Investing under Socialism

[level.eleven]

The first step in understanding investing under socialism is understanding the definition of the word socialism.

 

[John Galt]

I don't think the labels/terms like Socialism/Marxism/Fascism/Comminism are really that much different, other than the level of force being applied by the Government to the Free Individual. Does it really matter if one has a Left boot or a Right boot on their throat? Can't breathe means you can't breathe. I choose to view things as BigGovernment versus Individual Liberty, the rest is just a distraction!

 

[downzero]

I don't think the labels/terms like Socialism/Marxism/Fascism/Comminism are really that much different, other than the level of force being applied by the Government to the Free Individual.

Then you've demonstrated that you don't know what these words mean.

"Communism" is a form of anarchy. There is no government.

"Socialism" is an economic system.

"Fascism" is a political system.

Try again.

 

[ViperJock]

I don't think the labels/terms like Socialism/Marxism/Fascism/Comminism are really that much different, other than the level of force being applied by the Government to the Free Individual. Does it really matter if one has a Left boot or a Right boot on their throat? Can't breathe means you can't breathe. I choose to view things as BigGovernment versus Individual Liberty, the rest is just a distraction!

Exactly true as far as liberty goes. Any differences are academic. Who really cares if its the boot of a lefty or a righty on your neck?

I think investing might be different under fascist vs communist conditions though. Socialism is a jumping off point for both extremist ideologies.

 

[ViperJock]

Then you've demonstrated that you don't know what these words mean.

"Communism" is a form of anarchy. There is no government.

"Socialism" is an economic system.

"Fascism" is a political system.

Try again.

So... The USSR, The PRC, cuba, vietnam etc have no government? Or what would you call it? You are playing academic word games.

 

[Hotdoger]

The personal, business and financial plans I began over 4 years ago have done well. I will contiune those with some small tweaks.

 

[John Galt]

Then you've demonstrated that you don't know what these words mean.

"Communism" is a form of anarchy. There is no government.

"Socialism" is an economic system.

"Fascism" is a political system.

Try again.

Try re-reading what I posted. I was referring to our Liberty and how governments throughout history have applied these "words" to infringe on our Liberty. It's all semantics when you're a serf, no matter what rule you're under .....

 

[spec4]

Try re-reading what I posted. I was referring to our Liberty and how governments throughout history have applied these "words" to infringe on our Liberty. It's all semantics when you're a serf, no matter what rule you're under .....

Amen.

 

[level.eleven]

Try re-reading what I posted. I was referring to our Liberty and how governments throughout history have applied these "words" to infringe on our Liberty. It's all semantics when you're a serf, no matter what rule you're under .....

Are you a serf?

Is the concept of taxation considered a boot on your neck?

 

[downzero]

Try re-reading what I posted. I was referring to our Liberty and how governments throughout history have applied these "words" to infringe on our Liberty. It's all semantics when you're a serf, no matter what rule you're under .....

But this isn't a thread about some philosophical concept of liberty, it's a thread about investment and a particular economic system......concepts that happen to be mutually exclusive from each other.

Start your own thread on the 1962 classic "Capitalism and Freedom" and I'll be glad to comment over there about comparative economic systems and liberty.

 

[John Galt]

Are you a serf?

Is the concept of taxation considered a boot on your neck?

No, I don't consider the "concept" of taxation a boot on my neck. I understand that we have to have taxes to fund, what was intended, a very small and limited government. An enormous government requires an insatiable appetite (taxes). However, they should be equal for all and not a tax on income or savings.

A 70,000+ page tax code is a boot on everyones neck.
A progressive tax code that treats everyone different, creates winners and losers and requires those diminishing few that do pay taxes to spend a large sum of money for an accountant to try to stay "legal" because the volume of tax laws is a boot on everyones neck.
A government that sociopathically accrues as much debt as we have, creates as many unfunded liabilities as we have, makes as many untenable promises as they have and prints money to the tune of trillions of dollars makes us all serfs.

Are you blind to all of this?

 

[John Galt]

But this isn't a thread about some philosophical concept of liberty, it's a thread about investment and a particular economic system......concepts that happen to be mutually exclusive from each other.

Start your own thread on the 1962 classic "Capitalism and Freedom" and I'll be glad to comment over there about comparative economic systems and liberty.

How do you invest in a system where the government (under whatever label you want to call it) picks winners and losers, constantly changes the rules of the game and disregards the Rule of Law? I see our "economic system" as having everything to do with Liberty, which has everything to do with investing. Investing is a method to provide for ourselves and family and protect ones wealth, and the "economic system" of what I have been talking about applies.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[downzero]

How do you invest in a system where the government (under whatever label you want to call it) picks winners and losers, constantly changes the rules of the game and disregards the Rule of Law? I see our "economic system" as having everything to do with Liberty, which has everything to do with investing. Investing is a method to provide for ourselves and family and protect ones wealth, and the "economic system" of what I have been talking about applies.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

No, there is no agreeing to disagree when you are just wrong. Socialism is a system in which the government owns the means of production. Just because Glenn Beck taught you some new buzz words doesn't change the meaning of the words.

The "Rule of Law" is itself a creature of government, and while you might find it tremendously unfair that the government has substantial control over the economy, the result is not called "socialism."

The government has always had some large degree of control over the economy, has always picked winners and losers in this country (just more directly through tariffs and quotas before the recent past) and this country has produced more wealth and more millionaires than the entire history of mankind prior to its founding.

I believe that will continue.

It will just, as it always has, look different in the future than it did in the past.

 

[Designer99]

Meanwhile, Corporate Profits Hit Record High

 

[John Galt]

No, there is no agreeing to disagree when you are just wrong. Socialism is a system in which the government owns the means of production. Just because Glenn Beck taught you some new buzz words doesn't change the meaning of the words.

The "Rule of Law" is itself a creature of government, and while you might find it tremendously unfair that the government has substantial control over the economy, the result is not called "socialism."

The government has always had some large degree of control over the economy, has always picked winners and losers in this country (just more directly through tariffs and quotas before the recent past) and this country has produced more wealth and more millionaires than the entire history of mankind prior to its founding.

I believe that will continue.

It will just, as it always has, look different in the future than it did in the past.

Again, it's just semantics! I tried explaining this in a past post, but you appear to just want to argue. I find it funny that you are calling me wrong when you previously stated that communism was not a form of government ...
That one was a hoot!

 

[level.eleven]

Again, it's just semantics! I tried explaining this in a past post, but you appear to just want to argue. I find it funny that you are calling me wrong when you previously stated that communism was not a form of government ...
That one was a hoot!

The goal of communism is a stateless society.

Quite the hood indeed.

 

[downzero]

Again, it's just semantics! I tried explaining this in a past post, but you appear to just want to argue.

I teach economics. Do you really want to convince me that the difference between "mixed economy" and "socialism" is "semantic"?

Millions in Cuba and North Korea beg to differ with you.

The distinction has little to do with the use of language and much to do with the government owning the means of production.

You ignore the distinctions at your peril.

 

[John Galt]

I teach economics.

So does Krugman!

 

[poptab]

No, there is no agreeing to disagree when you are just wrong. Socialism is a system in which the government owns the means of production. Just because Glenn Beck taught you some new buzz words doesn't change the meaning of the words.

The "Rule of Law" is itself a creature of government, and while you might find it tremendously unfair that the government has substantial control over the economy, the result is not called "socialism."

The government has always had some large degree of control over the economy, has always picked winners and losers in this country (just more directly through tariffs and quotas before the recent past) and this country has produced more wealth and more millionaires than the entire history of mankind prior to its founding.

I believe that will continue.

It will just, as it always has, look different in the future than it did in the past.

Did john galt **** in your cheerios?

I agree that the meanings of these words are important but...

The U.S. government has not always had some large degree of control over the economy. It has had some degree, yes, but not always a large degree. The percent of GDP that the government represented in the 1900s was very low (single digits). At the present its quite a bit more (30-40). The list of federal regulations was quite a few pages shorter as well.

Extrapolating beyond your data set is bad math and all governments everywhere have failed at some point. Also, we have nothing to compare the U.S. too so...

It seems like you are saying that the U.S. cant possibly fail no matter what we do. Did I miss something?

If you are so optimistic, mind telling us what you plan on investing in?

 

[downzero]

The U.S. government has not always had some large degree of control over the economy. It has had some degree, yes, but not always a large degree. The percent of GDP that the government represented in the 1900s was very low (single digits). At the present its quite a bit more (30-40).

The numbers don't tell the whole story. Prior to 1913, when the income tax was passed, the government's primary source of revenue was tariffs. The discretionary effect of tariffs is so extreme that we teach first year economics students that they are a failure. I agree with you that the government is huge and powerful today, but I am not completely convinced that the discretionary effect of bad policy is greater today than it was in 1880.

The list of federal regulations was quite a few pages shorter as well.

There were no regulations prior to the 1940s. The administrative state didn't exist then, at all.