guilt' or something.

Then again ... I am not an ethical egoist. Some things are just wrong, no matter who is involved, and the gummint taking hard-earned $$ from the hands of people who work, and forking it over to people who won't, is wrong.

[peewee's lovechild]

I'll pretend to be an ethical egoist for a sec here ...

If I haven't done much with my life, still work a minimum wage job even though I'm in my 30's, have fathered 3-4 kids with different wimmin, live in the projects, eschewed education and opportunities for advancement in favor of the 'thug life' or illegal activity, and believe that I am a victim and never had a chance to amount to anything ... then, yes, I would probably be a socialist. Give me that check!

However, if I'm successful and have made good decisions, earned what I have (my $$, house, car, etc.), then I would probably be a capitalist, unless I am suffering from 'white guilt' or something.

Then again ... I am not an ethical egoist. Some things are just wrong, no matter who is involved, and the gummint taking hard-earned $$ from the hands of people who work, and forking it over to people who won't, is wrong.

I'm neither of those things you mentioned and I still prefer a socialist inclined government.

[Don Quixote]

I'm neither of those things you mentioned and I still prefer a socialist inclined government.

Okay, then ... I take it you'll be making your check out in the morning to the U.S. Treasury? I am sure they will be more than delighted to have more of your $$.

[peewee's lovechild]

Okay, then ... I take it you'll be making your check out in the morning to the U.S. Treasury? I am sure they will be more than delighted to have more of your $$.

I'll be doing the same that you do as well, paying taxes.

You're dillusional if you think you can live in a country that doesn't tax you.

Do you have any idea what a country like that would look like?

[Purple & Gold]

To Repubs it always comes down to taxes no matter what the situation is or who it is that gets screwed. Without fail everytime.

[Nbadan]

Okay, then ... I take it you'll be making your check out in the morning to the U.S. Treasury? I am sure they will be more than delighted to have more of your $$.

Yes, it's much better to borrow and spend and then owe the original principal plus interests, devalue your currency in the process and concurrently raise the price of your main import commodity - oil, and also have to answer calls on US foreign policy from the prince of Saudi Arabia and the Chinese Premier....

:rolleyes

[fyatuk]

Which ones?

power utilities, communication lines, water, trash, mass transit, maybe a couple of others.

Those kinds of companies should be owned by the people they serve with the appropriate level of government acting as proxy shareholders.

[fyatuk]

You are of course kidding, right? I know of nothing government runs that is efficient except the Armed forces
and sometimes I am not so sure of them. Six hundred
dollar toilet seats. Of course they have to operate
under rules laid down by Congress, which explains a
lot. Like Ethanol. The fuel of ignorance.

A lot of that has more to do with our quality of government, not the type.

[fyatuk]

No way. There are no industries that government can do better than the free market.


Tell that to CPS. One of the greenest, most efficient, and cheapest power utilities in the nation. Municipally owned and contributing about 20% of San Antonio's annual budget.

How are those utilites owned by venuture capitalists doing?


No, capitalism is a structure primarily driven by people being allowed to keep the rewards of their work. Socialism requires larger taxes, removing the incentive for working hard and strive to be rich, because the rich get hit the hardest. You cannot regulate greedy behavior without turning into a police state. Socialism has the same greedy people in government, and it allows them even more influence over a capitalism system because under capitalism, people can choose a different supplier, business, etc. When the government dictates blanket rules, choices are removed.

That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of other factors that would factor into that (such as how large of a military you want, how large of a government, etc). In the right mixed economy, a few socialist ventures could significantly lower taxes by providing the government with a non-tax based revenue stream (ala CPS above) while providing a service for nothing more, and potentially less than the private sector could. Either that or you operate those as government services, raises taxes to pay for them, but people don't have to pay other people for those services.

As long as it stays with just specific industries that directly service a community, a lot of the dangers you mention are non-existant.

[smeagol]

power utilities, communication lines, water, trash, mass transit, maybe a couple of others.

Those kinds of companies should be owned by the people they serve with the appropriate level of government acting as proxy shareholders.

I cannot disagree with you more. Luckily, most of the developed world also disagrees with you.

Unofrtunately, many countries in the developing world agree with you. I wonder why?

[xrayzebra]

power utilities, communication lines, water, trash, mass transit, maybe a couple of others.

Those kinds of companies should be owned by the people they serve with the appropriate level of government acting as proxy shareholders.

You don't really believe this statement do you. Owned by
the people. What crap. Government controlled entities are
controlled by the politicians and operate at their every
wish. You cite CPS in one of your post. Are you aware
that they are going to the city council for a rate hike?
Do you think city council will turn them down, no way,
puts more money in the old kitty for them to spend for
votes. You think the people of San Antonio could stop
this rate hike, no way.

Look at what you city council and SAWS has done with
the water rates. The took a plentiful water supply and
made it scarce and pricey and with all kinds of
controls.

[fyatuk]

You don't really believe this statement do you. Owned by
the people. What crap. Government controlled entities are
controlled by the politicians and operate at their every
wish. You cite CPS in one of your post. Are you aware
that they are going to the city council for a rate hike?
Do you think city council will turn them down, no way,
puts more money in the old kitty for them to spend for
votes. You think the people of San Antonio could stop
this rate hike, no way.

I am quite aware. Some of the reasons for the rate hike are the desire to expand the ST plant in cooperation with NRG, and the need to continue providing San Antonio with the same revenue in the face of rising fuel costs. You probably could stop it if you could get enough people to petition the city council. About as easy as stopping anything else the council is planning on doing.

And the council should not turn them down, IMO. Even WITH the planned hike, CPS will still be one of the cheapest, and the money they'll raise will help fund important expansion and improvements.


Look at what you city council and SAWS has done with
the water rates. The took a plentiful water supply and
made it scarce and pricey and with all kinds of
controls.

I've never felt the water costs were high (the largest water bill I ever had was $35, and that was because I had a massive leak). I do agree the regional aquifer authority has forced water to feel more scarce than it should be due to its warnings, etc, that kick in a lot earlier than is needed, though. I have no idea how well they work with commercial customers, although I know they require some industrial type people to use reclaimed wastewater where it doesn't involve human consumption.

I'd have to look harder into rate comparisons before coming to a sound conclusion on them, but I'd bet a lot of SAWS problems are related to the Authority, which sets a lot of the pumping regulations and drought restrictions.

[fyatuk]

I cannot disagree with you more. Luckily, most of the developed world also disagrees with you.

Unofrtunately, many countries in the developing world agree with you. I wonder why?

Logic. Businesses whose sole purpose is to serve the public should be controlled by the public, not be allowed to exploit it.

It's all a matter of personal tastes, though. Each system can work given the right circumstances and the right people running it. Socialism relys a bit more on the right people being in government, while capitalism relys on nobody forming a de facto monopoly.

[smeagol]

Logic. Businesses whose sole purpose is to serve the public should be controlled by the public, not be allowed to exploit it.


I live in a country where the state owned everything, from utilities to TV stations.

The public never owned shit and recieved the crapiests services you can imagine (no power in winter, no water in summer, etc, etc)


It's all a matter of personal tastes, though. Each system can work given the right circumstances and the right people running it. Socialism relys a bit more on the right people being in government, while capitalism relys on nobody forming a de facto monopoly.

What a load of crap!

Maybe Spurster can come up with a better take than this one if he stays away from using public libraries as an example of socialism.

[Yonivore]

Logic. Businesses whose sole purpose is to serve the public should be controlled by the public, not be allowed to exploit it.
A business's sole purpose should be to make money by providing a product or service the public needs or desires. Period.

Making money for owners and investors is the sole reason to be in business.


It's all a matter of personal tastes, though. Each system can work given the right circumstances and the right people running it. Socialism relys a bit more on the right people being in government, while capitalism relys on nobody forming a de facto monopoly.
You can't get the right people in government and it is government regulation that leads to monopolies.

[fyatuk]

I live in a country where the state owned everything, from utilities to TV stations.

The public never owned shit and recieved the crapiests services you can imagine (no power in winter, no water in summer, etc, etc)


That's a big difference than what I'm suggesting. I'm talking a few select industries necessary for society to function, and that's it. There are plenty of successful examples of community owned utilities, etc, providing wonderful cost effective services in the US. I would disapprove of the fat cats in DC having a say in CPS or SAWS that serve the local community, though.


What a load of crap!

Maybe Spurster can come up with a better take than this one if he stays away from using public libraries as an example of socialism.

Hardly crap. Like I said, personaly opinion. People who have been burned by socialism want capitalism, people who have been burned by capitalism want socialism. Basically when things are crappy, they want change.

A lot always depends on who's in charge.


A business's sole purpose should be to make money by providing a product or service the public needs or desires. Period.

Making money for owners and investors is the sole reason to be in business.


That's a difference of opinion, PERIOD. I believe that certain industries primary responsibility is to provide for society, not make money. Or at least should be. Power and water companies who's customers depend on them for survival, for example, should be looking out for their customers, not trying to turn the biggest profit possible.


You can't get the right people in government and it is government regulation that leads to monopolies.

1. That's a defeatist attitude, which I refuse to adopt :p:
2. My suggestion is GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES on certain industries with no regulations on anything else, period. Which means the second half of that sentence is completely pointless to the debate.

[spurster]

Maybe Spurster can come up with a better take than this one if he stays away from using public libraries as an example of socialism.

For smeagol, socialism smeagol hates = socialism, while socialism smeagol likes = not socialism, so smeagol can continue his self-deception that all socialism is evil.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/if-public-libraries-didnt-exist-could-you-start-one-today/

If Public Libraries Didn't Exist, Could You Start One Today?

http://www.kaapeli.fi/~fla/flj/topics/socialsm.htm

Public Libraries: relics of socialism?

[smeagol]

Dude, give it up!

Public libraries are not an example of socialism. No matter how many links you bring to the table.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell that to CPS. One of the greenest, most efficient, and cheapest power utilities in the nation. Municipally owned and contributing about 20% of San Antonio's annual budget.

How are those utilites owned by venuture capitalists doing?

Utilities are not free market industries. They are laced with nearly endless regulations because of the monopoly, monopsony, or oligopoly market they have.



That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of other factors that would factor into that (such as how large of a military you want, how large of a government, etc).
The military is a necessary evil, and one of the few concepts covered in our constitution for the government to do.



In the right mixed economy, a few socialist ventures could significantly lower taxes by providing the government with a non-tax based revenue stream (ala CPS above) while providing a service for nothing more, and potentially less than the private sector could. Either that or you operate those as government services, raises taxes to pay for them, but people don't have to pay other people for those services.

It works fine until you get the right mix of corrupted individuals who change it. What normally happens over time is the people in power start exchanging favors.

CPS Energy isn't as green or cheap as you imply. They are the cheapest among the top 10 cities:

1 San Antonio
2 Phoenix
3 Chicago
4 Los Angeles
5 Dallas
6 Houston
7 Philadelphia
8 San Diego
9 San Jose
10 New York

but only the 37th in size by metropolitan area and shouldn't be compared in the top ten. Prices tend to rise for utilities as the populations they serve increase:
1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Dallas
6 Houston
13 Phoenix
17 San Diego
30 San Jose
37 San Antonio
123 Philadelphia

Where I live is 23rd in metropolitan size with a regulated utility operating in a monopsony system, and my rates are cheaper than CPS' 2006 annual report (http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/current_financial_data/annualreport_2006.pdf
) claims. Eight of the nine cities they are compared against are larger in metropolitan size.



As long as it stays with just specific industries that directly service a community, a lot of the dangers you mention are non-existant.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I've seen too many bad examples.

Now as for their green rating. Where I live, they cannot count hydroelectric power for a green rating. CPS is a 40% owner of a large nuclear power plant. The state of Washington would be the greenest for power generation if they did, with Oregon I think in 3rd place.

[inconvertible]

I prefer Liberty.....facists and socialist aren't that different.

[fyatuk]

Utilities are not free market industries. They are laced with nearly endless regulations because of the monopoly, monopsony, or oligopoly market they have.


Quite true. Another reason to completely absorb it.


The military is a necessary evil, and one of the few concepts covered in our constitution for the government to do.

Did I say it wasn't? I said it's size was one of the factors.


It works fine until you get the right mix of corrupted individuals who change it. What normally happens over time is the people in power start exchanging favors.

That's the same for any system of government. We've seen it in our mostly capitalist society. There wouldn't be much difference in that in a more socialist form. Either way, the government needs stricted limits on authority, IMO.


Where I live is 23rd in metropolitan size with a regulated utility operating in a monopsony system, and my rates are cheaper than CPS' 2006 annual report (http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/current_financial_data/annualreport_2006.pdf) claims. Eight of the nine cities they are compared against are larger in metropolitan size.

23 is portland, which would be PGE, correct?

According to their website, PGE collected a little over $1.5 billion in revenue on about 19,431,102 MWh for a collection of $78.22 per MWh.

According to CPS's financial report, they collected a little over $1.5 in revenue (on electric service only) on about 22,100,711 billed MWh for a collection of $68.58 per MWh.

Residential rates: PGE: 8.29 cents per KWh, CPS (as of my most recent bill): 6.52 cents KWh (including fuel and regulatory charges).

Granted, that's winter rates for CPS and I'm assuming yearly average (if they adjust for seasonal demand) for PGE. Since I don't print out my bills, I can't really check the summer rates of any recent years.

I'm not sure what numbers you were looking at.

In addition to that, CPS provided over $235 million last year to San Antonio's budget and employs 3,800 or so people (significantly more than PGE).


Sorry, I don't buy it. I've seen too many bad examples.

There's bad examples of everything.


Now as for their green rating. Where I live, they cannot count hydroelectric power for a green rating. CPS is a 40% owner of a large nuclear power plant. The state of Washington would be the greenest for power generation if they did, with Oregon I think in 3rd place.

One of the largest retail nuclear plants in the nation which has filed the first application for a new reactor in decades. They also are a huge investor in wind power, have plans to build one of the 3 cleanest coal plants in the nations and upgrade the coal plants they have, and they are now processing landfill gasses as well. A lot of that has to do with pressure from enviro-nut groups in the area.

There's a lot of improvement CPS could make in that area, and they are indeed trying, but they are already recognized as being accomplished in that area.

[Wild Cobra]

Quite true. Another reason to completely absorb it.

I disagree. It may work well for CPS and I would say that's the exception. Not the rule. I'll bet it's a conservative area. Get liberals controlling it and see what happens.

When you have a corporate utility with government regulations, you have adversaries at work. When you have government on both sides, the decisions become biased and unchallenged.



That's the same for any system of government. We've seen it in our mostly capitalist society. There wouldn't be much difference in that in a more socialist form. Either way, the government needs stricted limits on authority, IMO.

Remember, Texas is primarily a red state. I'm in a blue state. Watch those utilities take a dramatic increase should the liberals control it.



23 is portland, which would be PGE, correct?

I'm under PGE, but there is another. I think PP&L.



According to their website, PGE collected a little over $1.5 billion in revenue on about 19,431,102 MWh for a collection of $78.22 per MWh.

According to CPS's financial report, they collected a little over $1.5 in revenue (on electric service only) on about 22,100,711 billed MWh for a collection of $68.58 per MWh.

Residential rates: PGE: 8.29 cents per KWh, CPS (as of my most recent bill): 6.52 cents KWh (including fuel and regulatory charges).

That looks about right for my rates, but I haven't broke down the bill for a while.. The power is actually rather cheap. PGE used to be a satellite of ENRON, and I believe part of the extra money we pay is due to that fiasco. There is some pretty big debt being paid off over that still. Still, part of the debt is the building of new power generation, like the Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. PGE currently has more than twice the liabilities as it has net assets. The rest are taxes and fees. Liberals tax the hell out of things.



Granted, that's winter rates for CPS and I'm assuming yearly average (if they adjust for seasonal demand) for PGE. Since I don't print out my bills, I can't really check the summer rates of any recent years.

I'm not sure what numbers you were looking at.

I was using the annual rate from the PDF I liked. Assuming your data is correct, note I didn't compare it to MWHours or customer rates. My usage would simply be lower than the average San Antonio rate. Different climate, different average.



In addition to that, CPS provided over $235 million last year to San Antonio's budget and employs 3,800 or so people (significantly more than PGE).

Similar to taxes and fees from a utility. So what. As for the people... I just say the number... about 2300(?) people. Still, the area is shared with Pacific Power. We are a larger metropolitan area, and by nature should be more costly.



One of the largest retail nuclear plants in the nation which has filed the first application for a new reactor in decades. They also are a huge investor in wind power, have plans to build one of the 3 cleanest coal plants in the nations and upgrade the coal plants they have, and they are now processing landfill gasses as well. A lot of that has to do with pressure from enviro-nut groups in the area.

These things are fine. We have green projects going on too. For that matter, between the dams and wind generation, PGE has 628 MW of it's 2449 MW capacity as green power. That's 25.6%! When the Wind Farm is completed (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=51000), it's capacity will grow from 125 MW to as much as 450 MW.



There's a lot of improvement CPS could make in that area, and they are indeed trying, but they are already recognized as being accomplished in that area.

I think on the green rating, it's because Hydroelectric power from the NW dams is shipped to California. However, most of this is under the BPA. This is our cheapest power, but decades back, converter stations with 30 foot mercury vapor diodes were built to convert the AC power from the power generation units to DC power. There is in place power lines to ship this power to Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie). I think they get what should be our green rating. Power from the dams is shipped to California rather than other power production because you cannot ship AC power that far without dramatic radiated line loss. In our case, this affects the price they charge because we end up being in competition with the California market.

I am against government running utilities. Besides, you cannot compare th value of such things for the jist of this thread.

Our water is sold to us by the city. We have what is possibly the cheapest, cleanest water to get into the system nation wide. It comes from the Cascade Mountains. By the time we pay through the nose for city water, it is far more expensive than it should be. Time and time again, Portland has tried to take over electrical service. Every time, the voters say NO. This is because of the history the liberals controlling Portland have with taxes and fees.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Pacific_intertie_geographic_map.png/309px-Pacific_intertie_geographic_map.png

[Spurminator]

Anarcho-syndicalism FTW

[fyatuk]

I disagree. It may work well for CPS and I would say that's the exception. Not the rule. I'll bet it's a conservative area. Get liberals controlling it and see what happens.

When you have a corporate utility with government regulations, you have adversaries at work. When you have government on both sides, the decisions become biased and unchallenged.

Remember, Texas is primarily a red state. I'm in a blue state. Watch those utilities take a dramatic increase should the liberals control it.


San Antonio is split about 55-45 usually. Not as conservative as many parts of the state, but significantly more conservative than Austin up the road.

That's one of the great things about how CPS is set up. For the most part it operates as a separate entity with heavy regulations such as price controls. They make their own business decisions and most of what comes up for city council votes is rate increases and zoning issues with land they wish to use.

It's why I said the government should act as proxy shareholders. They should not have much influence on how it is run (leave that to the business men you hire for it), but should have authority over large rate increases and enjoy the profits from it.


I'm under PGE, but there is another. I think PP&L.

That looks about right for my rates, but I haven't broke down the bill for a while.. The power is actually rather cheap. PGE used to be a satellite of ENRON, and I believe part of the extra money we pay is due to that fiasco. There is some pretty big debt being paid off over that still. Still, part of the debt is the building of new power generation, like the Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. PGE currently has more than twice the liabilities as it has net assets. The rest are taxes and fees. Liberals tax the hell out of things.

I was using the annual rate from the PDF I liked. Assuming your data is correct, note I didn't compare it to MWHours or customer rates. My usage would simply be lower than the average San Antonio rate. Different climate, different average.


You also have to remember that CPS is both gas an electric. It looks like Portland has a separate gas entity. Over 2/3rds of CPS's customers have both gas and electric service, which is why I broke out the revenue per MWh.


Similar to taxes and fees from a utility. So what. As for the people... I just say the number... about 2300(?) people. Still, the area is shared with Pacific Power. We are a larger metropolitan area, and by nature should be more costly.


What kind of taxes? It looks like this past year PGE paid income taxes of 87 million (I'm assuming combined federal and state), and they likely had to pay property taxes as well, which CPS doesn't being municipally owned. I doubt the total taxes and fees exceeds CPS's contributions to City of San Antonio, and much of it probably goes to places that have no relationship with PGE.

CPS does share the market with another minor electric company or two, but they tend to work around CPS.

And you are correct. There's also the fact that even besides being a larger metro area, you also flat out have a higher cost of living. It was you who said your rates were lower even though you were larger, so I pointed out the fallacy in that.


These things are fine. We have green projects going on too. For that matter, between the dams and wind generation, PGE has 628 MW of it's 2449 MW capacity as green power. That's 25.6%! When the Wind Farm is completed (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=51000), it's capacity will grow from 125 MW to as much as 450 MW.


That's a nice percentage. CPS get's about 19% from nuclear, 5% from wind, and a slight amount from landfill gasses (a total of about 1324MW of 5501 capacity, about 24% from so-called "green" sources). Their goal is 15% renewable by 2020, though, which is wonderful, considering the attitude towards the oil and coal industries in Texas.

Anyway, neither of us is going to change the others minds, but this has been a fun discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

What kind of taxes? It looks like this past year PGE paid income taxes of 87 million (I'm assuming combined federal and state), and they likely had to pay property taxes as well, which CPS doesn't being municipally owned. I doubt the total taxes and fees exceeds CPS's contributions to City of San Antonio, and much of it probably goes to places that have no relationship with PGE.

I don't know the breakdown, but I'll bet you are right on the differences.



CPS does share the market with another minor electric company or two, but they tend to work around CPS.

Well, Pacific Power actually does compete with some customers, which is unusual for a utility. I don't have a choice, but much of downtown Portland does. They are not a minor entity. My guess is they are about equal in size or larger than PGE considering CPS has about twice the capacity as PGE, yet PGE's coverage could serves more than twice the population as the San Antonio metro area if they were the only electric utility.



And you are correct. There's also the fact that even besides being a larger metro area, you also flat out have a higher cost of living. It was you who said your rates were lower even though you were larger, so I pointed out the fallacy in that.

Yes, we ar a bit larger, and Portland is a very high cost of living area. I pointed that out because the data I saw indicated CPS as #1 in low cost, but used misleading facts to support that position.



That's a nice percentage. CPS get's about 19% from nuclear, 5% from wind, and a slight amount from landfill gasses (a total of about 1324MW of 5501 capacity, about 24% from so-called "green" sources). Their goal is 15% renewable by 2020, though, which is wonderful, considering the attitude towards the oil and coal industries in Texas.

Those numbers are promising. Shouldn't someone build solar collectors in western Texas? Wouldn't that be a good area?

As for Nuclear, PGE used to control/own(?) something like 2/3rds of the Trojan Nuclear Power plant. It was shut down some years back, but is still a cost carried by PGE. This doesn't help our cost of electricity any. It's part of the huge liability that PGE carries.



Anyway, neither of us is going to change the others minds, but this has been a fun discussion.


If our five city council members were on the board of CPS, you would dislike the changes made, and agree with me I bet. Without seeing the disasters these elitists have caused, you don't have the same reference viewpoint as I do.

I consider it a bit off topic anyway because it's hard to consider a regulated utility as today's capitalism. Part of the accepted understanding of today's capitalism is 'supply and demand' in a 'free market' economy. The primary idea is still the owner(s) being able to profit from their work, which in turn gives incentive to create and build more. Without competition, entities are not working to improve their profit margin, which in turn develops new technologies, jobs, etc.

From probably my first posting, I never indicated I was for strictly only capitalism. Some industries need to be regulated. Because of unethical practices that unscrupulous people will exploit, even more laws and regulations are needed to some extent to protect the general welfare. I am completely against any unnecessary restrictions on the free market and capitalism. The question that is difficult for me at times is what restriction, regulations, etc. are reasonable, and which are unreasonable. The area of gray is vast in some cases.

[fyatuk]

I don't know the breakdown, but I'll bet you are right on the differences.


Well, Pacific Power actually does compete with some customers, which is unusual for a utility. I don't have a choice, but much of downtown Portland does. They are not a minor entity. My guess is they are about equal in size or larger than PGE considering CPS has about twice the capacity as PGE, yet PGE's coverage could serves more than twice the population as the San Antonio metro area if they were the only electric utility.


Didn't mean to insinuate the levels of competition were equal. I saw that Pacific Power is a large company (1.6 million customers according to their website) over a large area. It was a poorly conceived anecdotal tangent.


Yes, we ar a bit larger, and Portland is a very high cost of living area. I pointed that out because the data I saw indicated CPS as #1 in low cost, but used misleading facts to support that position.

Yeah, everybody misleads. CPS also like to tout how large it is, but downplay all the qualifiers (they are the largest municipally owned utility that provides both electric and gas apparently, which is just way too specific if you want to boast about it).


Those numbers are promising. Shouldn't someone build solar collectors in western Texas? Wouldn't that be a good area?

As for Nuclear, PGE used to control/own(?) something like 2/3rds of the Trojan Nuclear Power plant. It was shut down some years back, but is still a cost carried by PGE. This doesn't help our cost of electricity any. It's part of the huge liability that PGE carries.


West Texas is good for wind as well, which is why it's being turned into a giant wind farm. Many places in Texas are good for solar. There's been an on-again-off-again push to convince homebuilders here in San Antonio to install solar roofs, and several experiments have been made regarding solar and selling excess back to the network, etc.

Carrying dead weight would raise the cost.


If our five city council members were on the board of CPS, you would dislike the changes made, and agree with me I bet. Without seeing the disasters these elitists have caused, you don't have the same reference viewpoint as I do.


It's like I said before. When things go bad, people want change. When things go good, people want more of the same. I've had wonderful experiences with government owned utilities and bad experiences with privately owned, so I want more to move under government control.

Just the way things work.


I consider it a bit off topic anyway because it's hard to consider a regulated utility as today's capitalism. Part of the accepted understanding of today's capitalism is 'supply and demand' in a 'free market' economy. The primary idea is still the owner(s) being able to profit from their work, which in turn gives incentive to create and build more. Without competition, entities are not working to improve their profit margin, which in turn develops new technologies, jobs, etc.

From probably my first posting, I never indicated I was for strictly only capitalism. Some industries need to be regulated. Because of unethical practices that unscrupulous people will exploit, even more laws and regulations are needed to some extent to protect the general welfare. I am completely against any unnecessary restrictions on the free market and capitalism. The question that is difficult for me at times is what restriction, regulations, etc. are reasonable, and which are unreasonable. The area of gray is vast in some cases.

The gray area is extremely hard to navigate at times.

[UV Ray]

It's ironic that so many people that are completely untrusting of our government favor socialism..they actually favor making them more powerful, and even more in control of our lives.

So true. It makes you wonder what kind of convoluted reasoning allows those two positions to coexist in one individual.

[Yonivore]

So true. It makes you wonder what kind of convoluted reasoning allows those two positions to coexist in one individual.
It's called stupidity.

[himat]

Socialism is great on paper. Everyone living equal lives, in unity. Things don't work out that way though. The govt. takes advantage.

A Democracy has shown to be the best form of govt. so far. There was an actual experiment on this.

[fyatuk]

Socialism is great on paper. Everyone living equal lives, in unity. Things don't work out that way though. The govt. takes advantage.

A Democracy has shown to be the best form of govt. so far. There was an actual experiment on this.

Socialism does not preclude democracy.

Socialism competes with capitalism.

Democracy competes with republic (which is what the US is), fascism, dictatorship, etc.

You could easily have a democratic socialist country like much of Europe is trying to do.

There have been capitalist non-democratic/republic countries as well.

[xrayzebra]

Well seems that the activist are opposing the CPS rate hike
for a couple of reasons. One it will hurt seniors, secondly they
don't want money used to study added nuclear generation of
electricity.

Here is the story for the out of towners.


Residents oppose bigger CPS bills

Web Posted: 03/26/2008 12:00 AM CDT

Vicki Vaughan
Express-News

Opponents of a rate increase proposed by CPS Energy far outnumbered supporters at a public hearing Tuesday night, with most objecting to the part of the boost that would fund a nuclear plant study.

More than 30 residents spoke at the hearing at La Villita Assembly Hall, which came less than a week before the CPS Energy board of trustees is expected to vote on the rate increase proposal, which could go into effect in May.

CPS Energy officials said the nearly 5 percent increase for electricity and natural gas customers would add about $6 to the average residential monthly bill of $135. That's a revision of an earlier estimate by the city-owned utility that bills would increase by almost $7 a month.

CPS Energy has said that only a small percentage of the increase would fund a controversial $206 million study on the expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear plant near Bay City, southwest of Houston.

Although CPS Energy told the crowd of about 120 that CPS has the lowest electricity rates in Texas, that didn't comfort Consuelo Pedroza, who spoke in opposition to the rate increase.

"It's not fair to compare our rates to other cities, because wages in San Antonio are lower," she said. A senior citizen on a limited income, Pedroza objected to the proposed expansion of the nuclear plant, saying she's concerned about nuclear waste disposal.

CPS Energy deputy general manager Steve Bartley said that "there's no silver bullet for meeting our future demands" for energy. The utility has worked hard to achieve a balanced portfolio that includes renewable sources and conservation, he said.

But many speakers insisted that CPS Energy isn't doing enough to boost sustainable energy sources.

"Did you really consider all the safe, clean alternatives? I think not," said Loretta Von Copponelle of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. The decision to spend $206 million to study expanding the nuclear plant "was a wrong one."

But Richard Perez, president of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports the proposed rate increase. "I urge you all to move forward; the plan is very sound."

Howard Rogers, a member of the San Antonio Manufacturers Association, said he supports the use of renewable energy sources, but new plants must be built to handle future energy needs. "The (rate) plan as currently presented strikes a nice balance," he said.

CPS Energy officials said the increase would be the first since 1991 and that the utility needs to raise rates to pay for a number of major projects now under way, including the completion of a coal-fired plant at Calaveras Lake to be completed in 2010 and a detailed look at whether the utility should add two reactors to the South Texas Project nuclear plant.

CPS Energy's board last year approved spending $206 million to study the feasibility of the nuclear plant expansion.

The utility joined NRG Energy of New Jersey last fall in filing the first application to build a nuclear plant in the United States in almost 30 years. NRG has estimated that adding two reactors to the South Texas Project could cost $6 billion to $7 billion.

If CPS Energy trustees approve the rate increase Monday, the City Council must then approve the measure.

[email protected]

Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/consumernews/stories/MYSA032608.01B.CPS.3d01050.html


And the link is above.

[DarrinS]

We prefer Socialism.

http://morningcoffee.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/clinton-obama-tradeing-jabs.jpg

[gtownspur]

We prefer Socialism.

http://morningcoffee.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/clinton-obama-tradeing-jabs.jpg


"why does obama have a black body, he's just as white as he is black. awhh!!" -Tpark

[fyatuk]

"Did you really consider all the safe, clean alternatives? I think not," said Loretta Von Copponelle of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. The decision to spend $206 million to study expanding the nuclear plant "was a wrong one."


That's an ill informed statement. Nuclear energy is extremely safe. There's been what, 1 US "disaster" and estimates say it affected only a handful of people, and that was a fluke with both the main and redundant backup systems failing at the same time as the sensors that told whether they were working or not. Everyone just latches on to Chernoble like that has ever had any relation to US plants.

It also happens to be the cleanest we have that can be used for mass production of energy here in San Antonio. And the cheapest.

Would she rather they build 4 or 5 new coal plants? That's really the only other option to increase capacity they way they want to.

[whottt]

Socialism does not preclude democracy.

Socialism competes with capitalism.

Democracy competes with republic (which is what the US is), fascism, dictatorship, etc.

You could easily have a democratic socialist country like much of Europe is trying to do.

There have been capitalist non-democratic/republic countries as well.



Actually, socialism competes with everything. It's relationship with capitalism is that in socialism the government is the capitalist entity, and the people rank below that.

[JoeChalupa]

I prefer the USA.

[fyatuk]

Actually, socialism competes with everything. It's relationship with capitalism is that in socialism the government is the capitalist entity, and the people rank below that.

Socialism does not limit the form a government can take. It describes how the government interacts with businesses and consumers.

You can have a true democratic socialist state, a socialist republic, a socialist dictatorship, etc.

In fact, the very core of socialism, is the working class controls everything, meaning it leans towards a democratic state. This actually leads to a fault in socialism when applied to large countries/areas because the further away you get from the working class, the less ideal the situation.

Lennin's version of socialism believes the working class needs an elite group of leaders, which led to the idea of an elitist single party government in the USSR.

[xrayzebra]

In fact, the very core of socialism, is the working class controls everything, meaning it leans towards a democratic state. This actually leads to a fault in socialism when applied to large countries/areas because the further away you get from the working class, the less ideal the situation.

Lennin's version of socialism believes the working class needs an elite group of leaders, which led to the idea of an elitist single party government in the USSR.

Socialist think government should control everything,
they say the working class, but they mean government.

Cradle to grave government programs to take care of
the "people". But the problem is they don't/can't
do a very good job of it. Socialism is probably the
most prejudicial form of government, since the premise
is all should share in the re-distribution of wealth,
except, you have few producers and many consumers of
that wealth. Government creates no wealth, they only
confiscate wealth. Producers soon tire of being the
worker bee and assume the role of the "gimme" crowd.

[fyatuk]

Socialist think government should control everything,
they say the working class, but they mean government.

Nice of you to know what every socialist on the planet is thinking.

The Marxist ideal IS the workers controlling everything, period.

Other forms of socialism actually don't apply it to government at all. The workers control the businesses and the government is separate. Basically every business is run as a co-op.


Cradle to grave government programs to take care of
the "people". But the problem is they don't/can't
do a very good job of it. Socialism is probably the
most prejudicial form of government, since the premise
is all should share in the re-distribution of wealth,
except, you have few producers and many consumers of
that wealth. Government creates no wealth, they only
confiscate wealth. Producers soon tire of being the
worker bee and assume the role of the "gimme" crowd.

Here you are thinking of mostly USSR style communist socialism. It's been fairly proven that the Lennist theories are crap.

The guiding principal of socialism is that workers control production. Socialism does not require equality of wealth through direct or any other government interference. It only requires that the workers share in the wealth they create by being the owners of the production.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Again, some people here are using socialism (and its many versions), Soviet communism and regulated capitalism as synonimous words, when they represent very different economical and political systems.

[Don Quixote]

Yes, to say that someone would consider supporting govt control of utilities is a different matter altogether than saying that one would support full-fledged socialism.

Now, I too find it ironic that people who criticize, often rightfully, that the govt is corrupt, cannot run a war, cannot protect us, and is unable to enforce law and order, turn right around and would like to give the government greater control over the flow of wealth, the oil industry, and other sectors of the economy. As if the govt could competently run those!

[Nbadan]

Again, some people here are using socialism (and its many versions), Soviet communism and regulated capitalism as synonimous words, when they represent very different economical and political systems.


...don't waste breath or your time...Socialism = anything not completely privatized to Republicans..


JdYZCcATg3Q

[Purple & Gold]

Yes, to say that someone would consider supporting govt control of utilities is a different matter altogether than saying that one would support full-fledged socialism.

Now, I too find it ironic that people who criticize, often rightfully, that the govt is corrupt, cannot run a war, cannot protect us, and is unable to enforce law and order, turn right around and would like to give the government greater control over the flow of wealth, the oil industry, and other sectors of the economy. As if the govt could competently run those!

I'd rather have the govt run them than have them support those companies behind the scenes while lining their pockets heavily in the process. Why do you think we are in war right now?? It's not to find weapons of mass destruction.

[Purple & Gold]

Socialism allows for exploitation while capitalism encourages exploitation.

[whottt]

I'd rather have the govt run them than have them support those companies behind the scenes while lining their pockets heavily in the process.


You're insane...


You think that doesn't happen in Socialism? It's 10 times more likely to happen.





Why do you think we are in war right now?? It's not to find weapons of mass destruction.


I see...and your solution is to make them even more powerful.


That's just fucking brilliant.

[whottt]

Again, some people here are using socialism (and its many versions), Soviet communism and regulated capitalism as synonimous words, when they represent very different economical and political systems.



You just let us know when the Socialists figure out what Socialism is and agree on it...then we'll talk.





For now we'll just use my definition:


A bunch of people too stupid to either run businesses and/or governments, running both.

[whottt]

I love all these socialists that haven't had to live under socialism...


Just like Marx.

[whottt]

Socialism does not limit the form a government can take. It describes how the government interacts with businesses and consumers.


Beg pardone...but true socialism most certainly does.





You can have a true democratic socialist state,

That's not socialism...that's Democracy.



a socialist republic,

And those are sooooooo successful.



a socialist dictatorship, etc.

Proof that even socialists don't know what socialism means.



In fact, the very core of socialism, is the working class controls everything, meaning it leans towards a democratic state.

That's not democratic...that's the people not smart enough to figure out how to run businesses and governments, stealing them from those who do. And if they are smart enough to run businesses and goverments...it's a merely a way of making them more powerful.




This actually leads to a fault in socialism when applied to large countries/areas because the further away you get from the working class, the less ideal the situation.

A lack of class separation is an abomination of nature...it occurs nowhere in the natural world. There is always separation, there will always be elite, and the big lie/ or fantasy is that there won't be.


Natural selection you know.


A leaderless society is not a society...and a society with a leader, has class separation.





You might as well go get a suntan in the shade...










Lennin's version of socialism believes the working class needs an elite group of leaders, which led to the idea of an elitist single party government in the USSR.

Further proof that even socialists don't know what socialism means.

[whottt]

And BTW, socialism always has to be imposed, so it is always a form of governance...the bigger the socialism, the more it has to be imposed, because eventually, even the stupid people figure out it pretty much sucks except in small cases or absolute necessity.


What a huge lie to say otherwise.




I swear...trying to explain socialism to people that defend it is like trying to explain Santa Claus doesn't exist to a 5 year old...


They'll never believe it till they spend all night under the tree...or grow up.

[Purple & Gold]

Socialism is a form of economics. Communism is a form of government. Capitalism is a form of economics. Democracy is a form of government. China is now called Capitalist Communism. Much of Europe has Social Democracies. There is a difference and they are not interchangeable.


And whottt still thinks the NBA CBA is a form of capitalism and not socialism. :lol :lol

[Purple & Gold]

whottt you seriously have no idea of what you're talking about. Just give it up already.

[whottt]

Socialism is a form of economics. Communism is a form of government. Capitalism is a form of economics. Democracy is a form of government. China is now called Capitalist Communism. Much of Europe has Social Democracies. There is a difference and they are not interchangeable.


More proof that socialists don't know what socialism means.








And whottt still thinks the NBA CBA is a form of capitalism and not socialism. :lol :lol

And still more.

[whottt]

So tell me Purple and Gold...

You a big fan of the Bush Admin? I trust you'll be voting for the Republicans in this coming election?

Because since you want them to be more powerful...I'd hope so.


I'm voting for them because they're the smart ones...relatively speaking.

[fyatuk]

And whottt still thinks the NBA CBA is a form of capitalism and not socialism. :lol :lol

Actually, the best example of socialist ideals in the US is that more and more companies are offering stock (as part of 401k contributions, bonuses, and discounted purchase deals) as part of their base compensation deals, and not just to the high level execs.

[smeagol]

Government should be involved in three basic areas:

1) Security

2) Education

3) Healthcare

All other parts of the economy should be run by the private sector, with Government oversight (more oversight insome industries than others).

[Yonivore]

Government should be involved in three basic areas:

1) Security
Agreed. However, I would more broadly define it as defense.


2) Education
The government has no business in the education business. It becomes indoctrination instead of education.


3) Healthcare
The government has no business in the healthcare business. You end up with under-qualified, under-staffed, and under-motivated health care professionals.


All other parts of the economy should be run by the private sector, with Government oversight (more oversight insome industries than others).
Regulating interstate commerce and providing interstate law enforcement are two that come to mind.

Settling disputes between states is another.

Oh, and representing, through the Executive, the United States of America to all other countries.

State and local governments should be in the business of maintaining civil order and facilitating common services such as electricity, water, sewage, garbage removal, and transportation infrastructure.

[smeagol]

The government has no business in the education business. It becomes indoctrination instead of education.


The government has no business in the healthcare business. You end up with under-qualified, under-staffed, and under-motivated health care professionals.

The government has the obligation to provise healthcare and education to whoever cannot affort it. I'm not saying private hospitals and private schools should not exist, what I'm saying is that public hospitas and public schools should exist for anybody who needs them.



Regulating interstate commerce and providing interstate law enforcement are two that come to mind.

Settling disputes between states is another.

Oh, and representing, through the Executive, the United States of America to all other countries.

State and local governments should be in the business of maintaining civil order and facilitating common services such as electricity, water, sewage, garbage removal, and transportation infrastructure.


These are pretty obvious duties. Nobody else but the Government can perform them.

[whottt]

Actually, the best example of socialist ideals in the US is that more and more companies are offering stock (as part of 401k contributions, bonuses, and discounted purchase deals) as part of their base compensation deals, and not just to the high level execs.


And...are they all equal? Do they all own the same amount? Do they all have the same job security? Etc.


That's not socialism.


What's next...you going to say the Law is Socialist too?


The NBA teams aren't equal either...



There's no law against joint ownership...the socialists didn't invent that, it's been around forever.

[whottt]

3) Healthcare
.


You're insane...Competition is the best thing for quality healthcare...


On top of that...that's another case of trusting the government more than they deserve to be trusted. Any government.



It's bad enough that all these pharmaceutical companies are pushing health destroying drugs on people...you put the government in charge of that and what little quality control and safety standards there are, are completely gone.




I don't want the Government in charge of health care. I don't trust them with it.




You want to make medical care less expensive?


Eliminate medical insurance.

[fyatuk]

And...are they all equal? Do they all own the same amount? Do they all have the same job security? Etc.

That's not socialism.

What's next...you going to say the Law is Socialist too?

The NBA teams aren't equal either...

There's no law against joint ownership...the socialists didn't invent that, it's been around forever.

You're a big fan of whitespace, aren't you.

I said it was an example of socialist ideals that stock options are spreading to the common worker. I didn't say it was the fulfillment of the socialist dream. It's a start, though. You really are rather clueless about what socialism really is.

[smeagol]

You're insane...Competition is the best thing for quality healthcare...


On top of that...that's another case of trusting the government more than they deserve to be trusted. Any government.



It's bad enough that all these pharmaceutical companies are pushing health destroying drugs on people...you put the government in charge of that and what little quality control and safety standards there are, are completely gone.




I don't want the Government in charge of health care. I don't trust them with it.




You want to make medical care less expensive?


Eliminate medical insurance.

Read my last post.

I never said the Government should be in charge of Healthcare.

All I said is that the government should guaranty some sort of healthcare system, such as public hospitals.

[whottt]

You're a big fan of whitespace, aren't you.

I said it was an example of socialist ideals that stock options are spreading to the common worker.


Good lord you're a fucking idiot.

However I am glad you think think stocks, option compensation you fucking idiot, Dell etc. Are examples of socialist principles...in that case you can shut the fuck up about a socialist dream.






I didn't say it was the fulfillment of the socialist dream.

Right, so therefore it isn't socialism...



And BTW, why don't you enlighten us as to what the Socialists dream is


Go ahead...this ought to be good.



It's a start, though.


It's only a start because it isn't soclialism...idiot. Once it becomes soclaism, it's no longer a start...it's an end.

Those stock options would be fucking worthless if everyone had them...you idiot.

And if Michael Dell wasn't in charge, working for that company would be equally worthless.


And since he is in charge, it's not socialism you fucking idiot.



You really are rather clueless about what socialism really is.


Bitch...I'm not the one contradicting myself by using something that isn't socliam, citing it as an example of socialism, then pointing out it isn't soclialism, and then telling others they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.


Idiot...I guess every publicly traded company is an example of socialist principles then...I mean after all, the common workers can own them.

[whottt]

I challenge any two of you pro socialist idiots in this thread to define socialism...


Go for it.

[fyatuk]

I challenge any two of you pro socialist idiots in this thread to define socialism...


Go for it.

For the record, I'm pro-mixed market, not pro-socialism (which I made abundantly clear early in this thread). And I've already defined the core ideal of socialism previously in this thread.

[whottt]

For the record, I'm pro-mixed market,

Me too!


not pro-socialism (which I made abundantly clear early in this thread). And I've already defined the core ideal of socialism previously in this thread.

Yeah...and your definition differs from several others I have read...including Karl Marx.






You know...the sharing of limited resources is not socialism...that's fucking common sense.


Multiple speices of animals sharing a waterhole in Africa can figure that out....doesn't make it a Utopia.

There is nothing inherently intelligent or requiring a great deal of thought and effort in that concept...


It becomes stupid and dysfunctional when it is applied and enforced on a large scale...IE, Socialism.

[smeagol]

fyatuk has no clue what socialism is.

[fyatuk]

Me too!

Yeah...and your definition differs from several others I have read...including Karl Marx.

Part of what I've been saying is that people have their definitions too narrow. There are a crapload of flavors of socialism. Kind of like Linux. There's so many varieties that it's hard to define Linux beyond the kernel.

Marx was a communist, though of a little bit of different sort than Lennin. Socialism predates Marx by quite a bit. Apparently I'm classified as a social democrat.

Like I said, the key concept of all breeds of socialism is that the workers control production, either directly or indirectly for the affected industries (since some breeds, like social democrat, don't require complete socialization).


It becomes stupid and dysfunctional when it is applied and enforced on a large scale...IE, Socialism.

I agree. I think if society does evolve into a socialist structure, it will also evolve into more of a city-state setup with small communities working together under a larger umbrella with limited power.

At least until technology improves sufficiently. After that, it should evolve into the utopian communism that the Star Trek universe modelled.

[Don Quixote]

Wow ... such great faith the socialist places in the power and virtue of government! They rightly see the corruption and lack of character already existing in our (semi-)republic, but fail to make the connection that it will still exist do an even greater degree in a socialist gummint. What will prevent the gummint from exercising greater and wider control over the people? Who will govern the governors over us? The socialist just has ... faith that it will work.

Like I said, I'm not sure how to reason with them on this one. It's like trying to reason with cult members -- it can be daunting. It's better to simply defeat them politically.

But really, the arguments for and against socialisn are very old ones. I don't need to rehast them here. The West tried socialism in the 20th century and it was largely a disaster. Certainly, the majority of Americans have not wanted it. In fact, the American reaction to it (occasionally overblown) was the chief factor in the rise of the American conservative movement under Buckley and Goldwater.

But I'm not sure how the arguments would convince a committed socialist.

[smeagol]

bumping it for lying boutons piece of shit.