[drgnlvr]

Originally Posted by Asurai

Firstly, I'm curious as to what, in your case, is the difference between a Socialist and a Communist.

Marx and the Communist Manefesto aside, Communism doesn't work. Supposedly everyone is equal, and everyone is supposed to get the same share of the money, no matter how hard you work, or how brilliant your idea. There's no reason to excell. There's no reason to -try-. Doesn't matter if you do a half-assed job, or a good job, it's going to be the same pay, either way.

On the other hand, Socialism -does- seem to work. At least in some European countries. Socialism is making sure everyone has the same -BASIC- benefits in medical care, shelter, food and education. What you do with that, is up to you. You can be lazy, or you can excell. You can still make a profit, or you can be dirt poor. You still have your -basic- needs covered. You have the option to do something about adding to the basic medical care, basic housing, etc. But you will not be without those needs covered.

It makes for higher taxes, but in the long run, it makes sound economical sense. Hungry, homeless, desperate people, are -dangerous-. History has shown over, and over, and over again, when the lower class is oppressed, and denied their basic needs, they -will- revolt. Every. Single. Time. People who do not have these basic needs covered, do not spend money on other things, because they have to figure out whether to eat, or pay rent. When there is no basic medical coverage, people will put off going to the doctor for something that can be taken care of easily, in the early stages, thus reducing the number of days missed due to illness, and basic medical coverage will also lessen the instances of people using the emergency room for a clinic, and then not being able to pay, thus raising the cost of medical care for everyone, and raising the cost of insurance. Productivity is up, so more money is being earned at the lower levels, and put back into the economy. Basic needs for food being covered means less loss from theft, and better nutrition, which also ties back into health and productivity. Basic shelter covered, means fewer people on the streets and in shelters, and can reduce violent crime (note I did not say eliminate it).

Secondly, I probably agree. A corporate CEO is entitled to make a substantial amount of profit more than the average Joe working the line, but some amounts are simply exploiting.

BINGO! I see no reason to make that CEO live off the same wages the line worker does. There is education, and skills involved that create the environment and situation that allows the line worker to have a job in the first place. Its all reletive, though. Without the CEO, the line worker would not have a job. Without the line worker making the product, the CEO wouldn't have any profits.

But seriously, if those CEOs who are getting paid obscene amounts of money (including several million when the shareholders decide that CEO isn't making a good enough profit for them...I mean, get real! Where is the incentive to make that company shine, when you know you'll get a nice, shiney golden umbrella when you get canned?) don't need THAT much, and if -some- of that were redistributed down the line, there would be no need of Unions, nor would there be any need of working two jobs, or to export our jobs to a 3rd world country. Everyone would go away happy, and our economy would kick ass.

The unions? The unions today suck.

They're still trying to cash in on the good they did a couple generations ago, and they ain't doing it. At this point, the unions are nothing more than dead weight sucking the life out of American Industry.

Oh, no worries about that. I usually do the same, to the extent that most people get utterly sick of listening to me ramble on and on about the minor points and differences of things. (I believe that things are basically black-and-white, but it usually takes me a long, long time to get there.)

Of course! After all, if you consider something from all angles, and argue your side while covering all those angles, who can argue with you?

Well, except someone else who overthinks stuff.