Political ideology and investing

I'm not into Twitter because it's all "Off the cuff stuff", but I have read the Gulag Achipeligo by Alex Solzhenityn and that is enough to convince one that heading towards supporting the left ideology is not good for a majority of people.
While I hope this post is not deleted, I feel that I need to have a say, and it's good for people to have a variety of views and I respect that. However, as this is a property investors forum I find it perplexing why a property investors would attack ideas and movements that support property investing, be it Australian or in American Politics.
I don't feel that socialist ideals and movements support people who like to invest in property so that one day they can be self sufficient. Instead they are more likely to be punished for making the effort and trying to better themselves.

 

I'm not particularly against capitalism - nor for socialism - I feel we need a balance of the two.

Tolerance for others - look after those who are unable to help themselves (elderly, disabled and sick) - environmental awareness - support research and innovation even at no immediate cost benefit ... yet maintain and encourage those who can, to fend for themselves

I feel we're swung to far into a "dog eat dog and win at all cost" world where everything comes down to a "what's in it for me" dollar value and nastiness towards others who are not the same as us

 

I'm curious as to the thought process behind thinking it HAS to be "either/or". Why can we not strive for "and"?

I find with a lot of base Trump supporters, I get accused to being a Clinton lover ... it's not an either/or. Just because I do not like Trump does not mean I have to like and support Hillary. The world is not black/white either/or. For someone to have success, someone else does not have to lose.

The reason I don't like Trump is because of how he demonised and is derogatory towards others - often those who either are vunerable or haven't the means to reply or he perceives as weaker or simply someone who does not agree with him (ie, disable reporters, minorities, women). Classic schoolyard bully.

I do not like that he fearmongers instead of reassures - we wouldn't reinforce a child's fear of a "monster under the bed" - he divides rather than unites.

I do not like that he doesn't take responsibility for his actions. He takes credit where it is not due but blames others if something goes pear-shaped - the government shutdown a perfect case in point.

I do not believe he is a good businessman, and the only "proof" that his is, is his verbal say-so. He received $500mil from Daddy (equal to $2bil in today's dollars if he did nothing but buy real estate and set/forget) - current net worth according to Forbes is $3bil - a 50% real increase in wealth over 30 years is not very impressive.

 

Why are the extremes the only choices? When one says socialism, some people think "Communist" USSR, but other people think Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.

I've yet to a see anyone on here attack "property investment", could you please provide an example. What I have seen is some property investors be against very right wing thinking and various false beliefs and myths that some property investors have.

By the way what you read was not Marxism/Communism/Socialism, it was totalitarianism. Just as the Nazis weren't actually socialists.

 

The utterances of the socialists are the same that brought us to soviet and Maoist totalitarian systems that killed more people then any other system. If we talk about Demmark and Norway, they are extremely high taxing countries, with very expensive cost of living expenses and because of this there is no property investing and independent wealth creation, you become a slave to the government. Off course by becoming this slave, the government will look after you, however what is happening is that many Scandinavian countries are slipping into high debts and then what they do is borrow money so their children who are not yet born will be burdened with debt which I think is a reprehensible act on future generations to deal with.
Secondly When we get the labor/green coalition in power chamges will be more rapid and it will be all to late.
I find it saddening that people can't see this, particularly at a property investing forum. I also understand why there is this view. 30 years of social engineering by Marxist aligned state schools and universities, the media and the entertainment industry all have worked their magic infecting the nation from the inside. When you have councils telling parents that their new born child has no gender because it is socially constructed and people think that's normal, well what is there left to say.

 

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about when you say things "Marxist aligned state schools" and "new born child has no gender because it is socially constructed". I hear and read this sort of thing from right wing shock jocks and journalists in the The Australian and don't understand them there either.

 

And if you are going to quote things like this lets put some numbers into it.

• 35 million dead in India at the hands of the English
• 12 million slaves transported from Africa between the 16th and 19th century
• 10 million killed by the Germans in the Congo
• 1 million dead in Ireland during the Great Famine
• How many dead natives in North/South America and Australia?

Where are the Soviets and Maoists in these examples? You are confusing politics and power.

 

All due respect to you but the comments have nothing to do with right wing shock jogs or journalists from the Australian.
The ABC (Nov 21 2018), SBS (Oct 24, 2018) Gaurdian (Oct 25, 2018), are not right wing publications all report that Tasmania is set to remove gender from birth certificates which disputes that sex is biological scientific fact, hence socially constructed. It's not my words, just what is happening.
If one is not sure about the left bias in schools and universities just have a look at any University or an article about Monash Uni titled, " Is it Monash or Marxist University?", by Mathew Lesh.
Put it this way, having to post this has no benefit to my own well being, in fact it's detrimental but I do it hoping you might consider it.

 

Mao responsible for 70 million deaths
Stalin 9 million
Hitler 12 million
Source NYR Daily - Ian Johnson

 

1. The ABC and Guardian report news. Shock jocks and right wing journalists editorialise about the destruction of society because a state decides to make gender optional on a birth certificate.
2. Tasmania is going to make gender optional on birth certificates, you said remove. Hang on I thought the right were about personal freedom and choice. Hmmm.
3. Transgender people are a scientific fact, not really a "social construct".
4. Why is it so important to you to have gender on a birth certificate?
5. Mathew Lesh from the IPA? WOW he is really an unbiased commentator

 

No one is disputing your numbers, in fact I would have thought say Stalin killed more. But you are confusing authoritarian power and political systems.

Explain the millions dead in India under British rule. Where they secretly "communist" and we didn't know?

Where my grandfathers brothers and sisters slaughtered in Asia Minor because the Ottomans where actually "communist"?

 

The source of information was from the ABC and Gaurdian only. No shock jocks or right wing journos required. The amendment of gender on birth certificates is valid, because it has many implications including women's rights and encouraging dangerous competitive inequalities in sport, which I hope one can find common ground there.
The issue of personal freedom and transgender people and the respect and dignity they deserve and the difficulty they have in fitting into a gender category is a different matter.
Can one explain what a meant by transgender people being a scientific fact and what relevance are the biological markers including chromosomes, the ability to give birth and body parts play a role?
Mathew Lesh may well be biased, everyone is, but one should be tolerant of views that we agree with as well as views that we don't. What do people think about the political leanings of universities especially in the social sciences and humanities and law?

 

Asides from the ABC simply reporting that Tassie is allowing the "choice" to have the gender not on the birth certificate ... big difference from reporting and endorsing ... why is it not possible to have a balance between the ability to better one's position - and caring for those less fortunate.

The balance also allows for segments in society such as research (pretty sure the scientist who spends 20 years pleading for grants while working on a vaccine isn't doing it for the money) - innovation - discovery - and empathy.

Humanity is not a "zero sum game" (although Trump would have you believe it was). Just because someone succeeds, does not automatically mean that someone else fails. Someone does not have to lose for you to win.

I think you are looking at the two extremes of the pendulum whereas there is massive scope in the middle group in which humanity can exist

Socialism:

Advantages
Under socialism, workers are no longer exploited, since they own the means of production. All profits are spread equitably among all workers, according to his or her contribution. The cooperative system realizes that even those who can't work must have their basic needs met, for the good of the whole.


The system eliminates poverty. Everyone has equal access to health care and education. No one is discriminated against.

Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If society needs jobs to be done that no one wants, it offers higher compensation to make it worthwhile.

Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.

Disadvantages
The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. It negates those within society who are competitive, not cooperative. Competitive people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt society for their own gain.

A second related criticism is that it doesn't reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. As such, it won't be as innovative as a capitalistic society.

A third possibility is that the government set up to represent the masses may abuse its position and claim power for itself.

 

Socialism in reality has become the best friend for globalism in the current world. Globalism is the cause for monopolies and Oligopolies and what that does is deny true capitalism where the market place has a healthy level of competition. It makes the system sick. The result of this is more expensive prices for goods and services because the multi national companies can charge what they like and keep wages low which increases inequality, not the opposite. Donald Trump's policies of protectionism opposes this globalism which is why he got voted in. For reference, read Johnathan Tepper's book, "The Capitalist Myth", and see what you think.
How can one say that under socialism workers are not exploited? Due to the high levels of taxation one pays everyone stays poor and becomes a slave to the system. It's like working 9 months of the year for nothing and then you get to keep what's left.
As far as poverty, it's capitalism that has lifted the most people out of it. One of the worst things that social democrats have done is increase the size of government with huge government spending programs usually borrowing money, money that is left for our grand children to pay back and eventually becoming a slave to the IMF. It is western democracy that has been the most successful system to date.

 

Ah yes, Virginia Heffernan, heard her utterances before.

 

Again you are looking only at the extremes. You can have both - just not at the excessive ends of the spectrum. Agree government is to big - what shocked to see there are nearly 650 members in the UK house of parliament.

So, you would rather be able to buy your third jet plane than subsides an elderly dementia patient in care - you would rather dine on Grange and caviar every night than put a few cents towards the treatment of leukemia sufferer -you would rather a 10th Ferrari to your collection than consider putting a little towards free education for those not so well off?

You do not have to lose for others to win.

p.s. Do your research. Globalism has reduced prices due to more competition and efficiencies

 

Came across this quote today, and thought it quite relevent:

"Privilege is when you think something isn't a problem because it doesn't affect you personally"

Lot of privilege going on in the world today