Death Count from Socialist leaders in the 20th Century

[Nick Young]

Mao Zedong:49-78 million
Jozef Stalin: 23 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung: 1.6 million
Ho Chi Minh: 200,000
Fidel Castro and Che Guevera: 50,000


A kid in my uni was wearing a Che beret and a Mao Zedong shirt. Got into a huge argument with him by telling him wearing a Mao shirt was worse than wearing a Hitler shirt, he denied all of the deaths Mao is responsible for saying it is lies and CIA propaganda, which is basically the same thing as denying the holocaust. Turned out he was just an ignorant dumbass who didn't understand what he was talking about. But still it's pretty disgusting, a man kills 70 million of his own people and there are idiots out there who prop him up as a hero they look up to.

[MavsSuperFan]

Mao Zedong:49-78 million
Jozef Stalin: 23 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung: 1.6 million
Ho Chi Minh: 200,000
Fidel Castro and Che Guevera: 50,000


A kid in my uni was wearing a Che beret and a Mao Zedong shirt. Got into a huge argument with him by telling him wearing a Mao shirt was worse than wearing a Hitler shirt, he denied all of the deaths Mao is responsible for saying it is lies and CIA propaganda, which is basically the same thing as denying the holocaust. Turned out he was just an ignorant dumbass who didn't understand what he was talking about. But still it's pretty disgusting, a man kills 70 million of his own people and there are idiots out there who prop him up as a hero they look up to.

Even the Guevara shirts are dumb, especially for people who claim to be pacifists.

[stallionaire]

And you think that the number of deaths under all of these dictators are a direct correlation to Socialism being in place?

How many deaths can we attribute to capitalism? People not having enough money to survive would be a way to quantify that using your logic.

[Sarcastic]

You should say communist leaders, unless you are being misleading on purpose.

[Nick Young]

And you think that the number of deaths under all of these dictators are a direct correlation to Socialism being in place?

How many deaths can we attribute to capitalism? People not having enough money to survive would be a way to quantify that using your logic.
Seems like it, considering that all of the biggest genocides have happened in socialist countries as well.:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[embersyc]

There are no Socialist leaders. There are no socialist countries.

All those people are Communists.

[MMM]

The closest thing to socialism are social democracy of Europe and Canada, which also seem to have the highest qualities of life. They seem to have the happiest people and far more social cohesion.

[miller-time]

I love how you are complaining about ignorance, and then use the word socialist as a blanket term to define all of these people. Stalinism and Maoism differ from each other, and they are nothing like the theories they claim to be based on.

[LJJ]

The closest thing to socialism are social democracy of Europe and Canada, which also seem to have the highest qualities of life. They seem to have the happiest people and far more social cohesion.

Not at all really, most of the European systems are very much based on capitalism with a couple of social measures sprinkled on top. Fundamentally capitalist though. The reason people refer to it as socialist is because those governments take a small amount of care that their most vulnerable citizens still have access to a modicum of human decency and quality of life. Calling that socialism is a total misnomer. It's incredible how conservatives in America get away with calling that socialism without being taken for complete idiots by 90% of the population.

The states of Mao and Stalin were much closer to the textbook definition of socialism than let's say, modern Denmark. That, there is a reason we have a separate term for Stalin's way of governing called Stalinism, just like we have a separate term for Mao's way called Maoism. Each of them has some very fundamental differences compared to each other, compared to fundamental socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
One thing is for certain though: under both Mao's and Stalin's rule the de facto power was in the hands on a very small number of people and the states were extremely totalitarian and oppressive. Anyone who says the main cause of their atrocities is something else clearly has an agenda and should be disregarded completely.

[MetsPackers]

The deaths under Mao were a means to revolutionize China, it wasn't going to happen on it's own. Sort of like the guerilla terrorist movements which ended apartheid in South Africa. Mao was much more of a good guy for China than a bad guy. He legitimized China to the rest of the world and was for the people.

[LJJ]

The deaths under Mao were a means to revolutionize China, it wasn't going to happen on it's own. Sort of like the guerilla terrorist movements which ended apartheid in South Africa. Mao was much more of a good guy for China than a bad guy. He legitimized China to the rest of the world and was for the people.

Wow. That's a bit of a great leap there.

The reason Mao is seen as a monster is because the great famine that caused the death of about 40 million people and intense suffering of hundreds of millions more was completely, 100% avoidable. It's a bit much to call a guy who willfully and knowingly let his own people starve to death "good for China". Mao directly caused it and directly let it continue for years even though he essentially had the power to stop the famine at a moments notice.
Additionally, I'm sure the tens of millions of innocent civilians who died in the Chinese gulags after the communist state had long been established were "necessary for the revolution" as well.

If you want to look at a communist leader who was good for China, look at Deng Xiaoping, not Mao Zedong.

[joe]

stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days, while capitalism has such a bad name. Capitalism allowed millions more humans to occupy this Earth, millions of people to have cars and food and such. While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen. But hippies (supposed peace makers) wear shirts with socialist dictators on it at anti-capitalist rallies. wtf

[LJJ]

stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days, while capitalism has such a bad name. Capitalism allowed millions more humans to occupy this Earth, millions of people to have cars and food and such. While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen. But hippies (supposed peace makers) wear shirts with socialist dictators on it at anti-capitalist rallies. wtf

Stunning is the degree of mental incompetence you display in every post you make.

[joe]

Stunning is the degree of mental incompetence you display in every post you make.

you think so?

[demons2005]

I wouldn't be surprised if a second term Obama joins the list. If he wins people will be very discontent with all the voter fraud that the Dems are intent on protecting and anything can happen. Most armed Americans are conservative. And where is Hitler on that list? I'm sure he's got more than some of them. I love how American liberals ignore the fact that he called his own party socialist.

[LJJ]

you think so?

Sorry, that was unreasonably harsh. I'm going to give you a fair chance to show you opinion, how about that.


You say, in direct quotes "stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days" "While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen".

So now I'm giving you a fair chance to validate your opinion: Give us a couple of examples of prominent current socialists who take the moral high ground. This is what you say right, that socialists are taking the moral high ground these days? That's exactly what you say! So it's fair to ask you for some examples.

Next we are going to compare the ideologies of these prominent, moral high ground taking socialists, and compare them to the ideologies of the people responsible for that "government murder", and see how well they align.

This is your chance joe! Prove to us you are not an idiot by giving us some examples of the people you were referring to in your post.

[MavsSuperFan]

I wouldn't be surprised if a second term Obama joins the list. If he wins people will be very discontent with all the voter fraud that the Dems are intent on protecting and anything can happen. Most armed Americans are conservative. And where is Hitler on that list? I'm sure he's got more than some of them. I love how American liberals ignore the fact that he called his own party socialist.

:biggums: :coleman: :facepalm :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[miller-time]

stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days, while capitalism has such a bad name. Capitalism allowed millions more humans to occupy this Earth, millions of people to have cars and food and such. While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen. But hippies (supposed peace makers) wear shirts with socialist dictators on it at anti-capitalist rallies. wtf

I just find the black and white logic annoying. People don't realize that some things are socialist driven systems - such as the public school system and healthcare systems (depending where you live). Being a capitalist country doesn't mean every institution is a capitalist driven venture.

And why are you doing a death poll? Do you really think oil companies are not destroying peoples homes and contaminating their water sources? Saying all attempts at socialism is bad is the same as saying all attempts of capitalism are good. Do you really think the privatization of prisons and the overabundance of contracts going towards private weapons contractors are good things? They're capitalist, so they must be right?

[Nick Young]

I just find the black and white logic annoying. People don't realize that some things are socialist driven systems - such as the public school system and healthcare systems (depending where you live). Being a capitalist country doesn't mean every institution is a capitalist driven venture.

And why are you doing a death poll? Do you really think oil companies are not destroying peoples homes and contaminating their water sources? Saying all attempts at socialism is bad is the same as saying all attempts of capitalism are good. Do you really think the privatization of prisons and the overabundance of contracts going towards private weapons contractors are good things? They're capitalist, so they must be right?
Compared to systematic mass murder or starvation of your own citizens, yes those are great things.

No one is saying capitalism is right. I'm not. Stop putting me in to a box. Stop thinking in terms of black and white.

Just because I say socialist governments seem to commit a ton of huge atrocities towards their own citizens doesn't mean I'm some ardent supporter of capitalism.

[kNIOKAS]

Compared to systematic mass murder or starvation of your own citizens, yes those are great things.

No one is saying capitalism is right. I'm not. Stop putting me in to a box. Stop thinking in terms of black and white.

Just because I say socialist governments seem to commit a ton of huge atrocities towards their own citizens doesn't mean I'm some ardent supporter of capitalism.
:lol
Nick Young once again starting a thread that he cannot carry

[MavsSuperFan]

The deaths under Mao were a means to revolutionize China, it wasn't going to happen on it's own. Sort of like the guerilla terrorist movements which ended apartheid in South Africa. Mao was much more of a good guy for China than a bad guy. He legitimized China to the rest of the world and was for the people.

Mao was horrible when he died China was a third world shit hole. China's recent rise is due to Deng Xiaoping and the capitalist reforms he initiated, like his special economic zones. The only place where you can argue Mao's greatness was from a military perspective. Outside of wars Mao was an incompetent leader.

Mao was also extremely stubborn and selfish, because of collectivization ideals he initiated programs that he knew were resulting in mass starvations (purely man made, in a country China's size with its established thousands of years worth of agricultural expertise, droughts can't explain wide scale famine) and refused to change his failing policies because of his commitment to what he believed to be socialism and his refusal to admit he was wrong. He denounced and removed anyone that objected and basically left the Chinese government with him and gutless yes men who were too scared to tell Mao the truth.

China is about the size of America, droughts can affect a few provinces, but in a country that size you would just shift surplus production from other areas during normal times. Mao put pressure on the communes he created, these communes boasted of ridiculously high yields, they were taxed at these inflated figures, all objections were crushed and people starved quietly in their communes, while local militia made sure everyone kept silent. Mao knew what was going on, he didn't want to admit his collectivized farming system was causing mass starvation of by some estimates 70 million people.

Mao was also kind of stupid in a lot of ways. He initiated his small steel program where he encouraged local communes to make steel smelters in their neighbourhoods, to produce steel. For some reason Mao thought he could catch up to US steel production like this. The result, whole forests destroyed for firewood to melt metal, low quality steel that was unusable, and worst of all the program took farmers out of the field where they were most needed.

By about 1966 people had finally realized what a fool Mao was, and he lost a lot of power within the government. Capitalist reforms were happening. Mao being selfish held on to absolute power by initiating the Cultural Revolution. Basically destroying a whole generation, and every competent person in the government was removed and replaced by Mao's lackeys. Mao was one of the worst political leaders of the 20th century, he held China back greatly for about 3 and a half decades. At the time of his death China was undeveloped and weak. Mao's only competence was military leadership, specifically guerilla warfare.

[miller-time]

Compared to systematic mass murder or starvation of your own citizens, yes those are great things.

tell me the part where marx or lenin wrote "systematically mass murder and starve the population." because then you might have a point. what stalin and mao did have nothing to do with the foundations of socialism.

[MavsSuperFan]

Not at all really, most of the European systems are very much based on capitalism with a couple of social measures sprinkled on top. Fundamentally capitalist though. The reason people refer to it as socialist is because those governments take a small amount of care that their most vulnerable citizens still have access to a modicum of human decency and quality of life. Calling that socialism is a total misnomer. It's incredible how conservatives in America get away with calling that socialism without being taken for complete idiots by 90% of the population.

The states of Mao and Stalin were much closer to the textbook definition of socialism than let's say, modern Denmark. That, there is a reason we have a separate term for Stalin's way of governing called Stalinism, just like we have a separate term for Mao's way called Maoism. Each of them has some very fundamental differences compared to each other, compared to fundamental socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
One thing is for certain though: under both Mao's and Stalin's rule the de facto power was in the hands on a very small number of people and the states were extremely totalitarian and oppressive. Anyone who says the main cause of their atrocities is something else clearly has an agenda and should be disregarded completely.

This :applause:

When people call Western Europe and Canada socialist, they are letting right-wing propaganda win. Canada and Europe are mixed-market economies (just like America) fundamentally based on capitalism. There are socialist elements within it that take tax revenue and use it to provide a social safety net for citizens (America has this as well to a lesser extent).

Marxism is defined by the lack of free markets, presence command economies and the struggle between the working class and the capital class (people who make a living investing capital). Marxism is about removing the upper class and handing over power to the workers, and give them the means of production, allowing them to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This might seem pleasant in theory, but has failed in execution in every instance.

The fact of the matter is humans of fundamentally self interested individuals (this doesn't exclude altruism, just that people need incentives to be productive). Say you take a worker and put him into a soviet factory or on Mao's collective farm. This person might work hard the first day, but eventually he will realize that he gets no benefit from exceeding the efforts of his co-workers, this leads to moral hazard and eventually to low economic growth in all economies based on Marxist principles.

Capitalism is integral to progress, there is not one nation today that is successful whose economic system isn't based on free markets. Command economies always result in shortages of necessary items and surpluses of unwanted items, because people can't predict what society will need and want. Adding in social justice (taking care of the elderly and poor) to the equation does not result in socialism, unlike what fox news tells people.

[Nick Young]

tell me the part where marx or lenin wrote "systematically mass murder and starve the population." because then you might have a point. what stalin and mao did have nothing to do with the foundations of socialism.
Who cares what they wrote, look at what they did, and leave Karl Marx out of this, considering that he was just a philosopher and never a leader, and the thread is called Socialist Leaders of the 20th century.

Your boy Lenin for example, a man who I notice many "socialists" and "communists" seem to prop up on a pedestal for some reason as the golden standard, executed 30,000 of his own citizens, and sent thousands more to prison in Siberia during the Red Terror. What he did speaks louder than anything he wrote down. How come people deify this man as a beacon of moral light? He was a sicko mass murderer just like Che, Fidel and Pol Pot.

I'm not against socialism or communism at all, I'm just against institutionalized mass murder.

[MavsSuperFan]

tell me the part where marx or lenin wrote "systematically mass murder and starve the population." because then you might have a point. what stalin and mao did have nothing to do with the foundations of socialism.


Marx wanted command economies, which inevitably results in more and more power accruing to the state. This leads to totalitarianism, which is what resulted in Stalin and Mao. It's not a coincidence every country that tried to implement communism resulted in a dictatorship. By taking the profit incentive out of the economy, people don't have an incentive to grow and prosper. Personally I think John Rawls got it right, Capitalism with social justice. Allow the capitalists to make their money and tax a reasonable amount of it and provided for the needy in society.

I think you don't really believe in socialism as defined by Marx, I think you want capitalism as practiced by western europe and canada, as opposed to capitalism practiced by America. I agree with you if thats what you want. Obama is not even close to a socialist and definitely a capitalist, despite all of the accusations.

[MMM]

Not at all really, most of the European systems are very much based on capitalism with a couple of social measures sprinkled on top. Fundamentally capitalist though. The reason people refer to it as socialist is because those governments take a small amount of care that their most vulnerable citizens still have access to a modicum of human decency and quality of life. Calling that socialism is a total misnomer. It's incredible how conservatives in America get away with calling that socialism without being taken for complete idiots by 90% of the population.

The states of Mao and Stalin were much closer to the textbook definition of socialism than let's say, modern Denmark. That, there is a reason we have a separate term for Stalin's way of governing called Stalinism, just like we have a separate term for Mao's way called Maoism. Each of them has some very fundamental differences compared to each other, compared to fundamental socialism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.
One thing is for certain though: under both Mao's and Stalin's rule the de facto power was in the hands on a very small number of people and the states were extremely totalitarian and oppressive. Anyone who says the main cause of their atrocities is something else clearly has an agenda and should be disregarded completely.


I said the closest thing not that they are socialist. However, is not accuarte because i obviously forgot to mention some of the socialist regimes in south america, Africa and the arab world.

[joe]

Sorry, that was unreasonably harsh. I'm going to give you a fair chance to show you opinion, how about that.


You say, in direct quotes "stunning. it's sad that socialists are allowed to take the moral high ground these days" "While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen".

So now I'm giving you a fair chance to validate your opinion: Give us a couple of examples of prominent current socialists who take the moral high ground. This is what you say right, that socialists are taking the moral high ground these days? That's exactly what you say! So it's fair to ask you for some examples.

Next we are going to compare the ideologies of these prominent, moral high ground taking socialists, and compare them to the ideologies of the people responsible for that "government murder", and see how well they align.

This is your chance joe! Prove to us you are not an idiot by giving us some examples of the people you were referring to in your post.

You can think whatever you want about me, it's not about me. You see the numbers, millions and millions of people dead under socialism. Or is it communism? Or is it maoism? To me it's the same umbrella. All of these systems derive from a rejection of human freedom, and a glorification of state power. One way or another, one dictator or another, one "ism" or another- that's the problem.

The moral high ground I'm referring to doesn't belong to one person- it's many people. When I say government shouldn't intervene with health care, I apparently "just don't care about the suffering poor people!" When I say public schools shouldn't exist, "I think only the rich should be educated." Say foreign aid props up dictators, I don't care about 3rd world suffering.

The moral high ground is taken by the socialist argument in all of these cases. It's become righteous to support government charity, to the point that arguing for free markets has become stained. Supporters of capitalism are "blind ideologues." Supporters of government charity are "compassionate lovers of humanity." That's what I'm talking about.

[LJJ]

You can think whatever you want about me, it's not about me. You see the numbers, millions and millions of people dead under socialism. Or is it communism? Or is it maoism? To me it's the same umbrella. All of these systems derive from a rejection of human freedom, and a glorification of state power. One way or another, one dictator or another, one "ism" or another- that's the problem.

The moral high ground I'm referring to doesn't belong to one person- it's many people. When I say government shouldn't intervene with health care, I apparently "just don't care about the suffering poor people!" When I say public schools shouldn't exist, "I think only the rich should be educated." Say foreign aid props up dictators, I don't care about 3rd world suffering.

The moral high ground is taken by the socialist argument in all of these cases. It's become righteous to support government charity, to the point that arguing for free markets has become stained. Supporters of capitalism are "blind ideologues." Supporters of government charity are "compassionate lovers of humanity." That's what I'm talking about.

So essentially you are saying socialists are taking the moral high ground, but you have not a single example of a socialist taking the moral high ground?

Surprise surprise. I asked for an example to reinforce you opinion. An example of the "many people" you are referring to. You can't give any. Zero. You are a clueless shill. You have no idea what you are actually saying. Nothing to back up anything. You just parrot whatever the **** you heard yesterday.

[joe]

So essentially you are saying socialists are taking the moral high ground, but you have not a single example of a socialist taking the moral high ground?

Surprise surprise. I asked for an example to reinforce you opinion. An example of the "many people" you are referring to. You can't give any. Zero. You are a clueless shill. You have no idea what you are actually saying. Nothing to back up anything. You just parrot whatever the **** you heard yesterday.

Sorry for not keeping a list of every person who I felt was taking a socialist moral high ground position. I should have known that one day, LJJ would ask me that oddly specific question, and prepared accordingly. Shame on me. :(

[LJJ]

Sorry for not keeping a list of every person who I felt was taking a socialist moral high ground position. I should have known that one day, LJJ would ask me that oddly specific question, and prepared accordingly. Shame on me. :(

No, don't put this back on me buckwheat. You aren't getting away with that.

"Socialists, the people with the same ideologies as those guys responsible for all that government murder, are taking the moral high ground these days". That's what YOU said. Yet you don't know of any. That's no specific question, that's asking about the core reasoning behind you opinion. YOU say the socialists are taking the high ground. Where the **** are they? You have no idea, there is simply nothing there. Empty. Just like everything else you post.

So there you have it: the Insidehoops village idiot strikes again. Congratulations on reinforcing the very low opinion everybody here already had of you.

[joe]

No, don't put this back on me buckwheat. You aren't getting away with that.

"Socialists, the people with the same ideologies as those guys responsible for all that government murder, are taking the moral high ground these days". That's what YOU said. Yet you don't know of any. That's no specific question, that's asking about the core reasoning behind you opinion. YOU say the socialists are taking the high ground. Where the **** are they? You have no idea, there is simply nothing there. Empty. Just like everything else you post.

So there you have it: the Insidehoops village idiot strikes again. Congratulations on reinforcing the very low opinion everybody here already had of you.

Why are you acting so rude? If you don't agree with me that's one thing, but to say I'm an idiot, and to infer I'm trying to "get away" with something? When I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. If I say something I later regret, I take it back and explain my reasoning. In this case, I feel no reason to take back what I said. I stand by it.

I see much of the Democrat party as constantly taking some socialist moral high ground. I'd add Barack Obama himself, and most Democrat pundits I see on television. Bill Maher is a great example.

And as a FORMER DEMOCRAT MYSELF..I'd add myself to that list several years ago.

Since I'm constantly debating a pro-capitalism position, I'd say I have a little bit of knowledge of how my opponents respond. Frankly, I've been in hundreds of debates, and I've felt the other side taking the moral high ground again and again. Debating a pro-free market position leads to just as many moral arguments as it does economic ones. In my experience I've seen it multiple times, so who are you to say I'm lying? I'm talking about a general movement I see within left-wing politics towards seeing government-charity as being morally superior to free markets. Anyone who pays attention can see this happening.

How many Democrats have said there should be some cap on the amount of profits you're allowed to make? Don't act like it doesn't happen, because I know it does. I went to college surrounded by Democrats and I had those conversations. Democrats have become disgusted by rich people and by greed, and they see themselves as morally superior in many ways to Republicans/anyone they think of as supporting the free market.

And in my opinion, the Democratic party is a few years away from being the socialist democrats party, at the current pace.

[RedBlackAttack]

The moral high ground I'm referring to doesn't belong to one person- it's many people. When I say government shouldn't intervene with health care, I apparently "just don't care about the suffering poor people!" When I say public schools shouldn't exist, "I think only the rich should be educated." Say foreign aid props up dictators, I don't care about 3rd world suffering.

The moral high ground is taken by the socialist argument in all of these cases. It's become righteous to support government charity, to the point that arguing for free markets has become stained. Supporters of capitalism are "blind ideologues." Supporters of government charity are "compassionate lovers of humanity." That's what I'm talking about.
Your way of looking at things is way too black-and-white. You are essentially saying that, since I'm for public schools, I am a socialist. If I think we should institute universal health care, I'm a socialist.

I'm not a socialist... I just happen to live in a country which has always been a blend of ideologies and I think there are certain aspects of our society which should see government involvement.

If people are in favor of a public police force that doesn't only protect the people who purchase their services directly, am I a socialist? If I believe we should have a group of people paid for with tax dollars who will respond to fires regardless of whose house is burning, am I a socialist?

We live in a country which has a balance of public systems paid for by taxes and private enterprises which, if run correctly, can see enormous profits. The things in our society which we do not think should be made for-profit become social programs. The discussion revolves around which of those programs should be public, not whether or not all programs should be public like in a truly socialist country.

I mean, surely you are not in favor of privatizing fire and police departments, right? Does that make you a socialist? No, it makes you a realist. Too many people obsessed with labels in this country.

We've never been purely capitalistic and we'll never be purely socialist. We've always been and will continue to be a combination society which tries to balance the good points of each and cancel out the negatives of each. It will likely never be perfect, but that won't stop us from trying.

Lastly, for you to assert capitalists are the ones who are being vilified and socialists always get the moral high ground... In our culture? Being called a socialist is akin to being named a child molester in our current political climate. The word is thrown around so freely as a means to scare the ill-informed it would be funny if it wasn't having such a crushing impact on the actual productive political dialogue in America.

How in the world could anyone say people in favor of more capitalism are discriminated against in America? :oldlol:

[LJJ]

I see much of the Democrat party as constantly taking some socialist moral high ground. I'd add Barack Obama himself, and most Democrat pundits I see on television. Bill Maher is a great example.

Great. Finally you can answer the damn question and give an example.

This was your original post:


stunning. it's sad that socialists (= Obama, like you just explained) are allowed to take the moral high ground these days, while capitalism has such a bad name. Capitalism allowed millions more humans to occupy this Earth, millions of people to have cars and food and such. While socialism (or whatever you want to call it) is the greatest tool of government murder we have seen (=Stalin, Mao). But hippies (supposed peace makers) wear shirts with socialist dictators on it at anti-capitalist rallies. wtf


With the information you have just given us, we understand the contextual meaning of your original post is this:


stunning. it's sad that socialists like Obama are allowed to take the moral high ground these days. His socialist peers such Stalin an Mao were the greatest tool of government murder we have seen.

That is utterly hilarious. Obama has the same ideology as Stalin and Mao now? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Timmy D for MVP]

This thread is kind of hilarious.

Mao was good for China?

Socialism is the same thing as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Red Capitalism?

Obama is mentioned in this thread?

Being a socialist is cool? Being a capitalist is bad? (Where the **** do you live?)

It's like all the check marks have been ticked.

[joe]

Great. Finally you can answer the damn question and give an example.

This was your original post:




With the information you have just given us, we understand the contextual meaning of your original post is this:


That is utterly hilarious. Obama has the same ideology as Stalin and Mao now? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Obama acting like his socialist ideas are morally superior does not make him equal to Mao, at all. That's not the contextual meaning to my original post, that's you twisting words around.

Yes, I think Obama and many on the left hold socialist ideals. They are infatuated with wealth redistribution. Welfare, foreign aid, higher progressive tax rates, some even want a cap on how much income an individual should be allowed to earn. They want college nationalized, health care nationalized. And in many cases, I find their reasoning to be based on a moral high ground position. "We want to help the poor, you capitalism guys only care about the rich. Greedy materialist pig!"

Does that mean I think they're all as bad as Mao? No.

And taking into account the IQ of the person I'm talking to, let me pre-emptively say- not ALL Democrats/leftists support those things. Some support some but not others. But in general, these views seem more common now than they were in the past, in American politics. And considering the track record of socialist governments, I find it ironic that the moral superiorists reside in the redistribution corner.

[MavsSuperFan]

Obama acting like his socialist ideas are morally superior does not make him equal to Mao, at all. That's not the contextual meaning to my original post, that's you twisting words around.

Yes, I think Obama and many on the left hold socialist ideals. They are infatuated with wealth redistribution. Welfare, foreign aid, higher progressive tax rates, some even want a cap on how much income an individual should be allowed to earn. They want college nationalized, health care nationalized. And in many cases, I find their reasoning to be based on a moral high ground position. "We want to help the poor, you capitalism guys only care about the rich. Greedy materialist pig!"

Does that mean I think they're all as bad as Mao? No.

And taking into account the IQ of the person I'm talking to, let me pre-emptively say- not ALL Democrats/leftists support those things. Some support some but not others. But in general, these views seem more common now than they were in the past, in American politics. And considering the track record of socialist governments, I find it ironic that the moral superiorists reside in the redistribution corner.

If Obama is a socialist he is the worst socialist in history.

Besides the CEOs of companies that took government bailouts, who has Obama wanted to place a salary cap on?

Obamacare is largely the same healthcare system that Mitt Romney passed, which was based on the healthcare proposal developed by the Heritage Foundation. It is not at all similar to nationalization. Basically people now have to buy insurance from the big insurance corporations, or pay a penalty. It eliminates free riders, its actually quite a conservative proposal. I seriously dont understand conservative opposition to Obamacare.

[Scoooter]

"Wealth redistribution" is such a dirty term (mostly because of it's use as a shameless partisan talking point). Call it an investment. The poor and the middle class are the drivers of our consumer-driven economy. Empowering them - financially, educationally, and socially - causes the economy as a whole to grow and flourish, and that's better for everyone. Consolidating power in an increasingly small and entrenched class of elites, perpetuating the growing wealth gap, and further reinforcing or tolerating barriers to social mobility are all symptoms of a sick economy and harbingers of destructive instability.

The "free market" is not some infallible gift from on-high, and the federal government is not some restorative cure-all balm. The most effective path is probably what we've been doing all along, using a blend of the best ideologies at our disposal, not being afraid to innovate and perpetually holding ourselves to a higher standard.

[joe]

RedBlackAttack.. haven't seen you on here in a while.



How in the world could anyone say people in favor of more capitalism are discriminated against in America? :oldlol:

Comments like this prove that you're not following things closely enough. The left doesn't support capitalism, they support a mixed economy. Republicans largely don't understand capitalism, though they claim to support it. Republicans have long accepted things like huge military budgets, central banking, bailouts, huge entitlement programs, regulatory agencies, on and on and on and on down the list. These are not indicative of free markets, they are indicative of government markets. The amount of people who supported either completely free markets or "minarchist" markets is tiny compared to the rest of the political spectrum.

*minarchist would be, a government that does the very bare minimum. enforce contracts, maintain the legal system, etc.

The big problem is that people don't understand capitalism in America anymore. Its definition has been twisted, and the line between government and market has been blurred beyond recognition. Go to a libertarian forum and ask the members if they think most Americans support free market capitalism.

You have to see the world through my eyes. How often do we hear how the government has to "create jobs?" Or that we need our politicians to "try and fix the economy rather than worry about immigration" or something? Phrases like that have become so common in American politics, that most people probably don't even notice it. But for a true supporter of a free market, you notice it every single time, because it sounds so idiotic and frustrating. And those same politicians who vow to "fix the economy" claim they support capitalism. It's a joke.



We've never been purely capitalistic and we'll never be purely socialist. We've always been and will continue to be a combination society which tries to balance the good points of each and cancel out the negatives of each. It will likely never be perfect, but that won't stop us from trying.


You're right, but we used to be much more capitalist. The trend is towards a mixed, socialized, or fascist economy. The government always played a role in the economy, but since the 1930's especially, their role has increased.


Maybe socialism is considered a dirty word in America, while capitalism is considered a "nice word." But in action, the political spectrum continues to move to the left on economic issues. Our republican candidate for President wrote the blueprint for socialized medicine.. that's a pretty damning example of what I'm talking about.

[Ass Dan]

Mao Zedong:49-78 million
Jozef Stalin: 23 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung: 1.6 million
Ho Chi Minh: 200,000
Fidel Castro and Che Guevera: 50,000


A kid in my uni was wearing a Che beret and a Mao Zedong shirt. Got into a huge argument with him by telling him wearing a Mao shirt was worse than wearing a Hitler shirt, he denied all of the deaths Mao is responsible for saying it is lies and CIA propaganda, which is basically the same thing as denying the holocaust. Turned out he was just an ignorant dumbass who didn't understand what he was talking about. But still it's pretty disgusting, a man kills 70 million of his own people and there are idiots out there who prop him up as a hero they look up to.

Wow, you took your online douchebaggery and started to use it in real life situations.

[joe]

If Obama is a socialist he is the worst socialist in history.

Besides the CEOs of companies that took government bailouts, who has Obama wanted to place a salary cap on?

Obamacare is largely the same healthcare system that Mitt Romney passed, which was based on the healthcare proposal developed by the Heritage Foundation. It is not at all similar to nationalization. Basically people now have to buy insurance from the big insurance corporations, or pay a penalty. It eliminates free riders, its actually quite a conservative proposal. I seriously dont understand conservative opposition to Obamacare.

MavsSuperFan, love your posts, but this here is an example of people not understanding capitalism. I say that, because you called Obamacare a quite conservative proposal. I'm assuming by "conservative proposal," you mean it vibes with a free market mindset. Sorry if I am wrong about what you mean.

Government forcing people to buy insurance from a big insurance company is as far removed from free market capitalism as you can get. Being able to spend your money how you choose is a huge cog of capitalism, right next to the right to earn money for yourself and own property. It is not capitalism if you are being forced to buy something by government mandate.

It seems people confuse "private sector" with capitalism. Just because something happens in the private sector, does not make it free market based. We have many private banks, but all of them are backed up by a government central bank. While our banks are "private," they are not operating under a free market. It is a government market, filled with government distortions that have nothing to do with capitalism.

A truly free market in health care would mean government didn't do jack. No regulation, no licensing on doctors, no medicare, no medicaid, no government insurance of any kind. Looking at the word we live in objectively, we can all see that's not the case. Which is why I think it's funny when people claim rising health care costs is some natural by-product of our greedy capitalist world. If we actually had a greedy capitalist world in health care, prices would be way lower and we wouldn't be having these problems.

When it comes to Obama, I'm not saying he wanted to put a wealth cap on anyone. I've heard that from other people, including myself when I used to be a Democrat. Wasn't putting that one on Obama.

[Nick Young]

No, don't put this back on me buckwheat. You aren't getting away with that.

"Socialists, the people with the same ideologies as those guys responsible for all that government murder, are taking the moral high ground these days". That's what YOU said. Yet you don't know of any. That's no specific question, that's asking about the core reasoning behind you opinion. YOU say the socialists are taking the high ground. Where the **** are they? You have no idea, there is simply nothing there. Empty. Just like everything else you post.

So there you have it: the Insidehoops village idiot strikes again. Congratulations on reinforcing the very low opinion everybody here already had of you.
I'll give some examples:
Mr. Mao Zedong Che Beret Douche:wears the shirt of the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century, claims he's a hero and all of china loves him and all of Zedong's ideas were right and everything that went wrong was because the evil capitalist CIA.

So many Occupy idiots who were selling the Socialist Worker newspaper I interviewed while doing a university project: I went undercover pretending I agreed with these clowns and the more you agree with them the stupider shit they say.

Everyone associated with the Socialist Worker.

Everyone in my university's Socialist Society.

I walked into their meeting a few minutes later after the Mao lover went in, I was planning on trolling in real life, but they were just sitting in a circle all hunched over, about 30 people, talking about starting a revolution in England, made me realize they are all just crazies, so I left.

I've met some intelligent people who claim to be socialists but they are often times extremely hypocritical, and completely lacking in common sense. And when confronted with the ugly side of their heroes they try to deny it or justify it. For example one guys hyping up Lenin, I bring up the Red Terror, he starts yelling about the White terror, dismissing the deathcount, saying the CIA propaganda made it up, then he starts yelling about Bush killing millions to try to get at me, I say I never voted for Bush etc etc

[Nick Young]

Wow, you took your online douchebaggery and started to use it in real life situations.
Used it for the forces of good this time, this guy was basically a holocaust denier and semi-retarded, hopefully he'll do some research and burn his Mao shirt.

[LJJ]

Obama acting like his socialist ideas are morally superior does not make him equal to Mao, at all. That's not the contextual meaning to my original post, that's you twisting words around.

Me, twisting your words around? Nope.

That is your original post bub. First you are saying socialists are taking the moral high ground, with whom you clearly meant Obama and most of the other Dems. Who are not socialists at all by the way, this is you completely misunderstanding what socialism means.

And then you pull the post together by saying the socialists were responsible for the great government democides of the 20th century. As if the people you refer to first have anything to do with those guys in any way, even at their most core ideals.

Those are the connections you made. You posted that. It has nothing to do with me misunderstanding your post. I understand exactly who you were referring to in your original post, which is why I reacted the way I did. I gave you a fair chance to save face, but nope. You only fell deeper into the hole.

Now go look up for one second what socialism is. Look up for one second what Mao and Stalin's ideals and policies were and look up for one second how little to do with Obama this has. Note: this is not even me defending Obama. Not a fan of his politics at all, but he is also not to be put anywhere near the likes of Stalin like you do. Educate yourself, or better: let some people with legitimate average intelligence educate you for a while. Because this self-educating thing has clearly took a wrong turn for you. You have no idea what you are reading and hearing most of the time.

[KevinNYC]

Mao was horrible when he died China was a third world shit hole. China's recent rise is due to Deng Xiaoping and the capitalist reforms he initiated, like his special economic zones. The only place where you can argue Mao's greatness was from a military perspective. Outside of wars Mao was an incompetent leader.

Mao was also extremely stubborn and selfish, because of collectivization ideals he initiated programs that he knew were resulting in mass starvations (purely man made, in a country China's size with its established thousands of years worth of agricultural expertise, droughts can't explain wide scale famine) and refused to change his failing policies because of his commitment to what he believed to be socialism and his refusal to admit he was wrong. He denounced and removed anyone that objected and basically left the Chinese government with him and gutless yes men who were too scared to tell Mao the truth.

China is about the size of America, droughts can affect a few provinces, but in a country that size you would just shift surplus production from other areas during normal times. Mao put pressure on the communes he created, these communes boasted of ridiculously high yields, they were taxed at these inflated figures, all objections were crushed and people starved quietly in their communes, while local militia made sure everyone kept silent. Mao knew what was going on, he didn't want to admit his collectivized farming system was causing mass starvation of by some estimates 70 million people.

Mao was also kind of stupid in a lot of ways. He initiated his small steel program where he encouraged local communes to make steel smelters in their neighbourhoods, to produce steel. For some reason Mao thought he could catch up to US steel production like this. The result, whole forests destroyed for firewood to melt metal, low quality steel that was unusable, and worst of all the program took farmers out of the field where they were most needed.

By about 1966 people had finally realized what a fool Mao was, and he lost a lot of power within the government. Capitalist reforms were happening. Mao being selfish held on to absolute power by initiating the Cultural Revolution. Basically destroying a whole generation, and every competent person in the government was removed and replaced by Mao's lackeys. Mao was one of the worst political leaders of the 20th century, he held China back greatly for about 3 and a half decades. At the time of his death China was undeveloped and weak. Mao's only competence was military leadership, specifically guerilla warfare.

Great post. You're kicking ass in this thread. However, America is only the size of China when you include Alaska and we don't grow much food in Alaska.

[MavsSuperFan]

MavsSuperFan, love your posts, but this here is an example of people not understanding capitalism. I say that, because you called Obamacare a quite conservative proposal. I'm assuming by "conservative proposal," you mean it vibes with a free market mindset. Sorry if I am wrong about what you mean.

Government forcing people to buy insurance from a big insurance company is as far removed from free market capitalism as you can get. Being able to spend your money how you choose is a huge cog of capitalism, right next to the right to earn money for yourself and own property. It is not capitalism if you are being forced to buy something by government mandate.

It seems people confuse "private sector" with capitalism. Just because something happens in the private sector, does not make it free market based. We have many private banks, but all of them are backed up by a government central bank. While our banks are "private," they are not operating under a free market. It is a government market, filled with government distortions that have nothing to do with capitalism.

A truly free market in health care would mean government didn't do jack. No regulation, no licensing on doctors, no medicare, no medicaid, no government insurance of any kind. Looking at the word we live in objectively, we can all see that's not the case. Which is why I think it's funny when people claim rising health care costs is some natural by-product of our greedy capitalist world. If we actually had a greedy capitalist world in health care, prices would be way lower and we wouldn't be having these problems.

When it comes to Obama, I'm not saying he wanted to put a wealth cap on anyone. I've heard that from other people, including myself when I used to be a Democrat. Wasn't putting that one on Obama.

First thank you I enjoy your posts too

I just meant that it was conservative in the sense that it promoted personal responsibility. We have never lived in a country where the grievously wounded don't receive treatment. If you show up to an emergency room you will receive treatment, this creates a free rider problem that Obamacare fixes.

Unfortunately I believe the reality of 40-50 million uninsured proves that if government doesn't step in some people wont be able to afford insurance. This number would be much higher if elderly who relied on medicare and the poor who rely on medicaid were included. I just don't think its right to abandon these people. Medicare and medicaid are examples of incorporating social justice into our capitalist economy and are working overall quite nicely imo, at the very least it is preferable to the alternative.

I disagree with you that unregulating the healthcare industry would reduce costs. I think a lot of the cost increases in our healthcare system is due to the profit incentive, collusion/mergers among insurance providers and lobbying of the government. Many countries have significantly lower costs for access to the same level of care, and have much more regulated healthcare industries some even fully nationalized. I believe Japan is a great example of this.

Canada is a country where many American's are willing to ride a bus for hours to go to to buy the same American made drugs for a fraction of the cost. I had previously read an article that attributed the price difference chiefly to the effective lobbying of congress by the drug manufacturers. Canada's parliment negotiated significantly lower prices than congress and further congress has forbid importing Canadian priced drugs by insurance providers.

Its not that I think big pharma is evil, just that they are self interested as are all humans. The seek to maximize profits, which often equates cost cutting, which equals minimizing healthcare provided. When it comes to healthcare government intervention doesn't offend me nearly as much as it would if the government intervened in say the soda industry. My friend's daughter was born with a health condition that makes it unlikely for her to get on an insurance plan if the government didn't intervene. In cases like that the insurance company would have to act totally against their rational self interest to provide care for her.

[Overdrive]

I would consider myself left-minded, but I hate communism, sozialism and anarchy. I just think they're stupid unfullfilable ideals that eventually lead to dictatorship, but so can any socio-political "ism". Ism just means that it's the extreme form.

People wearing shirts of Ch

[Derka]

Those are revolutionary communist leaders.

[Nick Young]

Those are revolutionary communist leaders.
They are socialist leaders. And why does every socialist revolution lead to massive death counts the likes of which history has never seen?

[JtotheIzzo]

Mao Zedong:49-78 million
Jozef Stalin: 23 million
Pol Pot: 1.7 million
Kim Il Sung: 1.6 million
Ho Chi Minh: 200,000
Fidel Castro and Che Guevera: 50,000


A kid in my uni was wearing a Che beret and a Mao Zedong shirt. Got into a huge argument with him by telling him wearing a Mao shirt was worse than wearing a Hitler shirt, he denied all of the deaths Mao is responsible for saying it is lies and CIA propaganda, which is basically the same thing as denying the holocaust. Turned out he was just an ignorant dumbass who didn't understand what he was talking about. But still it's pretty disgusting, a man kills 70 million of his own people and there are idiots out there who prop him up as a hero they look up to.

Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan also had socialist style governments (not communist like the ones you posted) that helped bring their countries from poverty to being some of the richest on the planet in 2 generations.
Direct government intervention in the business sector and government owned monopolies spurred their unparalleled growth.

Why do you only focus on extreme communist examples who lead by force and propped themselves up with massive cult of personalities

Agenda?

[Derka]

They are socialist leaders. And why does every socialist revolution lead to massive death counts the likes of which history has never seen?

Has a lot less to do with socialism and more to do with the personalities you're talking about. You're on some "post hoc ergo propter hoc" shit right now. I'm no fan of socialism by any means, but focusing on a selection of mass murderers and painting all socialists in that light is a non-starter for me.

[Nick Young]

Has a lot less to do with socialism and more to do with the personalities you're talking about. You're on some "post hoc ergo propter hoc" shit right now. I'm no fan of socialism by any means, but focusing on a selection of mass murderers and painting all socialists in that light is a non-starter for me.
Why are socialist leaders responsible for the biggest crimes against humanity in human history? Is it just a coincidence that in these socialist revolutions a mass murdering psychopath always winds up at the top of it? How come that same thing keeps happening over and over? It's just a big coincidence right?

I'm just looking at history and finding things that correlate.

[Balla_Status]

I just find the black and white logic annoying. People don't realize that some things are socialist driven systems - such as the public school system and healthcare systems (depending where you live). Being a capitalist country doesn't mean every institution is a capitalist driven venture.

And why are you doing a death poll? Do you really think oil companies are not destroying peoples homes and contaminating their water sources? Saying all attempts at socialism is bad is the same as saying all attempts of capitalism are good. Do you really think the privatization of prisons and the overabundance of contracts going towards private weapons contractors are good things? They're capitalist, so they must be right?

Yet there is zero proof of this (in regards to fracing).

[joe]

Its not that I think big pharma is evil, just that they are self interested as are all humans. The seek to maximize profits, which often equates cost cutting, which equals minimizing healthcare provided.


You say that all humans are self-interested, and only look to maximize profits. Fine. But isn't the government also made up of humans? Wouldn't the regulators themselves be self-interested, only looking to maximize profits? The people who work for government are not higher forms of life, they are humans just like us.

But yet, there's a stark difference between a government and a private business. While both may be self-interested and greedy, only government can force you to do what it wants. Only government can write a law, and have you arrested if you don't follow it. The private business in a free market has no such power.

A private businessman may be greedy, but in order to become rich, he needs to become a selfless little angel. He needs to figure out what people want, figure out a way to deliver it to them at an affordable price, and be efficient enough to make a profit for himself. His intentions may be dark and greedy, but his actions can never match those intentions. His actions must be directed at satisfying consumers on the market. In essence, the private businessman is a slave to the demands of complete strangers.

But the same greedy person, in government, has no need to think of others. He can pass a law, extract tax money to pay for it, and stack the deck in his own favor with the stroke of a pen. As Paul Begala once said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." No Paul Begala, it's not very cool.

You mentioned prices rising due to corporations lobbying the government. I agree, but what do they lobby for? They lobby for regulators to pass even more regulations. This seems ass-backwards compared to most peoples imaginations about government- that regulations are always meant to clamp down on corporate greed. The truth is, the regulations actually HELP big pharma, and screw the little guy. But we're meant to believe the FDA is there to protect us. Maybe at some time, or in some areas it is.. but if you could get into the mind of the President of the biggest pill company, I guarantee you he'd crap his pants at the thought of the FDA being dismembered. The big guys LOVE regulation agencies. They use it to their advantage, they use the power of government, to screw over the rest of us. These guys don't want a free-market, they are doing fine in the government market. The thought of having to actually compete in a free market scares them to death. Ironic, because most Dems think the free market is what allows these companies to screw us over. It's the opposite.

Anyway, got off the track there a bit. But to me, health care is no different than anything else. In the free market, there would be fierce competition to serve the will of consumers, and in the government market you get.... this. Wicked high prices, weird rules, millions of people who can't afford insurance. Notice that there's not many people who want shoes, but can't get shoes. Not many people who want a chess set, but can't get a chess set. But in the places where government interferes the most- health care, education, banking- we have all this distress. Not a coincidence as far as I'm concerned!

Or put it another way. If tomorrow the government started handing out insurance to buy pencils, three days from now pencils would become super expensive and hard to find. Then the government would be saying, we need to pass Pencil reform to solve this crisis! The government creates problems by intervening, then presents itself as the cure. That's Obamacare in a nutshell.

[Jailblazers7]

I'm just not sure how a free market healthcare system would deal with the free-rider problem. I know private charity could provide some with healthcare but at some point society would just have to come to terms with the fact that some people can't afford it and basically just allow them to die.

After all, social security came about because the poverty rate for the elderly in the US was insanely high and welfare was insanely low for the elderly population. People wanted to do something about it and social security was created. Poverty is a social cost afterall and people are negatively affected by it but it is an externality type issue.

But I've made it clear before that I don't believe all markets operate efficiently so there is a clear difference between me and joe even if I do agree with his basic philosophical principals.

[MavsSuperFan]

You say that all humans are self-interested, and only look to maximize profits. Fine. But isn't the government also made up of humans? Wouldn't the regulators themselves be self-interested, only looking to maximize profits? The people who work for government are not higher forms of life, they are humans just like us.

But yet, there's a stark difference between a government and a private business. While both may be self-interested and greedy, only government can force you to do what it wants. Only government can write a law, and have you arrested if you don't follow it. The private business in a free market has no such power.

A private businessman may be greedy, but in order to become rich, he needs to become a selfless little angel. He needs to figure out what people want, figure out a way to deliver it to them at an affordable price, and be efficient enough to make a profit for himself. His intentions may be dark and greedy, but his actions can never match those intentions. His actions must be directed at satisfying consumers on the market. In essence, the private businessman is a slave to the demands of complete strangers.

But the same greedy person, in government, has no need to think of others. He can pass a law, extract tax money to pay for it, and stack the deck in his own favor with the stroke of a pen. As Paul Begala once said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." No Paul Begala, it's not very cool.

You mentioned prices rising due to corporations lobbying the government. I agree, but what do they lobby for? They lobby for regulators to pass even more regulations. This seems ass-backwards compared to most peoples imaginations about government- that regulations are always meant to clamp down on corporate greed. The truth is, the regulations actually HELP big pharma, and screw the little guy. But we're meant to believe the FDA is there to protect us. Maybe at some time, or in some areas it is.. but if you could get into the mind of the President of the biggest pill company, I guarantee you he'd crap his pants at the thought of the FDA being dismembered. The big guys LOVE regulation agencies. They use it to their advantage, they use the power of government, to screw over the rest of us. These guys don't want a free-market, they are doing fine in the government market. The thought of having to actually compete in a free market scares them to death. Ironic, because most Dems think the free market is what allows these companies to screw us over. It's the opposite.

Anyway, got off the track there a bit. But to me, health care is no different than anything else. In the free market, there would be fierce competition to serve the will of consumers, and in the government market you get.... this. Wicked high prices, weird rules, millions of people who can't afford insurance. Notice that there's not many people who want shoes, but can't get shoes. Not many people who want a chess set, but can't get a chess set. But in the places where government interferes the most- health care, education, banking- we have all this distress. Not a coincidence as far as I'm concerned!

Or put it another way. If tomorrow the government started handing out insurance to buy pencils, three days from now pencils would become super expensive and hard to find. Then the government would be saying, we need to pass Pencil reform to solve this crisis! The government creates problems by intervening, then presents itself as the cure. That's Obamacare in a nutshell.

I think the free market works for 99.9% of industries, almost everyone in the world believes in some form of free markets, only countries like north korea have planned economies nowadays. On the other hand I think history has shown that regulations are needed, the debate is to the extent. Since we both accept that the final goal of all humans is utility maximization, I just want to point out that in a lot of cases bring the best/safest version of an item to market isnt always in a companies economic best interest. Government regulation is sometimes needed to force these companies to make improvements, when market incentives fail to do so. (Eg. Airbags in cars)

When it comes to healthcare, the market pricing mechanism will result in prohibitively high prices for most people. For stuff like shoes and soda there is a price at which you wouldn't buy, and for big luxury items like sports cars, no one is going to die without a sports car. There is almost no limit i would pay for a drug that saved my life or prolonged it.

Regulations have made this country great imo, cars are safer, food is safer, etc. I understand sometimes regulations increase cost, but thats when we do a cost benefit analysis to determine if the increased benefit of the regulation is worth the additional cost. I'm not going to say regulations are always good, but I dont accept that they are always a negative.

I think you are overestimating how competitive firms are with each other. Often the theory works out and the free market results in the best product at the lowest price, but in a lot of cases independent competitors will realize they are better off colluding and earning duopoly profits instead of perfectly competitive profits. In an industry like the healthcare industry with its high barriers to entry, and high minimally efficient scale I think a perfectly competitive industry is unlikely. We don't need more regulation in the healthcare industry we need better regulation. There are many countries in the world that achieve better health outcomes than the US with better regulation, but I can't think of any nation that achieves good health care results through no regulation.

[joe]

I think the free market works for 99.9% of industries, almost everyone in the world believes in some form of free markets, only countries like north korea have planned economies nowadays. On the other hand I think history has shown that regulations are needed, the debate is to the extent. Since we both accept that the final goal of all humans is utility maximization, I just want to point out that in a lot of cases bring the best/safest version of an item to market isnt always in a companies economic best interest. Government regulation is sometimes needed to force these companies to make improvements, when market incentives fail to do so. (Eg. Airbags in cars)

When it comes to healthcare, the market pricing mechanism will result in prohibitively high prices for most people. For stuff like shoes and soda there is a price at which you wouldn't buy, and for big luxury items like sports cars, no one is going to die without a sports car. There is almost no limit i would pay for a drug that saved my life or prolonged it.

Regulations have made this country great imo, cars are safer, food is safer, etc. I understand sometimes regulations increase cost, but thats when we do a cost benefit analysis to determine if the increased benefit of the regulation is worth the additional cost. I'm not going to say regulations are always good, but I dont accept that they are always a negative.

I think you are overestimating how competitive firms are with each other. Often the theory works out and the free market results in the best product at the lowest price, but in a lot of cases independent competitors will realize they are better off colluding and earning duopoly profits instead of perfectly competitive profits. In an industry like the healthcare industry with its high barriers to entry, and high minimally efficient scale I think a perfectly competitive industry is unlikely. We don't need more regulation in the healthcare industry we need better regulation. There are many countries in the world that achieve better health outcomes than the US with better regulation, but I can't think of any nation that achieves good health care results through no regulation.



When it comes to healthcare, the market pricing mechanism will result in prohibitively high prices for most people. For stuff like shoes and soda there is a price at which you wouldn't buy, and for big luxury items like sports cars, no one is going to die without a sports car. There is almost no limit i would pay for a drug that saved my life or prolonged it.


So what you're saying is, the health care industry is special in that customers need their services. Without health care they would die, therefore businesses have too much leverage and will raise prices to gauge consumers. Therefore, we need regulation to level the playing field.

I have a few objections to this. The first is, health care is not the only industry that provides a life-or-death service. People need to eat, or else they'll die- but agriculture prices aren't skyrocketing like they are in health care. And according to my quick google search, we spend far more on health care (2.6 trillion in 2010) than we do on agriculture subsidies (150 billion in 2012).

Gasoline may not seem as important as health care, but it's not hyperbole to say our entire society is built on gasoline. It would seem Exxon could really be gouging us at the pump, since without gasoline, entire cities would be shut down. Yet the price of gasoline has not risen much faster than inflation, if at all. And emerging markets would certainly account for some of any rise we've seen.

There actually is a limit on how much you'd be willing to pay for a drug that could save your life. The limit is, how much money is in your bank account. Health companies couldn't just charge 1million dollars for aspirin under a free market; at a certain point, the prices would simply be too high. People cannot pay what they can not afford. To make a profit, businesses would have to keep prices down. The guy who can provide surgery for $1,000 is going to get more business than the guy who charges $2,000.

To me, I have no fear of companies colluding to raise prices. The idea of it happening in a free market seems pretty far fetched. If two companies colluded and raised prices, they are just leaving the door open for a competitor. If it's truly possible to charge lower prices-which it clearly is or else colluding would be unnecessary- than a competitor should be able to carve his way into the market. At this point we're told the duopolists would engage in predatory pricing, but in fact, predatory pricing theory has actually been disregarded by many economists. If you look at the history it has almost never happened, and when it has, its rarely successful- if ever. Apparently, the losses accrued during the predatory pricing phase outweigh the gains you make once you raise them back up. This is also why I have no fear of monopolies and think anti-trust law should be taken off the books. In practice, monopolies have no ability to strangle a market and anti-trust law ends up just interfering in perfectly health markets.

You mention the high barrier to entry in health care, but the biggest barrier to entry there is government! Licensing requirements, regulation costs, drug testing costs, taxes, zoning restrictions, copyright restrictions, tort lawsuits, college subsidies driving up the cost of medical school tuition. If all of those government roadblocks weren't in place, it'd be much easier (and cheaper) to open a health care facility.

I bet you'd see more specialists. Just imagine without all of those roadblocks, I could spend all my free time learning about arm fractures, save up some money for an X-ray machine, and VOILA- I have my own broken arm business! Just imagine how low my prices would be- I'd only need to charge enough to pay for the cast material, and some for profit. But could you fathom trying that today? I couldn't legally operate such a business without 8+ years of expensive college. I would have to own an approved hospital/office instead of just working out of my home. How is that good for the health care industry?

But in that case, couldn't any whack-o just open a business and claim to be a doctor? Sure, but would they be successful? Maybe they'd sucker in a few people at the start, but over time quality will win out. And just because there's no government around to certify people, don't think nobody else will step up to the plate. Just like we have private movie review companies, there would be private doctor review companies. Just like there's private companies that rate cars, there would be private companies to rate doctors. I can already see "Doctorreview.com" being a popular google search.

Anyway, it's really interesting to think about both sides of the argument. I'm definitely not trying to say the free market is perfect, just that my mind has anointed it the best idea its heard yet economically speaking ;). And I'm not sure what it says about me that debates like this are one of my favorite activities, but hey, nothing wrong with a good internet tussle o:).

[kNIOKAS]

^^ In the case of healthcare, the cost of mistake becomes the cost of life. Would you be OK with your relatives dying because somebody ran a half-assed surgery procedure? Just don't leave him a tip that time, right?

For a free market model to be successful the instant and correct feedback is mandatory. Yet, there are not many things that show the results instantly and clearly. For example, eating unhealthy food will result in you being ill way after the food chained has packed and moved elsewhere.

What you saying functions under the operational conditioning rationale: the feedback mediates the action. Yet, you should know, that in real life the instant and correct feedback is rarely possible. That's why I call BS on a free market healthcare or any other shenenigans of sort.

[joe]

^^ In the case of healthcare, the cost of mistake becomes the cost of life. Would you be OK with your relatives dying because somebody ran a half-assed surgery procedure? Just don't leave him a tip that time, right?

For a free market model to be successful the instant and correct feedback is mandatory. Yet, there are not many things that show the results instantly and clearly. For example, eating unhealthy food will result in you being ill way after the food chained has packed and moved elsewhere.

What you saying functions under the operational conditioning rationale: the feedback mediates the action. Yet, you should know, that in real life the instant and correct feedback is rarely possible. That's why I call BS on a free market healthcare or any other shenenigans of sort.

First of all, people should be allowed to have their own risk tolerance. If someone wants to get surgery from a less-proven doctor to save some money, to me that is their business. Just like some people are willing to skydive or jump across the tops of tall buildings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNN5rbpgO0c) (Seriously, these people are nuts!). I would never do that. But some people are willing to take that risk. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for it when one of them breaks their leg.

Second of all, how does government do anything to fix this "correct and instant feedback" problem you describe? Can the government magically tell which doctors are perfect, and weed out the rest? Can the regulators look deep into the soul of potential doctors, George Bush style, and see that they will never accidentally kill someone during surgery? No. They are only people, just like us. They are not gifted with some special ability. Poisonous pills still make it to the market. People still die due to doctor error.

There is no way, under any system, to get perfect and instant feedback. But the market is a much more thorough regulator than government. Just ask yourself this: If you knew the government wasn't regulating health care, and you needed life-or-death surgery, what would you do? Would you just walk up to any schmo offering $5 heart surgery and lay down under his rusty knife? Of course not. You would shop around and find a doctor you trusted, because it's your life on the line. I expect you to be more thorough in providing for your own health and safety than the government could ever be.

[Charlie Sheen]

Just ask yourself this: If you knew the government wasn't regulating health care, and you needed life-or-death surgery, what would you do? Would you just walk up to any schmo offering $5 heart surgery and lay down under his rusty knife? Of course not. You would shop around and find a doctor you trusted, because it's your life on the line. I expect you to be more thorough in providing for your own health and safety than the government could ever be.

just ask yourself this: how did you make decisions u needed life or death surgery. i dont have my own resources or knowledge to make that decision. do u? this isnt buying a car. i want somethin better than testimony from my neighbor and uncle when i need a doctor. how do u tackle the problem of emergency medicine in the free market? i dont have a choice...location tells me where i go for treatment. the hell u gonna find doctors to work in this country?

[joe]

just ask yourself this: how did you make decisions u needed life or death surgery. i dont have my own resources or knowledge to make that decision. do u? this isnt buying a car. i want somethin better than testimony from my neighbor and uncle when i need a doctor. how do u tackle the problem of emergency medicine in the free market? i dont have a choice...location tells me where i go for treatment. the hell u gonna find doctors to work in this country?

So, being the greedy human I am, I will open a doctor accreditation company. I'm sure many others will too. We will give degrees that guarantee the doctor is good at his job. Doctors will pay US to inspect them, because there is a market for doctors that are accredited by prestigious rating firms. As your post has proven.

Sadly I have to go to work. Wish I could get to the rest!

Moreover, how'd you get your current doctor? Did you select him because he has a degree on his wall and is regulated? Maybe at first, but in time you learned to trust him just based on your interactions with him. The ratings of your friends and family. Your experiences with him versus other doctors. The government may certify doctors, but after that their reputation is up to them. The free market just removes all the barriers to entry and gets right to the "market judging them" part.

[Charlie Sheen]

So, being the greedy human I am, I will open a doctor accreditation company. I'm sure many others will too. We will give degrees that guarantee the doctor is good at his job. Doctors will pay US to inspect them, because there is a market for doctors that are accredited by prestigious rating firms. As your post has proven.

Sadly I have to go to work. Wish I could get to the rest!


u want to eliminate the standard and replace it by treating professional rep as a commodity to be bought and sold. u dont see the problem there?