Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached

[hazard]

Thank you BA, that was half my answer to that, so i'll give you the other half, Socialism inevitably leads to revolution, at that point it is a toss up whether it will try to go capitalist, or communist, with the odds leaning towards communism.

Ehm, historically?

The thing that most often lead to revolutions was the abuse of power (real or perceived) of whomever was in charge eventually pissing off people enough that they took up arms. Most attempted revolutions failed miserably, struck down as rebellions so often are. Socialism as a movement actually stopped a lot of revolutions from happening because it offered the working class especially a non-violent and thus lower risk if often slower alternative to a revolution they'd likely get killed in fighting. It was socialism that forced the establishment of things like health and safety standards, building codes, food safety regulations and environmental standards.

It gave them a buy in in the political situation and convinced them non-violent action could still improve their own situations and the future of their children.

BA, to answer your questions

I agree with the first half but point out that the second half is not completely correct, they want the corps out, but they want the government to control the corps. That is socialism/communism aka central planning which the soviets showed does not work. Also, remember how "business" became a problem in government in the first place, the federal government unionized.

Ehm... it's entirely reasonable for the government to set standards that corporations have to follow. I mean, they also set standards for people that they have to follow, they're called laws and regulations. Also, there's absolutely no requirement that any socialist or communist political system has to use a planned economy. It's a sign of an authoritarian government if the economy is planned to the extent that a given production facility has to produce to the central government's standards regardless of market demand, including in quantity.

However, I'll note that when no standards exist or are insufficiently enforced various producers and providers of goods and services can and will lie and cheat in whatever way they can as long as they believe that doing so will increase their profit margins. Chalk dust has been mixed with flour, water has been mixed with butter, horse flesh has been sold as beef and vice versa, and various illegal drugs have been cut with a wide variety of substances ranging from the harmless to the flat out lethal entirely because there is no government agency enforcing drug purity standards.

because all this public funding seems to do is encourage the colleges to raise their prices on tuition to the point that all you can afford to do is take the government's school which at the lower level education has done nothing but dumb down the population by teaching to the lowest common denominator. Same for healthcare or have you not noticed that since the passing of the Affordable Care Act that the cost of healthcare has done nothing but go up while your choices get fewer and fewer. 

Are we talking for profit colleges? Because for profit colleges are for profit, not even nominally for the purpose of providing the students studying there with a solid education. For profit colleges can and will draw in as much money as possible from its students and any others paying for that student to attend while providing as little as they possibly can. Up to and including promising diplomas that are actually not even worth the cost of the paper they are printed on, or hiring vastly unqualified teachers to provide make work for the students at absolutely rock bottom cost for the company while keeping the students too busy to realize they are being scammed.

Public education initiatives aren't perfect, but they are answerable to locally elected officials in the USA (the various boards of education). They are also supposed to act to the benefit of the students, and they can do that a lot better when they are adequately funded, supplied and checked. When your schools have to lean on corporate donations for any reason because otherwise they won't be able to educate their students you've got a problem, because those corporations will happily abuse that power they've got and they are not accountable to anybody but the majority shareholders of that company.

And as for healthcare? The Dutch have had for years a system where private health insurers offer the bulk of the health insurance, offering a package every citizen has to take by law. It works pretty well, even if insurance premiums have increased by about 30% over a 12 year period, while the yearly copay has increased to 385 euros. Which, I'll note, is more or less what I can expect to pay for my total covered care package in a single year outside the insurance premiums. No matter what happens.

its not, the socialism there is how you go about it. Here is where we are going to seriously disagree as we have in previous threads. You want to be able to afford to live on your wages then CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDER to immigration! stop the cheap immigrant labor from coming in and then you can bargain, collectively or individually, for better wages without the boss being able to go "No, i'll just hire some immigrant who doesn't know any better or will work under the table because they are illegal." Forcing companies to raise their wages artificially has always forced inflation higher and done nothing but fuck everyone over

News flash Rajvik: Those bosses will happily hire anybody who is willing to work under the table. Estimates of the black market, including any illegal and thus untaxed labour, runs to about 1/5th of a given region's total economy. Immigration won't stop that at all. If anything, you are going to see migrant labour being drawn from USA slums and other poor areas under exactly the same terms to exactly the same jobs and regions that right now see migrant labour drawn from Meso and South American countries.

To the companies the only question that is relevant to them when it comes to hiring somebody under any term is 'is this person going to bring in more money than it costs to employ them?' And any fines and other financial and legal repercussions for employing them in a manner that breaks the law like by not officially employing them to avoid the various employment taxes are part of the answer to that company. If they believe they can just take the fine after a given number of months or years and that they won't be caught until after that time has passed it's a financially sensible decision to hire that person.

Raising wages to the point that at least locally it's equal to the cost of living is actually a good thing for the economy. The world is actually largely running a surplus of production in most products and especially primary need products. Forcibly raising the wages to that level actually boosts the economy because it means that less resources are wasted because the money to pay for them has been pocketed by the executives to rack up their scores and then left to waste away in a back account. It means that money is returned to the people who worked it and then spend to acquire the things they need.

Drogn, its not that prices wont go up, they will, thats life. its a matter of that prices will not go up completely across the board all at the same time meaning people can adjust and adapt to the rising costs not be hammered by them

Actually... no that's not right.

You see, it's not a problem if the prices of all goods and services rise as long as wages also rise to the same extent. It's also not a problem if the price of a single good or service rises as long as the average cost inflation is not higher than the average wage inflation for all people to whom that cost inflation is relevant. If my travel costs rise by 400% but that only means my total cost of living rises by 1% there is no issue as long as my net income also rises by 1%. If that's true I still have the same effective access to resources, even if I appear to have a vastly increased expense in a single sector of my life. It also doesn't matter if everything I buy becomes 1% more expensive as long as my net income also increases by 1% because again, I have effectively the same access to resources.

However, if costs rise by 2% while my net income rises by 1%, or if costs rise by even 1/2 a percent while my income does not change at all I have a problem, because now I have effectively less access to resources, to wit, I have effectively lost 1% and 0.5% of my access respectively.