Are billionaires ripping us off, and could socialism actually be better?

[msc545]

[Effably]

Everyone has some socialism. If you pay taxes that goes into healthcare, defense, infrastructure or anything else? Congrats. You are part of socialism. You are a socialist. No society functions without it, yet at least. So literallt every country on earth is socialist.

Capitalism at its core is just the ability to own capital and have that right protected by, you guessed it, socialism. Capitalism by definition demands Socialism to exist to protect it.

There is nothing inherently evil in it but capitalism simply does not work without constant resets. That means things like inheritance is preventing capitalism from functioning. But abolish family and friendship and Capitalism could work.

If we are less idealistic and look at the practical part of it, economy is rather simple in capitalism. Spending money is good for everyone. Sitting on money is bad for everyone but you.
So if a billionaire is sitting on money without actively using it they are effectively just having the same impact as half a million people on welfare, US numbers. Per billion and person.
That said if they spend every dollar actively, owning stocks does not cover this, they do no real harm.

As of yet no billionaire does that so they are effectively just super welfare receivers with extra steps. Most people would probably consider that being ripped off if they looked into the math.

[Anonymous]

Yes and no.

There's NOTHING wrong with capitalism. Unchecked capitalism is a problem. Not everything should be for profit. Healthcare and Education in my estimation should not be for profit. Or at least not unregulated (and i don't mean the FDA) i simply mean the government has role to play. I'm generally all for the free market and agree with laissez-faire as much as the next guy. Until the free market has shown it's inability or unwillingness to regulate itself. And in many ways the healthcare system has proven that. However since it makes up such a large part of the economy now (18%), i know there is no political from are lawmakers to fix it. And in my opinion that is the only real role of the government as it pertains to the economy. As it says in the Constitution "to promote the general welfare". It doesn't say, "give the people welfare".

So to answer your question, no Capitalism is fine. But we've never lived in a completely capitalistic society. Some tinges of of our society has always had socialistic elements.

[msc545]

Capitalism taken alone may not actually be the problem, I agree. However, as you rightfully point out, unregulated capitalism is a terrible problem, and the United States is a prime example of that problem. We don't even have anti-trust laws anymore that get enforced.

[SolitarySolace]

No, the existence of billionaires does not mean they are automatically “ripping us off.” Wealth is often created by building companies, investing capital, developing products, creating jobs, and persuading people to buy something voluntarily. Anyone who commits fraud, exploits workers illegally, abuses monopoly power, or evades taxes should be held accountable—but guilt should be based on conduct, not simply on net worth.

And hell no, socialism is not “actually better.” Giving government or collective institutions greater control over property, businesses, investment, prices, wages, and production does not eliminate greed or concentrated power—it transfers more of that power to politicians and bureaucrats. Socialism weakens private ownership, competition, consumer choice, entrepreneurship, and the incentives that produce innovation and prosperity.

Capitalism is imperfect and requires laws against corruption, fraud, coercion, and anti-competitive behavior. But the answer to its flaws is reform and enforcement—not replacing economic freedom with a system that concentrates even more power in government hands.

[msc545]

Capitalism in the US has laws against corruption, fraud, coercion, and anti-competitive behavior. These laws are often selectively enforced and frequently not enforced at all.

[jshm2]

Billionaires are billionaires because they rip off and steal. But that's a separate matter from government

Socialism is a complex matter as it doesn't exist. There are varying forms of policies and institutions that can be socialist in action. But you'll never find absolute socialism.

For example your public roads and fire brigade are the result of socialist polices. Doesn't matter how "capitalist" you think a country might be, it must have a free fire brigade, and maintained public roads.

[slatyb]

Socialism? Never been tried. Social democracies like the Scandinavian countries are enjoying a higher quality of life than the capitalist United States. We frequently see people falsely claiming that the wealth of the billionaires could solve poverty or other social problems. This is not possible. The total wealth of the tech billionaires is about equal to the US war budget. We can either confiscate half their wealth, which can only be done once, or we could cut the war budget in half yielding the same amount every year in perpetuity.

[lilBigPotato]

Capitalism is ok to a certain degree, just as much as socialism is. But if you go all in on either, you'll have to make some sacrifice. As usual, a healthy mix is probably the best.

People need to realise that e. g. affordable education and healthcare are things everyone profits from, not just the poor. Many countries have figured that out and those who haven't will follow sooner or later.

[Effably]

Without being political about this free healthcare and education is proven to be among the best investments a country can make and pays for itself and then more on top.

This is why pretty much every country has and is adopting it. Would you like free healthcare and also 10% more money to spend in your budget? The question is that simple. Remove lobbying and the answer is equally simple.

So regardless of what mix is ideal making things that pay for themselves, by being free, free just makes sense.

[darkcloud1945]

@Effably That's what they said when they gave us that wonderful medical coverage for all Obamacare. A 100% increase in premium and a 60% reduction in services. Every time it comes up for funding, it costs a lot more than before, and fewer services are provided. When has anything improved when the government runs it?

[Effably]

Even the worst run examples you can find in the world cuts the costs in half compared to USA. Better run ones cut it in four. This is despite free access more than doubling visits since sick people actually go to the hospital.

So, pretty much every single time if we live in reality.

Not going to argue with you om someone else's post over something that has been proven 75 times over in 75 different countries and more every year. If you care to see the results there are 75++ case studies to look at. Every single one reduces costs and better health boosts productivity beyond the cost itself.

If you genuinely care about if it is good or not, it is very easy to confirm.

[darkcloud1945]

@Effably, just like Canada, their citizens come to the lower 48 for operations and services that they have to wait a year or more for in Canada, a great system that is government-run healthcare

[lilBigPotato]

@darkcloud1945 you're comparing apples with oranges. Obamacare isn't a healthcare system, it's just some regulation of the broken insurance market. A plaster at best.

In a decent universal healthcare system, there are no insurance premiums, deductibles or limitations in services. Everyone pays a small percentage of their salary (with a cap) and that's it. Nothing to worry about anymore. It doesn't matter if you just need a GP, specialist, surgery, ambulance, helicopter, hospitalisation... They are generally included. There is no network of doctors or hospitals you're limited to.
In my case here in Spain I pay 6% and that's it, nothing to worry about anymore. If I'm sick , I take sick leave, if I had an accident, I take an ambulance without worrying it will cripple me financially.

There are options for private insurance that builds on top of existing healthcare that gives you slightly lower waiting times for non critical appointments, single room in hospital and stuff like that and those are around 60€ per month, so still nothing crazy. And just to be clear, those 6% are social contributions, so not just healthcare, it also includes your pension or covers your paid sick leave etc.

I'm not saying everything is perfect. You can always find something to complain about. But it works, that's why so many countries have it.
You can do whatever you want in the US, it's your problem. But it's a fact that the US spends by far the most amount per person on healthcare, and in return has one of the lowest average life expectations compared to other Western countries.

If you have a specific idea on how to give almost 100% of the population affordable healthcare without involving the government, I'm curious.

[msc545]

@darkcloud1945, what do you think about health coverage now that Trump has supposedly improved it? Reaching back and complaining about Obama, which I think you wouldn't be doing if you were not a democrat. You might want to look at the present and perhaps find it in your heart to complain about Trump.

[msc545]

@darkcloud1945 I want to also consider how many US citizens go to Canada and Mexico for operations and services that they would have to mortgage their house to get otherwise.

[IHaveRespawned]

I believe in a balance, or a "mixed economy". I do not believe certain things should be privatized, such as our public safety (also including our fire-rescue and primary EMS services). But I do also believe in a free, private-sector too. There are just too many monopolies that need to be broken down and too many greedy billionaires. They have ruined our nation.

[msc545]

In large part, the failure to enforce anti-trust laws that are already on the books has also ruined our nation.

[Anonymous]

A trillion dollars for elon musk to spend on nothing.

Most people think the difference between Trillions, billions, and millions is a M, B, and a T.

They don't understand money so they think it's okay for one guy to have enough money to buy elections in the United Kingdom, USA, and wherever else wants as a foreigner.

He destroys people's lives, so he can tweet boring edgy jokes all day.

[andreasderjuengere]

In capitalism humans exploit other humans.

In socialism it's the other way round :)

[darkcloud1945]

And their next step from socialism is to communism, their ultimate goal of subjugation

[andreasderjuengere]

@darkcloud1945 Similar to the next step of capitalism. Which is American capitalism.

[msc545]

@darkcloud1945 you are mistaking communism as a governmental system, which it is not. It is actually an economic system. If there is a fascist government that goes along with it, which is not uncommon, then that's a whole different problem.

[goaded]

Yes, billionaires are ripping everybody off, and democratic socialism is far better.

The democracy part is essential.

[Iron_Man]

Do you really wanna live under socialism? Think my friend think be like water”

[Iron_Man]

https://youtu.be/e78SV6EjTQg

[msc545]

Do you really like it that billionaires steal from you every day that you work?

[Iron_Man]

How did they steal from me? I get paid by the homeowner in cash.

[msc545]

The order from Amazon is stealing from you. The order from any of the big retailers is stealing from you. If you pay taxes, they're stealing from you because they don't pay taxes.

[Iron_Man]

Rich people don’t pay property taxes

[msc545]

People don't pay any taxes at all.

[Iron_Man]

I do

[Iron_Man]

How much are your property taxes a year?

[Dargil]

If you want equal distribution of misery and poverty, socialism is perfect for you.

[DirtyOldMan777]

No and NO. Socialism has never worked and will never work.

[canamlusciouslad73]

Yes and H**L to the YES !!!