How bad Socialism be IF Bernie Sanders is elected?

Even if he were elected, none of that would happen.

If you're in ANY way familiar with modern us politics, you should know better than believing anything said in a campaign.

No, they're not necessarily lying, the system will block any substantial changes to the status quo.

Again, why don't you know this already?

File: 1390769863862.jpg (98KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x500px

>the president makes laws

Having an economically illiterate president won't do anything. Just look at the past four.

Firstly, Bernie can't just instantly change the US into a fully socialized country.

The House and Senate are still controlled by Democrats and Republicans, both of which hate him and his policies.

Bernie's entire campaign is a more exaggerated version of Obama's campaign will all of the outlandish promises that anyone with a brain knows can't happen.

>>968790
Executive order to kill citizens without a warrant.
Man with gun takes money every time.

>>968782
>Will making college free, taxing the rich, and having 70% of the US population depend on welfare bad or good?

Even if you cut the huge amount of military spending to 0, taxed the "rich" as high as possible it still would not pay for his promises.

It would cost trillions of dollars for even just socializing healthcare. Let alone "making college 'free' " and all the other shit.

>>968797
You can import Cubans for healthcare.

Doubt he'll win. Republicans just won the governor elections in a lot of states. If that says anything about the GE it means it should be a solid R win.


Unless they do something retarded in the near future. Honestly though, as bad as it sounds, this whole Syria and ISIS situation is helping Republicans

>>968817
If Bernie won I would immediately convert all my money into bitcoin, because the USD would be Ruble-tier.

>>968782
Bernie is a satire put in place to take votes away from Hillary so the Republicans have a confirmed win. Unfortunately the R candidates are insane or inane

>Trump would quit because he doesn't actually want the high maintenance of presidency and he has the balls to quit. Hell, he may even have the charisma to recover from it.
>Carson is fucking retarded. He can't even speak.
>Nobody cares about the others.

Hopefully Marco Rubio comes out on top if only because he's a sane human being and that puts him leagues above our other options.

>>968836
There is literally nothing wrong with Cruz

>>968836
Ben Carson is an honorary aryan.

And Trump is a real OG

Stupid goyim Hillary is already the chosen winner

>>968838
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his entire campaign is unconstitutional.

>>968849
His mother is American, thus making him an American.

>>968850
If my mother African that means i'm an African

this is how retarded your logic is

File: Screenshot_2015-11-21-22-33-02.png (376KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1440x2560px

>>968855
Ok


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

>pic related

>>968849
>>968860

This is the same reason why the "birther" movement, which was ironically started by the Hillary campaign, was a moot point to begin with.

File: The Simpsons [1.03] Homer's Odyssey.avi_snapshot_11.51_[2015.11.21_15.55.44].jpg (29KB, 544x416px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 544x416px

>>968782
fuck off back to /pol/

>>968901
go back to reddit you dumb idiot

File: The Simpsons [1.04] There's No Disgrace Like Home.avi_snapshot_03.44_[2015.11.21_03.12.44].jpg (34KB, 544x416px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 544x416px

>>968904
>discussing politics on /biz/
>specifically socialism, anti-capitalism

fuck off back to crapchan's leftypol then.

>>968906
What?

I don't support it you moron but he says he is economically-illiterate and asking how it would work. It's pretty /biz/ related.

Quite a bit more so than it would be in /pol/.

>>968906
> thinking business and politics are not tightly related

The no /pol/ rule refers to pol memes

You can discuss politics on third board as long as it focuses on the economic and financial aspects and you don't turn the discussion into tumblr vs KKK

File: 1447469491237.png (83KB, 1134x499px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1134x499px

>>968942

>>968782
Small businesses get raped by $15 minimum wage laws.

Automation increases, but not fast enough to help small business owners. Most small businesses close and years down the road all of the minimum wage jobs are automated.

>>969057
Will Trump be getting every Chinese to register (because they were suspected to be enemy of the state) during WWII as well.

Personal registration on a small number of people is practise for large-scale tighter control

> Muh American
> Muh freedoms.

But great for data acquisition companies

>>968836
Jeb Bush sounds sane.

>>968797
no, just no. single-payer healthcare simply shifts the cost and revenue of healthcare from the private to the public sector. this trillions and trillions that you're making up is just a meme

>>968838
Other than the fact that he looks like a wax figurine, everyone in the Republican party hates him, and that he has no principles or compunctions?

>>968836
Jeb Bush would be the best choice to be quite honest with you family member.

>>969459
And how will we pay for it?

Taxes are high enough as they are.

File: image.jpg (238KB, 1600x1206px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1600x1206px

The president can't institute new laws -- single payer healthcare, for instance, but he can regulate the shit out of you. Here's how regulations work in the US:
>congress creates agency
>agency operates under president
>agency creates new regulations
>congress has the power to repeal specific regulations
>to date it never has repealed a regulation
Bernie Sanders literally believes the earth will be uninhabitable in 30 years. He'd ruin the economy because he's a dumbass.

>>968836

Kasich is sane. Unfortunately there's literally no way for him to win the GOP nom.

>>969469
Your taxes go up, your healthcare cost disappears.

You're already paying what you would be paying.

File: fd80b-misessocialism.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>968782
>college free

The sole reason why socialism doesn't work is exactly because everything is free and accessible to everybody.

Think about it: There is a limited number of people producing things in a limited amount of time. The only way to have a fair distribution of things is that people who produce less have less.

This already has been proven back in 1920 by Ludwig von mises in his book "Socialism"

>I am deeply concerned with this topic, but do not know much of Economics

Its free, you have no excuse for not to read: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Socialism%20An%20Economic%20and%20Sociological%20Analysis_3.pdf

>>969459
but what if I'm not using it at all? Then I'm just spending money for other people when I can save capital make a business and become richer while employing others.

>>969469
>Your taxes go up, your healthcare cost disappears.
No they aren't in fact taxes were only decreased recently in US history. They used to be 94%

>>968782
>and having 70% of the US population depend on welfare

I dont think that is part of his program :^)

>>969897
Because of technology, returns to scale and the division of labour we could easily get to the point where 10% of the population could easily produce enough for the other 90% of the population but this would just result in an ideological crisis (why would anyone want to work, etc, etc)

The Austrian calculation "problem" is largely nonsense in a modern context when you take in to consideration modern information technology:
http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/hayek.htm

The problem with socialism isn't the "necessity of price" to regulate production and distribution but ideological and moral ideas of fairness. Technology will have to reach the point where it begins to completely break down the logic of the price system so it's faults won't be able to be ignored before any transition beyond capitalism is possible though.

>>970938
Taxes were never 94%.
>what are deductions
>what are exemptions
>what are capital gains
>what is an effective tax rate
The fallacy leftists believe in is that rich people who have an income are the ones who cause income inequality. This is false, these are typically ex middle class people who are nearing the end of their career.
>50% of individuals in the 1% are in the 1% for less than two years

>>968782
>mfw in Moldova and all of Eastern Europe in general welfare is like 5 bucks/ month which is enough to eat for a day, and if you're gonna eat you better do some productive labor and don't leech off everybody else.
>I'm not talking about socialized services though, those are fine, just direct transfers
>mfw Americans are too afraid to end gibsmedat because youfs might riot :/

Well for one he isn't a socialist. He's no different to FDR or even Eisenhower

I'm fairly ignorant of economic stuff.

Sanders's brand of socialism seems to work pretty well in Scandinavia. Is there some reason why it wouldn't work here in the US? I realize that he'd never get any of it enacted, I'm just curious why so many people think it wouldn't work when it's proven fairly effective in other countries.

>>971001
>Sanders's brand of socialism seems to work pretty well in Scandinavia

yeah, works pretty well at flooding sweden with muslims
at this rate their entire welfare state is going to implode within a decade or two

Former "Intake Specialist" for the State of Oregon's Department of Adult & Family Services here.

OP, I'm old as fuck. Yea I used to be a bureaucrat but now I'm a grouchy business intelligence person for a telecom. I got tired of working for the government. They suck.

I'd like to challenge you to Google a phrase.
"Welfare To Work"

In 1998, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were both facing problems. People wanted to impeach Clinton, but the same republican House that wanted to impeach him wanted to remove the Republican Speaker of the House from power.

The two enemies had a problem. They needed poll numbers to go up. The solution was welfare reform.

Clinton needed more resources for people in need. Gingrich needed to get frauds off the system. Both men compromised and enacted "Welfare to Work"

In short, there is no such thing as "welfare" anymore. "Welfare" checks were abolished. Today, "welfare" is a generic catchall phrase to mean everything from food stamps, to disability pay, to student loans (which get paid back, in theory), to Social Security (which is self funding, in theory), to veterans benefits (which is self funded, in truth).

The traditional concept of "welfare" or "free money for jobless peasants" was rebranded as "TANF" or "temporary assistance for needy families"

Specifically, the rules for TANF are:
> you have to have primary guardianship of one or more minor dependents
> you have to be actively in college or trade school, or seeking work
> the checks dry up after 5 years, regardless of how successful you were in your job search
> as soon as you are employed, the checks dry up
> when the checks dry up, for any reason, you can not reapply for up to 3 years
> this is federal law
> there are no exceptions

We threw off all of the "ABAWDs" or "able bodied adults without dependents"

Welfare to Work has survived multiple presidential administrations and governors throughout the nation.

>>971333
I mention this due to your concern that "70% of the nation will be on welfare"

Sanders could not, as executive head, overturn Welfare to Work. It would take an act of Congress.

So unless you expect 70% of the nation to all suddenly become broke as shit with babies .. or unless you consider food stamps and student loans to be "welfare" .. I think your worries are unfounded.

Damn I got some cool trips though

>>968782
>How bad socialism be
Your ebonics are clearly visible, fuck off Dindu.

>>969099
Dude fuck Muslims, I hope all followers of the pedophile prophet are made to register and watched closely like the violent animals they are.

Also it was the japs not the chinese

I'm ignorant when it comes to economics but we're a mixed economy, aren't we? And aren't long term investments through socialist like programs (such as social security) a good thing in the long run? That's what taxes are for, the public making investments while the public then elects people to make decisions on those investments, where they redirect the money through budgets, bills, etc.

>>969923
Well do you have private health insurance? Than nothing changes at all. You're already paying for the healthcare of others.

If you don't have insurance you're sweet sweet startup will fail one day because you get cancer and that shit is expensive as fuck.

>>971333
>>971336
Watch "The Century of the Self" (pt. III). The "Welfare To Work" agenda was brought about because of focus groups, which analysed the wants and desires of the biggest swing vote group an the time - middle class suburbanites.

There was absolutely no sound, measured economic justification for it. It was all about the feels.

Billionaires and hundred-millionaires will be a little less rich. Life will be a lot easier for everyone else.

>>971521
>people seriously thinking it's that simple
Money doesn't equal wealth

Well, unlike most americans who talk about socialism like it's the end of the fucking world, I actually grew up in a socialist country (Norway). We outperform you at virtually every level except number of people incarcerated per capita, debt, murder and obesity levels.

I think most people would agree that the nordic model (i.e. a moderately social democracy) is the overall best way to structure a state. Numbers don't lie.

>>971547
The Nordic model is a good model for the Nordic people. Norway is a homogenous country with a population of 5 million. The USA has individual states that are larger in population. All cultures/people are not equal and what works well for one country will probably not work well in another.

Keep this in mind when trying to compare apples to oranges.

>>971547
>I don't know anything about American economic /political structure but I know this will work

>>971519

Well, having actually worked in the "welfare" office I gotta tell you, a lot of good resulted because of Welfare to Work.

Prior to the law, virtually anyone could get on welfare. Are you lazy and poor? Fair enough. Come on in. We'll give you barely enough to survive. But if you and 4 of your friends move into a shitty 3 or 4 bedroom apartment in a sleepy small town community, you can basically get drunk for the rest of your life.

This way the bars and booze companies net the end result of public assistance.

Are you the single mother of 3 kids who ran away from an abusive partner in the dead of night? Fair enough you qualify too. Here's a tiny fucking stipend that barely gets you by and is just barely enough to cover a weeks worth of rent in a low budget motel and maybe one meal.

This way we can be sure to propagate gang culture.

***
Or. We throw off every single person with a strong back and no kids, and tell them to get a god damn job. We tell every person who still qualifies that they *HAVE* to look for work. We give them a ticking clock to light a fire under their asses. And we make sure it's enough money to live in a slightly nicer community (sure welfare families still live in the ghetto but at least it's apartments not those shitty roach motels).

***
I remember my office had about half a dozen cops hanging around the day we cut off checks. We warned clients for weeks, months even. But then we did it. One cold harsh early spring day. Nationwide. Chop, bang, no more welfare checks for "able bodied adults without dependents".

So cops showed up to welfare offices throughout the nation. The concern was the potential for widespread rioting so they had cops show up to welfare offices across the nation.

And guess what happened. Nothing. Nothing happened. Nobody rioted. Proving every generalization about ABAWDs being lazy shitheads.

>>971571
When did this happen? Dying for it to happen in Ireland, most of my friends is on welfare and it's entirely out of laziness

>>971571
We'll what the fuck do you expect after you gave them free money?

>>971571
Welfare to Work didn't increase homelessness either. In fact if you go back and look at the data, unemployment and new jobs figures and Dow Jones averages, the economy actually improved after Welfare to Work.

Hundreds of thousands of able bodied men got off their ass and got a job. Usually shitty jobs at factories. It had a "trickle up" effect.

You'll never convince me that Welfare to Work was a bad thing. I know marketing people invented it. I just don't care. It did great things for society.

Prior to Welfare to Work, you had generation after generation living off welfare. Dads on welfare would raise sons on welfare. Those sons raised their own sons on welfare. A century of professional Wild Turkey connoisseurs.

Welfare to Work ended that. Today there is no such thing as "welfare" and what used to be welfare is big enough to live off of, has strict time limits, forces participants to get a job, and is only for parents.

>>971573
The law was signed in 1996. The final checks cut to ABAWDs were issued in January or February 1998.

>>971001
scandiannavian countries are saocialist is nothing more than a meme, they have had numerous market refourms throughout the last 25years and are actively pushing for less and less taxes and reduced welfare. Sanders and other college socialists see this and say welfare=good, and not that increadible number of market reforms brought sweden to where it is today.

>>971587
They all know that most Americans are too retarded and/or lazy to research this stuff on their own

>>970938
94% TAXES and 10-20% government spending as % of GDPO, gee i wonder if there is anything wrong with that

>>971333
>>971336
>>971571
>>971578
Again I only mentioned these things because OP said a Sanders administration would be
>having 70% of the US population depend on welfare

This is patently false. There is no such thing as "welfare" anymore. It was eliminated in the 90s. It was replaced with TANF, which is only for parents.

So unless 70% of the nation suddenly becomes low income parents in 2016, this is a false, shrill, unwarranted fear.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of a Sanders win, but we can discuss this without yielding to the noisy lies so common among those "Trump"-supporter-types

(And I gotta say, as a former social services employee, a lot of Trump supporters sure look and smell like the ABAWDs who got strongarmed into working when Welfare to Work went into effect)

>>971591
You realize that, yknow, if he is elected he could bring all that shit back right?

>>971591
What's wrong with removing all safety nets? Why not let the poor and stupid and lazy starve or freeze to death?

>>971613
>stupid and lazy
Yes

>poor
Not so much. People can't exactly control if they get laid off and can't find another job, etc

>>971594
> You realize that, yknow, if he is elected he could bring all that shit back right?

How? Welfare to Work was an act of Congress. It's a law. It's a federal law. The only way to eradicate it is via Congress.

You cannot constitutionally speaking dissolve the law via executive order. Only through the Congress.

It's rock solid.

>>969079
>raped
>$15 still lower than current inflation
>millions of citizens working poor
>believing conservative rhetoric

>>971705
>not knowing most "poor" work only part time or not at all
>not understanding how inflation is measured throughout time

File: image.jpg (88KB, 620x592px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 620x592px

>>968836
>Bernie is a satire

>>971705
the what if of the $15/hour raise
>minimum wage raised to $15
>Bernie Sanders screaming unintelligible shit into a TV ad
>all business going ohfuck.jpeg
>Businesses discover they don't need human labor, robots are now cheaper and fuck up less
>unemployment soars
>Robots run all basic business functions
>NEET levels raise to over 9000
basically, the $15/hour raise is the worst thing that can happen if you're NEET
you'll have no job and there would be no reason to hire you

>>971613
Potential loss in GDP
even the dumbest and laziest of people can do a
basic menial function to help produce for society

>>968782
3 cheers for the global sovereign debt crisis!
i'm so excited
i just can't hide it

File: the future.png (306KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 640x480px

Inflation targets are not being met and that means that the government isn't handing out enough money, if the inflation targets aren't met then bad things will happen so you all better fight for more Keynesianism.

File: vlcsnap-2015-11-25-09h48m54s156.png (314KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 640x480px

We have to keep the interest rates near 0 so the market doesn't turn bearish so we don't have another recession.

>>969459
Who cares, just print up another $3,000 per person and $10,000 for all the fat fucks. I'm sure that will work out just swell. How much could that possibly cost? Hardly even $2T per year! We can just make China pay for it. It's a win-win-win!

Bernie's got it in the bag. Hillary has no shot.

>>969079
>Small businesses get raped by $15 minimum wage laws.
Poor people shouldn't own businesses anyway.

>>971001
>Sanders's brand of socialism seems to work pretty well in Scandinavia.
Because their currency is called the "Crown" dipshits. It's not a country moving in a million different directions held together by the "executive branch", paid for via extortion.

>>971479
>And aren't long term investments through socialist like programs (such as social security) a good thing in the long run?
That's not an investment, it's a quasi - future quasi - iou because it's foundations are in debt.

An investment is a railroad, or a sanitation plant.

>>971001
>Sanders's brand of socialism seems to WORK pretty well in Scandinavia.
And state capitalism seems to work pretty well in China. Does that mean that the system is viable, economically and politically, in another country? Of course not.

>Is there some reason why it wouldn't work here in the US?
Well, for one, the US has 13x the population and 6-7x (not exactly sure, look it up) of all Scandinavia (including Finland) combined. The US also isn't an ethnically homongenous country, and the American political landscape is in direct conflict with "social democracy".

Nordics believe that the state isn't inherently malevolent, which is why they accept it having such a large part to play in their lives. Americans, on the other hand, have a more sound approach, proven by reading a history book: the state is inherently malevolent due to the centralization of power it stands for. Thus, Americans prefer minimal government intrusion in all aspects of life.

As a last reminder, Nordic countries aren't nearly as rich as the US and are currently facing vast economic problems - most of them brought on by excessive public spending, which has in turn been caused by far too high tax rates. Norway is the exception, but they're oilniggers who got lucky in the natural resources department.

>>971547
>We outperform you at virtually every level except number of people incarcerated per capita, debt, murder and obesity levels.
That's because you oilniggers are 60x less populated and ethnically homogenous, you dumb fuck.

>I think most people would agree that the nordic model (i.e. a moderately social democracy) is the overall best way to structure a state.
If you strike black gold and enjoy living in an irrelevantly small country, sure.

>Numbers don't lie.
You have no "numbers" to prove your case. At all.

>>971589
>They all know that most Americans are too retarded and/or lazy to research this stuff on their own¨
>most americans
Try "most people, no matter their country of birth".

>>971521
good joke, billionaires and hundred millionaires make and break economies.