Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Angra Mainyu]

Yeah, it's to continue the economic growth and prevent unemployment.

Road would have to be built with government money. The ghost cities are being done privately--because Beijing tells the banks to write the loans, period.

Why can't they do the same with roads?

Note what I said about government vs private money.

Why would private money invest in roads?

Why would privave money invest in ghost cities?
If no one buys the things they build - because they are ghost cities -, then it seems to me there is no reason other than the money they get from the loans, or else the government is actually buying the ghost cities, or someone is getting a cut somewhere. But whatever the reason, it seems to me it could as well apply to roads.
In other words, the difference between investing in roads and cities would be that some private individuals would buy the buildings, houses, etc., in the cities (leaving aside, e.g., a concession to make money out of the road, but I'm leaving that aside because these would probably be low-traffic roads). But if that's not happening anyway (because those are ghost cities), and furthermore, those are predicted to be ghost cities (i.e., no poor planning), that difference disappears. Why do you think private investors will prefer to invest in ghost cities over roads? (i.e., how is that better for them?).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ghost towns can be a lucrative tourist business.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Note what I said about government vs private money.

Why would private money invest in roads?

Why would privave money invest in ghost cities?
If no one buys the things they build - because they are ghost cities -, then it seems to me there is no reason other than the money they get from the loans, or else the government is actually buying the ghost cities, or someone is getting a cut somewhere. But whatever the reason, it seems to me it could as well apply to roads.
In other words, the difference between investing in roads and cities would be that some private individuals would buy the buildings, houses, etc., in the cities (leaving aside, e.g., a concession to make money out of the road, but I'm leaving that aside because these would probably be low-traffic roads). But if that's not happening anyway (because those are ghost cities), and furthermore, those are predicted to be ghost cities (i.e., no poor planning), that difference disappears. Why do you think private investors will prefer to invest in ghost cities over roads? (i.e., how is that better for them?).

Anybody remember the Alaskan Bridges to Nowhere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would private money invest in roads?

A lot of roads are initially developed (which is an investment) by private industry. Various kinds of permits etc are needed to do it. A whole neighborhood may be built up with such new roads or a whole commercial business area with such new roads and then made for sale to various persons. Such venture are often collective by a corporation where multiple owners benefit. Sometimes, the initial property was public property being sold for the purpose and sometimes it's private real estate being sold. The short answer to your question of why such money would be invested in roads by a collective real estate group might be profit, unless they're some other kind of collective, non-profit group interested in building a college or other multi-building, multi-road complex.

The roads would be a small % of the cost of the buildings they were serving.

 

[arkirk]

Why would private money invest in roads?

A lot of roads are initially developed (which is an investment) by private industry. Various kinds of permits etc are needed to do it. A whole neighborhood may be built up with such new roads or a whole commercial business area with such new roads and then made for sale to various persons. Such venture are often collective by a corporation where multiple owners benefit. Sometimes, the initial property was public property being sold for the purpose and sometimes it's private real estate being sold. The short answer to your question of why such money would be invested in roads by a collective real estate group might be profit, unless they're some other kind of collective, non-profit group interested in building a college or other multi-building, multi-road complex.

The roads would be a small % of the cost of the buildings they were serving.

Or...the investors don't mind losing their investment. Loren: You're posting today from a desert community. Many roads and even water lines were laid in barren desert tracts in California and Nevada in conjunction with big real estate advertisng of the cheap property. California City is a prime example of a waste of money. Democratic socialism only builds what the people need if it is not corrupted by tricky speculators like Trump...should be dubbed the bankruptcy president.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Perhaps some of these communities wouldn't have been built in the first place were it not for government distortions in the economy. A great deal of Southern California would be far less settled were it not for all of the laying of roads, water, etc.

When the government subsidizes building up an area, it is tough to use that area as an example of why government is needed for the area.

 

[arkirk]

When you are born, you are doomed to die at some point in your future. Using the logic built into this thread by the socialism doomers, all human life is a failure. All lives are terminated with some final calamity. So is life therefore not worth living...just because at some point it will end. Socialism, especially if it is democratic and humanistic is good for people as long as it lasts. When it ends (fails), that too is in no way a justification for not living a new life. It amazes me how gross cynicism seems to rule some of us when it comes to governance. Large populations require governance. Democratic social governance has the best chance of being successful for the longest period. Trump and his crooked "bought" presidency threatening peoples' livelihoods, threatening nations with "fire and fury",advocating polluting industries of the world rule the world is a good demonstration of what happens when narcissistic capitalists seize the reigns of government, whip it into a war frenzy, and hurt its poor and old people. How can we sit here and rag on "socialism" when we are being destroyed by the capitalists?

 

[coloradoatheist]

When you are born, you are doomed to die at some point in your future. Using the logic built into this thread by the socialism doomers, all human life is a failure. All lives are terminated with some final calamity. So is life therefore not worth living...just because at some point it will end. Socialism, especially if it is democratic and humanistic is good for people as long as it lasts. When it ends (fails), that too is in no way a justification for not living a new life. It amazes me how gross cynicism seems to rule some of us when it comes to governance. Large populations require governance. Democratic social governance has the best chance of being successful for the longest period. Trump and his crooked "bought" presidency threatening peoples' livelihoods, threatening nations with "fire and fury",advocating polluting industries of the world rule the world is a good demonstration of what happens when narcissistic capitalists seize the reigns of government, whip it into a war frenzy, and hurt its poor and old people. How can we sit here and rag on "socialism" when we are being destroyed by the capitalists?

It's an interesting question with regard to a country's belief system. Nazisms died after 12 years, Russian communism after about 60. We're approaching now our 90 years of modern socialism in the US, so we'll see if survives several generations and its long term impacts.

 

[arkirk]

When you are born, you are doomed to die at some point in your future. Using the logic built into this thread by the socialism doomers, all human life is a failure. All lives are terminated with some final calamity. So is life therefore not worth living...just because at some point it will end. Socialism, especially if it is democratic and humanistic is good for people as long as it lasts. When it ends (fails), that too is in no way a justification for not living a new life. It amazes me how gross cynicism seems to rule some of us when it comes to governance. Large populations require governance. Democratic social governance has the best chance of being successful for the longest period. Trump and his crooked "bought" presidency threatening peoples' livelihoods, threatening nations with "fire and fury",advocating polluting industries of the world rule the world is a good demonstration of what happens when narcissistic capitalists seize the reigns of government, whip it into a war frenzy, and hurt its poor and old people. How can we sit here and rag on "socialism" when we are being destroyed by the capitalists?

It's an interesting question with regard to a country's belief system. Nazisms died after 12 years, Russian communism after about 60. We're approaching now our 90 years of modern socialism in the US, so we'll see if survives several generations and its long term impacts.

All government is socialism. It is mostly a matter of who is considered a citizen. Even the most devout capitalist goes to government begging for these roads and subsidies. The average citizen gets cut off from significance and even being allowed to vote by the buyers of government in the capitalist system. It is really just a distorted form of socialism for the rich. So what you are crowing about is a system that produces the Koch Bros., and assholes like Trump and pushes them into high places. So what if this evil form of government has lasted a long time? It now has somebody at the helm intent on destroying it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

When you are born, you are doomed to die at some point in your future. Using the logic built into this thread by the socialism doomers, all human life is a failure. All lives are terminated with some final calamity. So is life therefore not worth living...just because at some point it will end. Socialism, especially if it is democratic and humanistic is good for people as long as it lasts. When it ends (fails), that too is in no way a justification for not living a new life. It amazes me how gross cynicism seems to rule some of us when it comes to governance. Large populations require governance. Democratic social governance has the best chance of being successful for the longest period. Trump and his crooked "bought" presidency threatening peoples' livelihoods, threatening nations with "fire and fury",advocating polluting industries of the world rule the world is a good demonstration of what happens when narcissistic capitalists seize the reigns of government, whip it into a war frenzy, and hurt its poor and old people. How can we sit here and rag on "socialism" when we are being destroyed by the capitalists?

It's an interesting question with regard to a country's belief system. Nazisms died after 12 years, Russian communism after about 60. We're approaching now our 90 years of modern socialism in the US, so we'll see if survives several generations and its long term impacts.

All government is socialism. It is mostly a matter of who is considered a citizen. Even the most devout capitalist goes to government begging for these roads and subsidies. The average citizen gets cut off from significance and even being allowed to vote by the buyers of government in the capitalist system. It is really just a distorted form of socialism for the rich. So what you are crowing about is a system that produces the Koch Bros., and assholes like Trump and pushes them into high places. So what if this evil form of government has lasted a long time? It now has somebody at the helm intent on destroying it.

But if all govt is just socialism than you would have to make the argument that all governments are the same then. So how do you compare the differences between the US government and Nazi Germany then?

The designers of the government did fear people like Trump and tried to put in mechanisms to control their power.

 

[Underseer]

Arbitrarily calling things socialist will not justify implementing fascism.

Even if the things you were complaining about actually were socialism, history shows that fascism fails much faster than socialism.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am sorry for your loss.

 

[arkirk]

All government is socialism. It is mostly a matter of who is considered a citizen. Even the most devout capitalist goes to government begging for these roads and subsidies. The average citizen gets cut off from significance and even being allowed to vote by the buyers of government in the capitalist system. It is really just a distorted form of socialism for the rich. So what you are crowing about is a system that produces the Koch Bros., and assholes like Trump and pushes them into high places. So what if this evil form of government has lasted a long time? It now has somebody at the helm intent on destroying it.

But if all govt is just socialism than you would have to make the argument that all governments are the same then. So how do you compare the differences between the US government and Nazi Germany then?

The designers of the government did fear people like Trump and tried to put in mechanisms to control their power.

Corporate Democrats like to say that Trump rode to power on a wave of "populism." That is pure bullshit. You can call me a Bernie Bro. if you want, but it is not a wave of populism he is riding now...it is a bad case of narcissism. For one man to abrogate our international agreement with Iran and the rest of the world single- handedly in defiance of all the other world powers...is that not the ultimate in stupid mental masturbation on the part of the orange headed bastard of history? He needs to be overturned on this one. He is a capitalist that loves to go for the jugular vein in his opponent. There is no interest in this man in fairness. He is a danger and that danger is palpable.

 

[RVonse]

For one man to abrogate our international agreement with Iran and the rest of the world single- handedly in defiance of all the other world powers...is that not the ultimate in stupid mental masturbation on the part of the orange headed bastard of history?

I don't know enough to say whether the Iran agreement was good or bad but I do know this. Obama did not get the normal consent of Congress when he crafted it in the first place. Which is why it was so easily overturned by Trump.

The areement was never a treaty in the first place.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know enough to say whether the Iran agreement was good or bad but I do know this. Obama did not get the normal consent of Congress when he crafted it in the first place. Which is why it was so easily overturned by Trump.

The areement was never a treaty in the first place.

You have to know if the agreement was good or bad to say whether Trump should have scrapped it.

Just because he can do something is not a reason he should do something.

One is either a mindless sycophant to capricious power.

Or one expects people elected to service positions to do the right thing.

 

[dismal]

Arbitrarily calling things socialist will not justify implementing fascism.

Even if the things you were complaining about actually were socialism, history shows that fascism fails much faster than socialism.

Many of us are quite content to use the dictionary definition of socialism: the state owns the means of production. Other nutty leftists here argue socialism means whatever they feel like it means.

 

[untermensche]

What is it when the government owns the insurance plan, like Social Security, if it isn't socialism?

 

[Harry Bosch]

All government is socialism. It is mostly a matter of who is considered a citizen. Even the most devout capitalist goes to government begging for these roads and subsidies. The average citizen gets cut off from significance and even being allowed to vote by the buyers of government in the capitalist system. It is really just a distorted form of socialism for the rich. So what you are crowing about is a system that produces the Koch Bros., and assholes like Trump and pushes them into high places. So what if this evil form of government has lasted a long time? It now has somebody at the helm intent on destroying it.

But if all govt is just socialism than you would have to make the argument that all governments are the same then. So how do you compare the differences between the US government and Nazi Germany then?

The designers of the government did fear people like Trump and tried to put in mechanisms to control their power.

Corporate Democrats like to say that Trump rode to power on a wave of "populism." That is pure bullshit. You can call me a Bernie Bro. if you want, but it is not a wave of populism he is riding now...it is a bad case of narcissism. For one man to abrogate our international agreement with Iran and the rest of the world single- handedly in defiance of all the other world powers...is that not the ultimate in stupid mental masturbation on the part of the orange headed bastard of history? He needs to be overturned on this one. He is a capitalist that loves to go for the jugular vein in his opponent. There is no interest in this man in fairness. He is a danger and that danger is palpable.

I'm confused. You were a Trump supporter. Or at least a Bernie Bro. Are you having some regret now??

 

[arkirk]

Corporate Democrats like to say that Trump rode to power on a wave of "populism." That is pure bullshit. You can call me a Bernie Bro. if you want, but it is not a wave of populism he is riding now...it is a bad case of narcissism. For one man to abrogate our international agreement with Iran and the rest of the world single- handedly in defiance of all the other world powers...is that not the ultimate in stupid mental masturbation on the part of the orange headed bastard of history? He needs to be overturned on this one. He is a capitalist that loves to go for the jugular vein in his opponent. There is no interest in this man in fairness. He is a danger and that danger is palpable.

I'm confused. You were a Trump supporter. Or at least a Bernie Bro. Are you having some regret now??

I NEVER WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER. There is nothing in common between Bernie and Trump. The only thing I regret is that Sanders or someone like him is not our president and instead we have a wild narcissistic wheeler dealer capitalist who is trying to make a war so he can remain president. Trump is only popular with racists and billionaires...who are sometimes the same people. He played to the ignorance of the voting public then moved in corporate robber baron types to dismantle anything in the way of these greedy ultra rich fuckers.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You mean...he doesn't care about...the forgotten man???