Socialism 101

[Smallc]

Sure we can look at both Car insurance in Manitoba is more expensive (what you typically pay for one car in winnipeq, I pay for two)then is in Alberta, average claim payout is higher in Alberta, then Manitoba.

Would you like to know why? It's because Manitoba has outlawed basic insurance. What we consider basic is comprehensive elsewhere. Someone in my town moves back and forth to Alberta and has his truck registered there. It costs him 1200 here and 2500 there for the same thing. Your insurance isn't always less, and certainly not when it's comprehensive.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Would you like to know why? It's because Manitoba has outlawed basic insurance. What we consider basic is comprehensive elsewhere. Someone in my town moves back and forth to Alberta and has his truck registered there. It costs him 1200 here and 2500 there for the same thing. Your insurance isn't always less, and certainly not when it's comprehensive.

Insurance is a very legal ponzy scheme. Government insurance for auto's is in fact a much better deal for the consumer.

[Smallc]

Another thing about MPI. They will almost never refuse a claim. They always pay up.

[punked]

Sure we can look at both Car insurance in Manitoba is more expensive (what you typically pay for one car in winnipeq, I pay for two)then is in Alberta, average claim payout is higher in Alberta, then Manitoba. As for medical coverage, I get far better coverage through great west life opposed to alberta blue cross.

I noticed you didn't compare it too Sask, BC, PQ or any of the other provinces which have government car insurance, could it be that Manitoba makes you take a comprehensive plan? Yeah they pay a little more and get a lot more out of their insurance.

[Sir Bandelot]

Despite all the hype we sometimes hear in the news about bad old socialism, it's not a bad thing. A little socialism is good for you... in moderation. And aint that what its all about, all the time? The middle road... boring!

To me what is needed is not a complete authoritative police state, with government intervention into all aspects of society but instead a safety net, one that sets the bottom line... you can't fall below this point.

And I think anyone can clearly see what unchecked capitalism results in. We need SOME regulations, only so far as to create fairness. Laws that protect the system from its own collapse, makes complete sense. This is self preservation of our economic system. If it goes down the toilet, we all go with it. Else there, but for the grace of my creditors go I...

[Machjo]

There is a diiference between charity and socialism.

I agree. I'm just saying though that that wasn't factored in in the expetiment in the OP. Some students would have studied hard not for the grade but for the knowledge. Other students would have helped their classmates just out of frendship. While I agree that for most students the reults of that experiment woudl have held true, there would have always been exceptions.

[Machjo]

Both of your examples are cases where the giver has to choice to give or not. The premise behind socialism is people must be forced to give the fruits of their labour to others. It is the mandatory nature of socialized giving that destroys the incentive to excel if the amount mandatory giving is too high.

I agree with this. Moderation i all things. But also there could be different forms of socialism. For instance, the grades could have been personal, but part of the grade could be based on the person's teamwork, willingness to help others, etc. That could have promoted collaboration through incentive.

Sweden is a prime example of thsi kind of socialism. THey have an excellent safety net, they're often revered by the left as a model of socialism, they pay high taxes, have quality government services, but...

Sweden uses a school voucher system and private schools can participate! So Sweden's socialism still incorporates some capitalism too.

[Riverwind]

Another thing about MPI. They will almost never refuse a claim. They always pay up.

Even if the insured was driving drunk?

[punked]

Even if the insured was driving drunk?

Even if they were killing babies behind the wheel and eating them?

[Molly]

Goggle all you want, guys, but I get to compare the Saskatchewan attitude to insurance vs. the Ontario attitude.

Here, insurance is a total scam, because for anything less than a complete wreck, you'd have to be nuts to make a claim. Nobody wants their insurance company to find out if they've been in a fender bender. Everybody eats costs well beyond their deductibles.

[Oleg Bach]

Socialism is a sinsiter plot by the very rich to create a slave base...if you go to the top of the food chain - the ones that create socialism are not the poor - nor are they those that care about people - nor are they people who actually believe in it --ask your self the question - who finances these movements - revolutions etc..some one had to put up the money..and it was not the poor.

[Pliny]

I thought about posting this topic elsewhere but I thought it might generate a bit of interest in a more visible spot. Hey - I like all you guys. But really....someone rightly mentioned that you could probably create an experiment that showed that an extreme right wing philosophy with unchecked capitalism would also destroy societies because it lends itself to greed and "every man for himself". One philsophy lends itself to apathy - the other to greed. As a previous poster said, you need balance. The US almost consumed itself in the past year - they caused a Global economic crisis through greed in the Banking System - a good example of how underegulated capitalism can go astray. I'm so proud of Canada and our ability to provide a good balance. Having said that, this "balance" is precisely why programs like EI and Provincial Welfare are so important - but also why it's so important to get the right balance inside these programs. Each has the capability to move us towards apathy.

All organizations have a socialistic structure, from the family to the corporate board room, if anything then, these socialistic structures promote greed and every man for himself, not capitalism. But the fact of the matter is that neither, socialism or capitalism promotes greed and everyman for himself.

The individual who leads understands he is not accomplishing everything himself and that numbers and a distribution of labour are necessary to produce and accumulate wealth. If he is greedy he stands very little chance of support. Threat of loss is the greatest promoter of what could be described as greed. It is under the threat of loss that a person takes steps to preserve what he has. Under capitalism there is a threat of loss from competition - this is why competition must be free of fraud and criminality and why justice must be upheld. If fraud and criminality are kept in check then the only threat is from superiority through competition in service, product or business practices. Thus we always move, under capitalism, toward an improvement in our standard of living as long as fraud and criminality are curtailed and that is the job of government.

When government, which exists to serve justice to society, steps into the realm of social engineering, it becomes an increasing burden upon the economy and an increasing threat to the bottom line of capitalistic enterprises which results in activities to avoid that threat. Government fiat paper currencies, which are subject to inflation, are also a real threat. Avoiding government intervention into markets necessarily becomes a factor in doing business. Rent controls as an example, while holding rents at the same price, result in additional rents being attached to "keys" or furniture in furnished apartments to get around this intervention. As described in this article. Price controls, often imposed when demand far outstrips supply or speculators drive up prices on a product, result in even greater shortages in supply because production would have to occur at a loss and consequently no new supplies will be produced. These kinds of regulations are threats to market enterprises and promote the perception of greed which is not a crime but ironically is used to justify the government regulations. Greed is considered immoral but too often any profit is labeled as greed. Or envious competitors call their competition greedy. Or consumers faced with price increases label enterprise as greedy. It is just too easy to bandy that term about and government is only too willing to regulate morality instead of prosecute criminality.

Capitalism is about economy. Free and unhampered, it's transactions are mutually beneficial. It fosters morality and trust. Otherwise trade would not occur and no economy would exist - even barter. A person trades his 25 cents for an apple because he values the apple more than the 25 cents and the person trading the apple for the 25 cents values it more than the apple. Both subjectively feel they benefited in the trade. Either, or both, may feel they took advantage of the other. It seems in western society we are supposed to feel guilt and remorse if we should benefit or make a....gulp...."profit". We all have to benefit from our actions or make a profit some how in order to exist and participate in society - legislating a benefit from government as an entitlement or even a right is not just greedy and immoral, it is, criminal because it uses the threat of force to extract the ability to provide those benefits.

In conclusion, I don't think we need a balance between capitalism and socialism. In relation to the economy, Capitalism "IS" the economy and socialism is about regulating the economy. Government can therefore be socialistic in varying degrees dependent upon how much it regulates the economy and extracts production from the economy to engineer society. Without production and wealth generated by capitalism government cannot exist. So basically government needs to be limited not capitalism restrained and regulated by government.

Obama would probably agree!

[Pliny]

Socialism is a sinsiter plot by the very rich to create a slave base...if you go to the top of the food chain - the ones that create socialism are not the poor - nor are they those that care about people - nor are they people who actually believe in it --ask your self the question - who finances these movements - revolutions etc..some one had to put up the money..and it was not the poor.

Hey Oleg! Glad to see you're back! Good point on the thread!

[eyeball]

The biggest elephant in the ointment of both socialist and captalist systems of course is the corruptability of their leaders or managers. Until such time as the people living under either system have a far greater degree of control over their governance we'll probably never really know which system is more sustainable with regards to the natural environment and our human economy - please note you can have the former without the latter but not the other way around. I think its clear that more open democratic societies can do more to protect the environment in the short term but given the way ours is now trying to squirm out of some of its committments to do so in the wake of the economic crisis we're in, the long term prospects for sustainability are ultimately just as fragile.

In the meantime I still suggest that many of the strongest proponants of smaller governments are also quite comfortable with increasing their power, usually through the suspension or weakening of individual civil liberties. Again I ask, what is the point? I guess my skepticism stems from the sense that the difference between power and wealth can be likened to the difference between space and time - there is really little or none to speak of.

Edited August 6, 2009 by eyeball

[madmax]

Socialism is a sinsiter plot by the very rich to create a slave base...if you go to the top of the food chain - the ones that create socialism are not the poor - nor are they those that care about people - nor are they people who actually believe in it --ask your self the question - who finances these movements - revolutions etc..some one had to put up the money..and it was not the poor.

Olegs Backh...

For the record.. Oleg....

You pretend to work and I will pretend to pay you.... LOL.

[madmax]

Somehow a really stupid original post, turned into a decent discussion. My hats off to Pro Capitalists/Socialist forces who made this thread worth reading.

[M.Dancer]

Somehow a really stupid original post, turned into a decent discussion. My hats off to Pro Capitalists/Socialist forces who made this thread worth reading.

An invoice will be sent to you directly.

[Keepitsimple]

Capitalism is about economy. Free and unhampered, it's transactions are mutually beneficial. It fosters morality and trust. Otherwise trade would not occur and no economy would exist - even barter. A person trades his 25 cents for an apple because he values the apple more than the 25 cents and the person trading the apple for the 25 cents values it more than the apple. Both subjectively feel they benefited in the trade. Either, or both, may feel they took advantage of the other. It seems in western society we are supposed to feel guilt and remorse if we should benefit or make a....gulp...."profit". We all have to benefit from our actions or make a profit some how in order to exist and participate in society - legislating a benefit from government as an entitlement or even a right is not just greedy and immoral, it is, criminal because it uses the threat of force to extract the ability to provide those benefits.

I wish it were that easy - but that's a naive view of capitalism. Unfettered Capitalism leads to greed - there needs to be some government regulation. Again, look at the Financial system in the US....everybody was competing for mortgages - they didn't care about down payments or collateral - just get that darn mortgage on the books.....mainly due to how people were compensated. In general, that type of implosion would be very unlikely to happen in Canada because of regulations that are in place for mortgages and the capital requirements for Banks. Unfettered capitalism can also lead to monopolies where all the competition is "bought out" or priced out of the market...leaving one big fat company that can take advantage of a captive market. So again, there has to be a balance between Capitalism and Socialism....dare I say, Social Conservatism?

[Moonlight Graham]

Obviously this is an extreme example which illustrates the flaws in socialism. I am sure someone could come up with a similar example that illustrates the different flaws in unfettered capitalism. All such examples do is illustrate the need for balance.

Exactly.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wish it were that easy - but that's a naive view of capitalism. Unfettered Capitalism leads to greed - there needs to be some government regulation. Again, look at the Financial system in the US

The USA is not "unfettered capitalism"...hasn't been for a long time, if ever. There were regulations erected and removed by government, but not totally eliminated. New instruments (e.g. mortgage backed securities) were created to subvert regulation that remained.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

Obviously this is an extreme example which illustrates the flaws in socialism. I am sure someone could come up with a similar example that illustrates the different flaws in unfettered capitalism. All such examples do is illustrate the need for balance.

Absolutely. It's like the proverbial poll question that is no better than "would you rather get hit by a bus or a truck?"

Canadians are sometimes rather immoderate to the Left and othertimes rather immoderate to the Right, yet when we get government, it's MOSTLY LEFT or MOSTLY RIGHT, for all issues that come up, for FOUR YEARS at a time!

We at the Democracy Party are trying to build a political option that will let Canadians themselves decide the big issues -- that'll leave lots for politicians and committees to do.

Elections Canada Declaration Form

Incidentally, re: the proposed NDP name-change, if you're happy with a recalibrated NDP showing up on our ballots as "Democratic Party of Canada", then you don't have to do anything. But if you'd rather "Democracy" be on your ballot, referring to a party that lets you set the agenda through a host of increased democratic reforms, help us out.

[Oleg Bach]

A sensible person is not partizan. A smart person leans to the left - then to the right - then centres themselves and does what has to be done and what is good - partizanism is useless contention. It always leads to a type of extremeism - and creates a governance that exists to preserve it self and not the nation...socialism is capitalism - centralism is common sense.

[Smallc]

Even if the insured was driving drunk?

If you steal a car and crash, MPI will cover your medical bills. Any injury in a car is covered, and any car that is covered (or often, one that was recently covered) is also covered.

[Alta4ever]

Would you like to know why? It's because Manitoba has outlawed basic insurance. What we consider basic is comprehensive elsewhere. Someone in my town moves back and forth to Alberta and has his truck registered there. It costs him 1200 here and 2500 there for the same thing. Your insurance isn't always less, and certainly not when it's comprehensive.

First how is his truck registered, is registered commercial or personal, 2. What level of liability coverage does he have on it. 3. How many years of claims free coverage does he have credit for. 4. How many years of insurance history does he have.

I have a 05 truck and an 09 car, combined the insurance is 2100.00 One is rated business use one is rated for commute. I have what you would call comprehensive coverage liability, collision 500 ded, and comprehensive 250 ded, plus loss of use endorsements, non owned vehicle coverage, and a host of other endorsement coverages. I suspect your friend is under 25. A person in winnipeg will typically pay 1800 to 2500 for a all perils coverage on their vehcile. Also you have no right to sue all you get is a meat chart payout.

As I said you get more for less under private insurance. In fact Alberta's insurance act is rated the best in Canada.

Public Auto Insurance Causes More Deaths and Damage

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/3931.aspx

Public Auto Insurance Provinces Rank as Lemons

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/3987.aspx

Government Auto Insurance Delivers Worst Value for Consumers

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/4128.aspx

The report, Auto Insurance Market Quality Index 2006: Annual Comparison of International Auto Insurance Markets,

[Alta4ever]

If you steal a car and crash, MPI will cover your medical bills. Any injury in a car is covered, and any car that is covered (or often, one that was recently covered) is also covered.

So does Private insurance its called accident benefits and paid out without regard to fault