Quote: MrmorrisesQuote: scratchking22Quote: Mrmorrises
The guy is an admitted socialist and Marxist. At least he has the integrity to admit it, but still.....
Two more reasons to vote for him.
Assuming you know the history of socialism and Marxism's failures then they aren't good reasons to vote for him.
History only shows us how not to do it. Yes, that history still does concern me a bit, but something must be done about the widening economic gap.
I'm not an economist, but from what I can tell, the top percenters aren't spending enough. Money needs to be moving in order to have any worth whatsoever. People don't understand that the government isn't trying to play Robin Hood with increasing taxes on the rich and increasing the amount of money in social security - they're investing in the future of the economy. If people don't have money, they aren't spending money, and if they aren't spending money, nobody's making money off of them. This is probably why rich people think of people who have nothing as being absolutely worthless.
If rich people spent money as much as poor people did, there would be no need for government interference, but the thing is that when you're rich, there's not that much for you to actually buy. You have everything you need and don't need anything else. So you save the money, you put it away for your own future and for the future of your family and for the future of your business. The problem with putting money away for the future is that it is completely useless until that point, if that point ever even comes at all. How do we solve that? If we print more money to make up for the amount that's being "saved," and then that saved money gets used, we have an issue with inflation. I'm speculating and simplifying, of course, there's obviously a lot more complexity than that.
By contrast, if we require that a certain amount of that money gets spent every year and invest it in people who have very little and have things they need to consume, that money will probably eventually make it's way back into the pockets of those businesses that provide products that people want to consume. If certain businesses start dying as a result of this, that means they're not tending to their customers the way they're supposed to and that naturally they very much
should fail by nature of the free market economy.
In this sense, I don't think socialism is necessarily communism, rather, it's a system that brings everyone up to be on equal footing to start off from. There will still be those who are more successful than others by nature of their own innovation, and will be richer as a result, but the need for continued innovation means that we can't favor these people by giving them extra tax breaks to support their new success, we need to continue to support the system that keeps everyone striving to make further advances in every aspect of human ingenuity.
The innovators can't just be innovative once and be set for life as the system currently allows. If you want to be truly successful, you should have to work continuously, just like everyone else does. It wouldn't be perfect, it wouldn't be a utopia by any means, but it would be better for the continued advancement for everyone.
Gems: 3556
![[User Posted Image]](http://www.chinese-food-and-natural-health.com/images/cabbage-01.jpg)
Gems: 95
Gems: 2182
Gems: 2648
Gems: 959
Gems: 1728
Gems: 5781
Gems: 6184
Gems: 6654
Gems: 2583
![[User Posted Image]](http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/295/9/6/bolbi_2012_by_absurd__reality-d5ikqkf.jpg)
darkspyro
net
7828