Don't fall for 'lesser of two evils' argument "...The Constitution does not mention political parties at all, and the Framers were worried that the rise of powerful factions would undermine liberty. As John Adams wrote in a letter in 1780: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/third-party-candidate-options-robby-soave/index.html
Clinton is showing no signs of compromising with Bernie Sanders. She is in grave danger of losing 15 million voters.
Poll: Sanders edging Clinton out in California http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...inton-out-in-california/ar-BBtNXgv?li=BBnb7Kz
Here is an example of the lack of critical thinking we find today. See if you can find the flaws: "Why Socialism Doesn’t Work, as Learned by a Waiter Posted Thursday, October 15, 2015 | By The Association of Mature American Citizens | 135 Comments From – lastresistance.com – by Rob Knowles “In practice, socialism didn’t work. But socialism could never have worked because it is based on false premises about human psychology and society, and gross ignorance of human economy.” – David Horowitz I had a topic in mind for today’s piece, and was set on writing about it when my roommate came home from his new job as a server. Our subsequent conversation blew me away because despite my roommate’s ardent support of Democrats, and Bernie Sanders specifically, he made an inadvertent argument against socialism. I sat on our big red couch in awe as he said the following (not exact wording): The job is really nice. The only annoying thing about it is that our tips are pooled. It kind of makes you wanna work less hard because you’re not getting your tips directly.” I smirked, and simply said: “Tip pooling disincentivizes hard work.” I know this to be true not just on an intellectual level, but on a personal level. When I worked at a job at which we received tips, my employer pooled them, and divided them equally based on hours worked. It didn’t matter if during your shift, you collected a total of $100 in tips, and during another employee’s shift, they collected $40. At the end of the day, everyone benefitted from the hard work and personability of the better employees. This is called “disincentivizing,” and it’s one of numerous problems with socialist policy. As David Horowitz said, proponents of socialism don’t understand human psychology. When one works, one expects renumeration that is equal to their effort and skill level. That’s what capitalism does; it incentivizes people to work harder because they know that their efforts will be rewarded monetarily or otherwise. Socialism, on the other hand, disincentivizes people because their work isn’t valued individually; it’s valued as a collective. When someone knows that the value of their individual work will be lumped together with every other employee, rather than evaluated separately, they tend to work less, and produce less. They work less because they know that at the end of the day, everyone will get the same paycheck, regardless of the value they add to the company. In every business, there’s inevitably one or more employees that work noticeably less than the rest of the crew. If they’re getting the same paycheck, why would you break a sweat trying your absolute best? In a capitalist business, the lazy employees would be fired or reprimanded for their lack of performance, and the hard working employees would be rewarded with raises or other advancements. This leads to a strong drive to perform. Humans run on incentive, and if you take that away, they fall apart. Tip pooling is a microcosm of socialism. My roommate stumbled upon a profound principle of economics and human psychology, but is still a Sanders supporter. However, I think there’s a chance that with some gentle nudging, he may come around. http://amac.us/why-socialism-doesnt-work-as-learned-by-a-waiter/
There is a long history demonstrating that collectivism (Communism & Socialism) does not work. Example after example after example of failure. The bottom line of why Socialism does not work is because people are greedy and lazy. These factors always lead to the failure of any collective type of system -- it simply is a matter of time. Why don't you put forward your thoughts on the "flaws" in the article... most people find the article to be perfectly correct. The only question being what level of "socialism" (benefits, etc.) in government spending is appropriate for the good of society before the factors of laziness and greed lead to complete abuse of the system where the majority do no work to get large-scale benefits and a small minority of disgruntled workers struggle to pay for those on the dole.
Because I am too self interested in teaching others to think critically. Or, is it that I am too lazy?
The biggest lie underlying the criticism of Socialism is that it sends false price signals to the market, and therefore distorts price discovery. Hence the argument goes, Socialism and Capitalist Free Markets are incompatible. Incredible that people don't break these things down and see the inherent contradictions. The very statement is the very attack against Capitalism itself! People don't make the connections because they do not look closely at the assumptions and work their way back to the premise. Look at the waiter example and see where the contradictions are. The flaws is in the genetic structure of nearly all corporations. But I am not going to spell it out, since I am too lazy and too self interested.
So your argument above basically states that price fixing set by the state is better than capitalism. Let's wander down to Venezuela and see how the recent price fixing worked out. A fine example of sending false signals to the market. And yes, the actual value of goods vs. price discovery was (and still is) totally distorted. This is an example of socialism in action. Bottom line: You cannot find any flaws in the article to spell out in a reasonable manner. You exclaim the article demonstrates a lack of critical thinking yet can put no forward no points to back your assertion.
What are the inputs to making a product? Or more accurately, what is one of the highest eigenvalues to the cost of a product?
See, the problem is that almost everyone works inductively to arrive at conclusions. The hard part is going the other way, and trying to unravel the axioms that you used to arrive at your conclusion and making sure they are truly correct and complete for what you are trying to prove. It is hard even in math, let alone in ambiguous systems of communication like human language. Garbage In. Garbage Out. And what is worse, you have no way to tell if what you input is garbage or not.