Posted on Feb 15, 2016
Do the people that support Bernie Sanders really know what Socialism is?
4.82K
47
26
6
6
0
Here I will help define it:
Full Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Full Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Bernie Sanders
Election 2016 Bernie Sanders
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
4
4
0
The problem as "I" see it:
Pareto Principle (80-20 Rule): It's a "simple" measure of Wealth Distribution. 80% of the people have 20% of the wealth, and conversely 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth. If taken to it's natural "mathematical conclusion" we end up with the "1% argument" where 1% of the population owns 99% of the resources. Keep this in mind for a second.
Democracy (1 man, 1 vote): Seems like a really great idea, except when you look at things like Wealth/Resource Distribution (see above). The second the Majority (80%) realize that they can VOTE to redistribute the Resources (aka Wealth) of the Minority (20%) the economy collapses.
Charismatic Based Leaders, using a "Fairness" (Subjective) Argument to convince the Majority that they "Deserve" said resources.
"If" We look at Economic Systems like a GAME, say Monopoly for instance, everyone starts out on "even footing." The Game is inherently Fair. Some players will have natural skill advantages which allow them to change the existing resource distribution to their favor over the course of the game. However, we have a Banker (Government) we ensures that no one is "booted" from the game. Everyone still gets to play.
An argument can be made that some players do manipulate the rules for unfair advantage. However, that doesn't mean that we should flip the table and play a different game. It just means we need to adjust specific rules which are being abused.
Unfortunately because "many" people do not understand Economics, or Government processes, they "believe" that modifying specific aspects will enhance their standard of living. It might, however we're a closed system, therefore it will be at someone else's expense. At that point we get into Philosophy and Belief Systems rather than Economics & Government theory however.
Pareto Principle (80-20 Rule): It's a "simple" measure of Wealth Distribution. 80% of the people have 20% of the wealth, and conversely 20% of the people have 80% of the wealth. If taken to it's natural "mathematical conclusion" we end up with the "1% argument" where 1% of the population owns 99% of the resources. Keep this in mind for a second.
Democracy (1 man, 1 vote): Seems like a really great idea, except when you look at things like Wealth/Resource Distribution (see above). The second the Majority (80%) realize that they can VOTE to redistribute the Resources (aka Wealth) of the Minority (20%) the economy collapses.
Charismatic Based Leaders, using a "Fairness" (Subjective) Argument to convince the Majority that they "Deserve" said resources.
"If" We look at Economic Systems like a GAME, say Monopoly for instance, everyone starts out on "even footing." The Game is inherently Fair. Some players will have natural skill advantages which allow them to change the existing resource distribution to their favor over the course of the game. However, we have a Banker (Government) we ensures that no one is "booted" from the game. Everyone still gets to play.
An argument can be made that some players do manipulate the rules for unfair advantage. However, that doesn't mean that we should flip the table and play a different game. It just means we need to adjust specific rules which are being abused.
Unfortunately because "many" people do not understand Economics, or Government processes, they "believe" that modifying specific aspects will enhance their standard of living. It might, however we're a closed system, therefore it will be at someone else's expense. At that point we get into Philosophy and Belief Systems rather than Economics & Government theory however.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No but once again Bernie knows that people will vote for a Democrat Candidate who promises free stuff. Even though they know there is no such thing as a free lunch and they know our country now has $19 Trillion National Debt. Bernie plans to tax the rich to get our of this mess and angry voters are buying into this socialism without realizing the effect this will have on our economy
(4)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I agree. The people need to look at Venezuela. You cant even by the things you need for everyday life. Toilet paper is one of those things. Its a total failure yet people here want the US to be just like that. I told someone else that I worked and went without in order to put my 4 kids thru college and now they want me to give up my retirement to put there kids thru college, while they continue to blow money on vacations and toys. No one helped me. we came close to losing our house several times in order to do this so why should I put there kid thru college. I didn't have the kids...didn't even have the fun of making there kids.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
South Carolina and Nevada may give us a better sense how well Socialism is acceptable to voters. But remember there is so much anger in this country today that voters may want change so bad they will vote for a Socialist. And only the current politicians in Washington DC are to blame for this ..Our system of government today in our nation's capital is not what this country deserves or expected.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I doubt that many people truly understand Socialism, myself included.
Yes I know the definition and the concept behind it but the examples we have seen in history suggest even the true Socialists don't really have an idea what they are doing.
There is no such thing as free education, free meals, free health care, etc., in the end its usually the middle class supporting the taxes because we cannot qualify for enough of the tax breaks or hide our money in off shore banking.
You can raise the tax all you want on rich people, and they will find more ways to reduce their actual taxable income by hiding more money or putting it into investments.
The only thing that will change is how the rich move their money around to protect it.
Yes I know the definition and the concept behind it but the examples we have seen in history suggest even the true Socialists don't really have an idea what they are doing.
There is no such thing as free education, free meals, free health care, etc., in the end its usually the middle class supporting the taxes because we cannot qualify for enough of the tax breaks or hide our money in off shore banking.
You can raise the tax all you want on rich people, and they will find more ways to reduce their actual taxable income by hiding more money or putting it into investments.
The only thing that will change is how the rich move their money around to protect it.
(3)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
That should be the first thing to be taught and understood in each and every Economic class.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google