Adrian, I don't know what you consider to be wealth. I don't get why you
talk about taxes. I don't get why you talk about businesses. Taxes has
nothing to do with socialism, it is something that belongs to capitalism,
or save for cooperatives at best. You are citing England You are talking
about private property. This is something abolished (with very small
exceptions). I am talking about USSR, specially under Stalin, North Korea,
Maoist China, Cuba Yugoslavia, socialists Albania, the countries of the
2017-10-15 13:36 GMT-02:00 Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>:
> Capitalism has a far better record for increasing a country's wealth than
> Socialism. The problem with Socialism is that it reduces incentives to
> work. I lived in England when the top tax rate was 93% and on top of that
> there was a purchase tax of 33.3%. What is the point of working harder and
> longer when you get to keep so little? The government also nationalized
> major industries that prompt;y went downhill. Many of us then emigrated.
> It was known as the brain drain.
> When I was young most businesses treated their employees better and there
> was a sense of loyalty in both directions. Increased profits were shared
> to some extent. T hat has all changed since the 1970s.
> Richard Thaler,who has just won the Nobel prize in economics, has
> corrected some of the flaws in economic theory, but the damage has already
> been done. My point was that it will be a different game with 30 - 50%
> unemployed. In general it would be better for the individual to decide how
> to spend his money rather than have some socialist bureaucrat do it. Hence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
> To: John Milstone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 11:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.
> It's a matter of perspective of to works for who and to whom. In my
> perspective, capitalism has been tried and never worked. Socialism (I
> reserve communism for something else, utopic) always worked better on
> average for most individuals, within my parameters. I didn't see it not
> working but rather being defeated by external force, in most places though(
> there is still North Korea and Cuba). The sheer lack of planning, leaving
> stuff for random market forces, will necessarily lead to ultimate
> destruction of capitalism, what comes next is anybody guess.
> Note, I didn't address the state of affairs as power, but of
> responsibility that a given system gives to individuals. I don't see greed
> as a thing or an issue at all. I don't see it greed arising from evolution,
> so I don't see it as human nature, it is lack of planning, lack of
> accountability, on ideological level. This is why I see socialism as more
> akin to human nature, but capitalism must be really destroyed, even at
> ideological level, similar to the idea of serfdom or slavery. Then, the
> idea of socialism will have to be destroyed in order to achieve communism.
> Robots and AI will always be under the command of some people, so, I don't
> see any hope in there. Machines will not achieve a transition to complete
> control out of nowhere, similar to sky net. I don't see technology as
> something that arises from a given economic system. It is rather applied
> scientific method to solve problems and that's it. So, the British taking
> technology here or there is not something good or bad, rather, it is its
> use that matters.
> I don't hope to convince anyone, I am showing a way out, in case anyone
> reads this someday. I won't typein capslock like "Che" does, because,
> ultimately, as my father says, if you don't learn by means of love, you
> will learn by pain (and no, I am not saying in the hands of communists,
> quite the opposite).
Daniel Rocha - RJ